Feeds

back to article Copying Wikipedia's lies is not just for hacks, right Lord Leveson?

Last week, the judge tasked with cleaning up the British press was caught indulging in one of its filthiest habits: copying unreliable factoids from Wikipedia, the “encyclopedia anyone can edit”. Lord Justice Leveson’s report on UK press ethics last week featured the statement: The Independent [newspaper] was founded in 1986 by …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Oh for the love of . . .

Has everyone taken stupid pills? Does everyone truly believe that Leveson actually sat down and typed all of this out or, far more likely, dictated this for someone else to type?

The latter being the most likely, would mean the dictation would have stated "Guardian newspaper, insert founders names here, blah blah blah".

3
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Oh for the love of . . .

I wasn't the founders of the Guardian newspaper, it was the Independent. Try looking stuff up in Wikipedia to improve your fact checking abilities. It's bound to be in there somewhere.

0
0
Thumb Up

Re: Oh for the love of . . .

Does everyone truly believe that Leveson actually sat down and typed all of this out or, far more likely, dictated this for someone else to type?

I'm sure Lord Leveson had no knowledge of the use of Wikipedia and it is down to one rogue secretary working on their own!

3
0
Pint

Catholics for dummies?

I think I need that. Never did quite understand the 3 in 1 god who was his own son....

4
2

Re: Catholics for dummies?

And yet (assuming you have some level of scientific education) you have no problem believing in wave-particle duality (when in fact it's likely photons are neither), schrodinger's cat, heisenburg's uncertainty principle or the notion of chaos, dark matter, string theory and the list goes on.

Physics inside our Universe is pretty whacky, outside I'd bet a penny to a pound it's orders of magnitude strangers: so why not a being that is 3 in 1 and his own son?

1
3

Re: Catholics for dummies?

"And yet (assuming you have some level of scientific education) you have no problem believing in wave-particle duality (when in fact it's likely photons are neither), schrodinger's cat, heisenburg's uncertainty principle or the notion of chaos, dark matter, string theory and the list goes on."

Can't let that go un-corrected. You list a number of scientific models for explaining how stuff works. These models may be tested or completely disproved by suitable experiment and observation. There are many experiments yet to be devised. Catholicism (or Christianity in general) is just one of the many takes on a bronze-age myth. It explains nothing about the real world, it cannot be proved or disproved and puts itself above criticism. Your analogy fails.

To quote xkcd: "Science. It works, bitches."

2
0

Re: Catholics for dummies?

Oh, and nobody is likely to be tortured or executed for possessing a physics textbook in any language other than Latin.

1
0
Angel

Re: Catholics for dummies?

> 3 in 1 god who was his own son.

Er, maybe that's a model? Most people who believe in (any) god by definition take the god to be bigger and more complex than they are and accept that any understanding of him/her/it will be an imperfect model.

Taking Christianity as an example, the Old Testament is big on not making images of god, the new testament is full of god is LIKE this, some parable thingy.

It is true that stupid/lazy/ill informed people confuse the model with the truth but that is true of science as well of religion.

Most of the time that works, now which button do I press to get the imp to carry this message to the magic interweb box?

Dave

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Dangerous

Imagine if you relied on it and someone though they would have a but of a joke with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rm_(Unix)

Anyone with Mac might want to experiment with Unix, some serious harm could result.

0
0
Gold badge
Stop

Ronnie Hazlehurst

"....emerging from retirement to write a club hit."

ISTR that the actual spurious credit given was for an S Club 7 hit. There is a subtle difference I believe.

Maybe you should have have checked this on, er, Wikipedia?

0
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Ronnie Hazlehurst

You're both right! If you click on the link in Andrew's story, Ronnie was incorrectly credited with writing the hit for S Club 7.

C.

0
0
Happy

But this is why I love Wikipedia

I remember during my college years researching a dreary assignment on wide area networks. I looked at the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_network to discover that wide area networks were invented in 1976 by Gok Wan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gok_Wan). Made my day, that did.

1
0
Bronze badge

ymmv

That authoritative source The New York Times the other day glossed "Afrikaner" as " a member of South Africa’s German-descended white ruling group" in the obituary of Arthur Chaskalson, once chief justice of South Africa. It has since amended "German" to "European". No word on whether they originally traced the descent via Wikipedia.

1
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Seb 'Bellend' Blatter

My favorite wiki failSeb 'Bellend' Blatter

0
0

The first rule of the Internet ...

Wow. Much used information source is not accurate / has been corrupted / does not tell the truth. Just like us human beings really, only on a much, much larger scale.

Wow again. Document contains factual inaccuracy.

Double wow. Researcher does not check every "fact".

Does this mistake in the report materially affect the main points being made? If it does for you then I humbly suggest that you may be missing the point of the whole debate.

0
0

At risk of asking the bleeding obvious...

Bugger accuracy, why put the damn thing in the report in the first place...did we pay this man by the word?

1
0
Megaphone

This report is great recreational outrage material: There's also a missing comma on page 2,358.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.