Student's Wikipedia hoax quote used worldwide in newspaper obituaries--Irish Times Options Rating

[EricBarbour]

A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.

I didn't see it in the Newsfeed. Anyone know more?

[Peter Damian]

Closing his follow-up report in last Thursday's Irish Times, Fitzgerald raised a worrying question: "If I could so easily falsify the news across the globe, even to this small extent, then it is unnerving to think about what other false information may be reported in the press."

Excellent - except I've gone through all 6 pages and no comments from WR - or have I missed a thread here?

[edit] A moderator moved this post to the right thread. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Somey]

Excellent - except I've gone through all 6 pages and no comments from WR - or have I missed a thread here?

Eh wot? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Speaking only for myself, I'm much more interested in the reactions of Slashdotters to WP-related issues than I am in trying to debate the scientific merit of "editing experiments" involving the deliberate insertion of false information into some WP article... To participate in the discussion would be violating the "Prime Directive," from my personal perspective - it's essentially the same reason I don't edit Wikipedia itself. For me, it's basically a gigantic behavioral test tube.

There are also real-life issues to consider - even if Jarre's family wasn't particularly offended by that particular fake quote, they might still be offended by people defending this person's "right" (or other justification) to add it in. Of course, nobody has written more fake quotes than yours truly, but those are in Uncyclopedia, where they belong - not Wikipedia, where they don't.

Anyway, the "accuracy issue" is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. It's probably much more important to you (i.e., Peter) because you're a highly-qualified academic in an area that WP does especially poorly in. But ultimately it's just a recruitment strategy for them, just like the fundamentally silly "inclusionism vs. deletionism debate." People get hooked by the arguing and drama, the gamesmanship, and the need to defend, defend, defend. It's no way to build an encyclopedia, but it's certainly been a good way to expand the user-base.