Fake professor in Wikipedia storm

[Forkboy]

Fake professor in Wikipedia storm

Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.

The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.

But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm

another reason why the site is useless for anything important.

[greyl]

1. I don't think you can conclude that it's useless for anything important.

If Catholicism for Dummies was shown to be full of errors, you might have a starting point, though.
As it stands, Catholicism for Dummies probably has much more accurate information than a bound encyclopedia would, eh?

[Forkboy]

3. I meant as source to back up an argument here.

I should have clearer on that.

Any site that the public can alter freely should be suspect.It is a fantastic site to find out info about a lot of things,but I stick by the useless charge on anything news related,and it being used to bolster any argument here.

[greyl]

10. Well, it depends on the source used for the Wiki article.

No original research is allowed, so depending on the argument, and as long we're as skeptical as we always are with any media, it can be useful. Not flawless, just useful. :)

[Forkboy]

11. point taken

[greyl]

14. Cool. For example, check out the Walter Reed and Ann Coulter entries.

Walter Reed Army Medical Center
Ann Coulter

Plus, the Fallacy article is always a good one to keep handy during an online argument on the rare occasion that people venture beyond straw men, red herrings, and ad hominems. ;)

[nomo]

2. Big deal

As if researching religion is important. It only stands to reason that some hillbilly could posture as a religious expert and get away with it.

For real science, there's plenty good stuff to be had on Wikipedia.

[Old and In the Way]

9. By defintion, religions are a faith based institutions.

You either believe the stories and myths on which the foundations are built...or you don't.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Has any educational textbook or enclycopedia ever had revisions?

Have these traditional forms of information ever been subject to distortion or bias by the author? Absolutely. While, Wikipedia might be subject to more controversy because it allows more open collaboration and politicization of the information posted, it seems like it is the most comprehensive attempt to collect and disseminate information. It is self-correcting, so that any questionable statements of facts can be challenged and discarded, based on better sourcing/information.

I think it's unfair to make a sweeping generalization based on a single example of someone's credentials. Wikipedia provides a valuable tool of knowledge that is free to everyone...I think it is far from useless and its value grows everyday.

[krispos42]

19. That is very true. Also, it has no size limitiations

So even the most minute topic can be extensively written about by the handful of fans about it.

It is very nice when an obscure topic comes up hot all of a sudden because, *BAM* there is all this info that was placed there before it became controversial and politisized.

You can also see previous versions of the page, so if you know a shitstorm about something happened x days ago, you can look at it x+2 days ago to see if anybody has been screwing with it.

[Henny Penny]

5. If you want to be spoon fed ForkBoy... Wiki is useless for...

anything important.. because you'll never be able to tell if what it says is true.

But if you take the trouble to develop your critical faculties then it can be pretty damn useful.

People don't always speak the truth... on wiki... in a peer reviewed paper... on the news..

Thats life and you're just gonna have to deal with it.

[Forkboy]

6. But if you take the trouble to develop your critical faculties

yes,that's obviously my trouble.

[Henny Penny]

13. Sorry.. I was a little hard on you..

didn't read your second post re backing up your arguments...

:toast:

[Forkboy]

15. No sweat...thanks for that.

:toast:

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Damn

That was well-stated.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Wiki is useful if used correctly and as you say critically

Wiki can be a useful starting point. From there it can be easier to find supporting data.

[Ediacara]

12. I think wiki is generally reliable for certain subjects

Science and history related subjects, as well as pop culture seem to be fairly reliable. Politics and religion however.... get thee to another source.

[poorinnaples]

16. Business as usual

Probably says as much about modern America, as anything. How many Americans "pad" their resumes, or create a fictional persona, on the internet, & elsewhere, knowing full well that nobody will ultimately bother to check?

Nothing new, & surely won't ever change. As long as diploma mills, etc., & liars exist, so will frauds, & impersonators. It permeates the highest levels of society, & one need look no further than Wall Street, & Washington DC. Business as usual.

Bottom line, caveat emptor...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Is there reason to believe that the people who write on wiki...

are less credible than the people who write articles in encyclopedia's?

[Dogmudgeon]

18. You have to know how to use what you find

I think it's more important to know how to organize and evaluate what you learn than to simply be able to find it and stuff it into your head. But most people -- even a number of academics -- have never learned that skill. We should teach it and encourage its use even in childhood.

Automatic acceptance of information is common at all "levels" of education. Among more literate folks, "peer review" is often accepted uncritically. A lot of people think it's some magical process that renders literature that is subjected to it as reliably true and accurate, when it's really simply another method for driving out as many of the errors, mistaken notions, and occasionally lies as possible. But it's also been used to legitimatize other errors, mistaken notions, and occasionally lies.

You can't take anything as The Final Word. Of course, it's not convenient for anyone trying to settle a bet or doing verbal or Internet battle, but too bad about that.

And, by the way, what's the controversy? Out with the bad, in with the good. It should be like that every day, regardless of what or whose credentials are involved. We ought to keep in mind that Trofim Lysenko had a PhD, as does Bill Dembski; both Buckminister Fuller and Thomas Jefferson did not. Ryan "Essjay" Jordan's lying is of more concern to me than his lack of credentials.

Jordan got caught in a lie. Dembski got caught in his own failed legerdemain when he tried to glom the good name of the late Michael Polanyi. The process is organic, automatic, and works well when it isn't interfered with. But it depends on people rejecting reliance on belief and the very notion of intellectual authority.

So I like using Wikipedia -- but if I was writing a PhD thesis or a piece of scientific journalism, I'd use it only for pointers and links.

--p!

[DrunkenMaster]

20. I love Wikipedia!

I mean, the idea that popular consesus = reality is just too f**ing perfect an example of our current bout of national idiocy...