Recursive references



  • I was doing some random reading on Wikipedia and I saw this:

    Apparently Wikipedia is a valid source for Wikipedia articles.



  • @mott555 said:

    I was doing some random reading on Wikipedia and I saw this:

    Apparently Wikipedia is a valid source for Wikipedia articles.

    The reference links to a different Wikipedia article, which doesn't link back to Dio (band) at all.  It's not recursive.  Nonetheless, it's kind of silly; the Dio article could have simply copied the reference from Holy Diver instead:

    4. ^ Quoted from the interview on the 2005 remastered CD edition of the album, track 19, 00'48



  • I probably should have used "self-referential" instead of "recursive". Oh well.



  • Is it terrible of me to say that I think your Firefox theme is the real WTF (tm)?

    Apart from that, indeed an interesting find. :)



  • @pbean said:

    Is it terrible of me to say that I think your Firefox theme is the real WTF (tm)?
    No, that would be pretty accurate. I hate those. But then again I've been using the original Winamp skin since it came out so what do I know.



  • @pbean said:

    Is it terrible of me to say that I think your Firefox theme is the real WTF (tm)?

    Apart from that, indeed an interesting find. :)

    Be glad I only showed the Firefox window and not my entire desktop. My wallpapers all come from hubblesite.org, lots of crazy-looking stuff there.



  • My God! It's full of stars!

    I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't allow citing references from other Wikipedia pages, since Wikipedia really wants its articles to be backed by external references. The whole idea is Wikipedia isn't the source of information but rather the collaboration and compilation of known information.

    I wonder how many of these kinds of cites are on Wikipedia...



  • @RHuckster said:

    My God! It's full of stars!

    I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't allow citing references from other Wikipedia pages, since Wikipedia really wants its articles to be backed by external references. The whole idea is Wikipedia isn't the source of information but rather the collaboration and compilation of known information.

    I wonder how many of these kinds of cites are on Wikipedia...

    Sorry I don't have the specifics, but this has happened before:

    1) Wiki publishes an un-cited "fact"
    2) A publication qualifying as cite-able to Wikipedia, using the wiki page for reference, publishes the same "fact"
    3) A wiki editor adds a cite to the "fact" using the source from step 2.

    Thus lies get forever entrenched as truth.

    IIRC, this happened to Raymond Chen... he was so mad he wanted his Wiki page taken down, again IIRC. (Googling it but I can't find his blog post about it now.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Sorry I don't have the specifics, but this has happened before:

    1) Wiki publishes an un-cited "fact"
    2) A publication qualifying as cite-able to Wikipedia, using the wiki page for reference, publishes the same "fact"
    3) A wiki editor adds a cite to the "fact" using the source from step 2.

    Thus lies get forever entrenched as truth.

     

    I too remember on of these but likewise cannot remember the specifics.  I think the citeable (?) source was some German newspaper.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Sorry I don't have the specifics, but this has happened before:

    1) Wiki publishes an un-cited "fact"
    2) A publication qualifying as cite-able to Wikipedia, using the wiki page for reference, publishes the same "fact"
    3) A wiki editor adds a cite to the "fact" using the source from step 2.

    Most recent instance I can think of is the reported death of the entertainer Sinbad.

    @blakeyrat said:

    IIRC, this happened to Raymond Chen... he was so mad he wanted his Wiki page taken down, again IIRC

    I never said that I wanted my page taken down. I did say that I didn't think I met the notability guidelines. Saying that you don't think you deserve something is different from saying that you want it taken away. I think this is another case of a falsehood being repeated enough times that it become the truth.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.