256:(though controversies about actions by Jimbo Wales on Wikimedia Commons and Wikiversity are also mentioned). The incidents Jemielniak discusses are presented in detail and accurately, but some of them are ten years old and don't necessarily reflect the project's practices or realities today. For example, Jemielniak reviews the bitter and protracted disagreement on En-WP regarding when the historical German-language name "Danzig" should be used for the city now located in Poland and known as GdaĆsk. Perhaps aided by his own geographical and historical background, he does an excellent job of presenting the history of the dispute, surveying the arguments for the different points of view, and explaining why the dispute-resolution process ultimately reached the result it did. He does not, however, discuss whether the Knowledge (XXG) of 2014 would address the same issue, if it were arising anew, in the same fashion that the much younger Knowledge (XXG) of 2003-2004 did.
1427:) This point is quite correct and extremely important; it is a point I have made on-wiki several times before, and which I didn't stress in this book review only because the review had become quite too long already. Errors, questionable assertions, and unfair characterizations contained in Knowledge (XXG) articles almost immediately propagate all over the Internet, and may remain for years on Knowledge (XXG)-based mirror and derivative sites for quite awhile even after an error is fixed on Knowledge (XXG) itself. For the hypothetical "Knowledge (XXG) versus" search, you are right that all these sites would need to be assumed away as well. Conversely, for the real-world, this adds to my view that in prioritizing our goals for Knowledge (XXG), accuracy and BLP compliance need to be consistently emphasized. Thanks for your input (and thanks to everyone else who has posted here as well).
865:
possible to spread correct information more rapidly as well. A particular problem is misinformation posted on
Knowledge (XXG)âand elsewhere all over the Internetâwith the purpose of doing harm to someone. (A prime example of this sort of thing is the Qworty fiasco that unfolded last year.) Any falsehoods in article content damage the credibility and usefulness of the encyclopedia we are collaboratively writing, but intentional falsehoods posted by a subject's personal or political or ideological enemies with the malicious intent to defame or damage a living person do so tenfold. I am confident that well over 99% of Knowledge (XXG) pages are free of intentional falsehoodsâyet no one can deny that Knowledge (XXG) articles must still contain far too many lies, damn lies, and sadistics.
222:
anthropologist." (p. 193) (The word "ethnographic" in this context refers not to ethnicity in the quasi-racial sense, but to the study of a subgroup of the populationâhere, the subgroup that actively edits
Knowledge (XXG).) By this, Jemielniak means that he has spent several years as a Wikipedian, has introspected about his experiences throughout that time through the lens of his academic background, and has now written up his findings and conclusions. I don't think he means that he became active in Knowledge (XXG) for the purpose of doing research about it, although it seems quite possible that he started thinking about combining his editing hobby and his professional interests fairly early in his wiki-career.
1450:
hear to what extent he embedded himself (did he interview or mainly use historical talk page data? did he have any offline interaction? what kind of consent did he get for his data collection?), and though it was covered, a bit more about why he did it and what he found (ethnographers constantly need to "gain trust"âhow did he view that as he took on more permissions within WP?) One of the other common issues in this type of research is relationship with the participantsâdid he run any of his conclusions past his participants so as to have a discussion about its accuracy? Anyway, some thoughts
966:, is discouraged from editing the article at all, much less improving its overall editorial quality. Nonetheless, it isn't exactly encouraging that in the 13 months since an anonymous IP editor added that tag, no one has improved the article enough to resolve the quality concern and remove the tag. If I were notable enough to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) BLP and this were the state of it for over a year, I think I'd have the right to be ticked off. (Cynical aside to editors interested in Knowledge (XXG)'s public relations: improve the BLPs of journalists likely to cover us.)
918:
a handheld device rather than in a book or a (hard-copy) journal or newspaper. In the unlikely event that
Knowledge (XXG) (and all of its mirrors and derivatives) were to disappear tomorrow (and not be replaced by a similar site), our readers from schoolchildren to senior citizens would not revert to the habits of 25 years ago and start trooping to the library or even the reference shelves in their living rooms when they wanted to check a fact. (I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, though it has elements of both; it is simply a truth.)
1319:
Knowledge (XXG)'s completeness and fairness and accuracy compare, not only to traditional media sources, but to the other information available on the
Internet," suggests to me that the most relevant comparison is Knowledge (XXG) vs. the rest of the internet. So for example, we could find say 300 journalists and assign each an article. They would then read the article and compare that to what they learned in an hour on the rest of the internet (TRotI). My guess in many subject areas WP will come out on top.
231:
issues the project faces as it moves forward. Non-academic readers may find the book lacking in a unifying theme, beyond that
Knowledge (XXG) plays an important role in the world today that warrants academic study of its culture and communities. Jemielniak recently stated (on a Wikipediocracy thread) that "I wrote this book for academic research purposes, I absolutely have no hope of high sales (and honestly, I'll be surprised if it goes beyond 500 copies)." The book has been praised by
261:
descriptive rather than prescriptive, and more importantly because the failure to take stock of dispute-resolution successes and failures has struck me for years as a project-wide myopia. In the 13œ years of
English Knowledge (XXG) there have been, in round numbers, a billion edit-wars, yet no one knows whether most edit-wars get resolved by civil discussion reaching a consensus on the optimal wording, or by one side's giving up and wandering away (or sometimes by
214:
1021:
121:
111:
358:
1376:. Surprisinglyâto me at leastâthis doesn't seem to have much effect on searches on terms referring to broad general subjects. For searches on the terms "Leibniz", "Vera Lynn" and "mind-body problem", to take three I just threw up off the top of my head, the only obviously Knowledge (XXG)-influenced results in the first two pages from Google are Knowledge (XXG) itself and Google's own knowledge graph.
302:. In this article, aimed at a general rather than an academic audience, Jemielniak posits that Knowledge (XXG)'s "increasingly legalistic atmosphere is making it impossible to attract and keep the new editors the site needs." It's a thoughtful article that identifies a significant issue, and its more direct approach accompanied by concrete suggestions make this article more accessible than
271:
being blocked from Po-WP for one day. He claims that in retrospect he accepts the ruling against him, but his account of the dispute makes that ruling sound terribly unfairâa cynical gesture of evenhandedness, but meted out to editors who didn't deserve to be treated evenhandedly. (But of course those of us who can't read Polish will never hear the other side of the story.)
973:âwhich is well worth listening toâSeife claims that Knowledge (XXG) gets four or five facts of his life wrong (not controversial claims, he says, just basic facts, though he doesn't name them), which knowing about the COI guideline he didn't fix. (Aside to Charles Seife: let me know about the non-controversial fixes needed and I'll make them myself. You won't need to go to
37:
131:
91:
141:
874:
way when their number-one Google hit has been edited in nasty ways by their personal or political or ideological enemies. (The good news is that when I or others spot defamation on
Knowledge (XXG) we are often able to do something about it; I've often wished that I had an "edit" and a "delete" button that I could use on the rest of the Internet.)
101:
883:
help build
Knowledge (XXG) but, at least in a given topic-area, simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Knowledge (XXG) has no systematic system of quality control beyond surmounting the bar for deletion, at least until one seeks to bring an article to the mainpage or have it rated (at which point various sorts of
331:âhas written a more broadly themed book about the unreliability of information found throughout the Internet. "Just because the Internet told you," the subtitle asks, "how do you know it's true?" Now at one level, the fact that the Internet contains a fair amount of misinformation is not breaking news;
276:
time on the current role of the
Committee. That's actually a very defensible omission, because at least on English Knowledge (XXG) (I can't speak for other projects), while ArbCom has other responsibilities (some of which most of us don't particularly want), the importance of the Arbitration Committee
917:
Knowledge (XXG) has evolved as part of, not independent of, the
Internet as a whole. And it is the Internet as a whole, not just Knowledge (XXG), that has changed the population's information-searching habits, so that today when one needs or wants to look something up, one does so on the computer or
887:
take placeâsome of which can be overdone, but that's another discussion). On English Knowledge (XXG) today, there are dedicated noticeboards to address conflict-of-interest issues, evaluate the reliability of sources, solve copyright problems (some quite abstruse), keep fringe theories in check, and
1263:, a carefully researched & written book by a tenured academic: over 2 or 3 consecutive pages of this book the word "calendar" is frequently misspelled. Or maybe it is just a sign that the reader has begun to master a subject when she/he starts to catch mistakes in the reliable sources used... --
927:
pages, on average, provide better-written, better-sourced, more accurate, and more fair coverage of their subject than the corresponding Knowledge (XXG) pages? And to the extent the answer is yes, how do we link the best of that content to become accessible from Knowledge (XXG)? A future Knowledge
265:
ultimately losing interest and wandering away). Similarly, the English Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee has decided several hundred cases since 2004, and community discussions on noticeboards have resolved thousands more content and conduct disputes, yet no one ever seems to have gone back and
1449:
a bit further to say that its a qualitative research tradition of embedding oneself in a culture (say that of WP editors) so as to learn how their culture works and, ultimately, to write about it. That would explain his position or intent a little better for new readers. Usually it's interesting to
988:
article, but only the hardier ones among us will gain the full benefit of his book, although all of us should thank him for writing it. More Wikipedians will enjoy Seife's book, though only a sliver of it is about Knowledge (XXG), and perhaps everyone should listen to his radio interview, although
922:
Instead, people in the wikiless world would still perform the same Google searches that today bring up their subject's Knowledge (XXG) article as a top-ranking hit. They would find the same results, minus Knowledge (XXG), and they would look at the other top-ranking hits on their subject instead.
882:
false information, but a greater number of inaccuracies are introduced by editors who make honest mistakes than by hoaxers and vandals. Sometimes mistakes are made by good editors who inadvertently type the wrong word or misread a source. Other times, we encounter a good-faith editor who wants to
873:
policy and its enforcement, although many Wikipedians, including myself, have long thought fair treatment of our article subjects to be the central ethical issue affecting the project. I know that when I've been defamed online I didn't enjoy it, and that Knowledge (XXG) BLP subjects feel the same
864:
Misinformation in the media has always been with us (Tom Burnham's books were favorites of mine growing up, and I'm mildly dismayed that Burnham's name comes up a redlink), but it certainly is possible to spread false information more rapidly online than it was in the analog era. Of course, it is
221:
Jemielniak's book is an academic discussion of Knowledge (XXG); he does not aim to present either a "how-to" guide for editors and readers or a complete history of the project. He states that his "book is a result of long-term, reflexive participative ethnographic research" performed as a "native
1379:
The results are altogether different, however, if you do a search on terms designed to find sources for dubious factoids which Knowledge (XXG) has got wrong. A Google search on the expression "cadamekela | durkeamynarda", for instance, returns 18 pages of results which, apart from one or two now
341:
Knowledge (XXG), perhaps every day, by a miscellaneous array of pranksters, hoaxers, vandals, defamers, and in a few instances by Knowledge (XXG) critics conducting so-called "breaching experiments" to see how long a falsehood placed in Knowledge (XXG) stays in Knowledge (XXG). (Such experiments
275:
The book's mentions of En-WP ArbCom are sound, but dated. He discusses the historical origin of the Committee as an extension of the original authority of Jimmy Wales, and cites a handful of Committee decisions, the most recent of which is an unusual case-motion from 2009. He does not spend much
270:
Speaking of ArbCom (which I'm prone to do since I've served on ours since 2008), Jemielniak mentions the Arbitration Committees of both the Polish Knowledge (XXG) and the English Knowledge (XXG). He opens the book with an account of a Polish Knowledge (XXG) arbitration case that resulted in his
230:
as a work of anthropology or of organizational management science. As a general reader and a Wikipedian, I found the book interesting as a compilation of incidents in Knowledge (XXG)'s history, some of which I was already familiar with and some of which were new to me, and as a reminder of some
1337:
That depends on what parts of the Internet these journalists are allowed to access. Based on my experience researching various topics, if they are limited to the parts where content is free (as in zero cost of access, & no registration needed) Knowledge (XXG) would clearly be the winner. If
340:
Knowledge (XXG) is just one of the many online sources of bad information that Seife discusses, but for obvious reasons it's the one I'll focus on here. Seife catalogs a dozen instances in which deliberate misinformation was introduced into Knowledge (XXG). Such misinformation is inserted into
260:
Jemielniak also doesn't spend much time discussing how lessons learned from Knowledge (XXG) dispute-resolution experiences can be used to minimize future disputes or to improve future decision-making. I find this unfortunate, but I can't call it a fault of the book, both because ethnography is
255:
discuss basic rules governing Knowledge (XXG), different roles contributors take on within the project, dispute resolution processes, and the nature of project leadership. The topics are illustrated with examples of disputes or controversies drawn primarily from English Knowledge (XXG) history
1318:
This brings up the old question of how to measure the accuracy of Knowledge (XXG). Of course, it will always be a comparison of the accuracy of two sources, always an A vs. B. Knowledge (XXG) vs. Britannica, or perhaps Knowledge (XXG) medical articles vs. medical textbooks. Brad's text "how
30:
Knowledge or unreality?: In Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Knowledge (XXG), Dariusz Jemielniak discusses Knowledge (XXG) from the standpoint of an experienced editor and administrator who is also a university professor specializing in management and organizations. In Virtual Reality: Just
1383:
This effect is not limited to hoax material, however. More concerning to me is Knowledge (XXG)'s power to increase enormously the web impact of cranks. The first page returned by a Google search on the expression ""Jafar al-Sadiq" heliocentric" currently contains links to three web pages
200:
presents a more broadly themed work reminding us to question the reliability of information found throughout the Internet; he cites Knowledge (XXG) as a prime example of a website whose contents contain enough misinformation to warrant caution before relying on the information on the site.
1193:
I thought the comment about the accuracy noticeboard (a Knowledge (XXG) 'fact check' perhaps) was a really insightful one. It seems like centralising this process could work well to increase visibility for low-visibility articles, for example, where the talk page might not always work?
1338:
resources accessible thru the Internet -- such as Nexus-Lexus & JSTOR -- are included, the comparison would be much, much closer; resources like those will always provide better quality coverage of specific topics, although those specific topics are slowly decreasing in number. --
1144:
Of course that's the answer to the question no one's asked. And that works well when an article has a good number of watchers. But hoaxes and bad information are more prevalent on less-watched pages, and a c/n tag or a talkpage hoax there can last unaddressed for months.
1159:
He who repeats The Word without The Tag shall be Made Fun Of. The same goes for not following up on threads you start. (I presume you meant "post" rather "hoax".) If there is any lesson to be gained, I'd say it is "Be bold in deleting stuff you find strange" as well as
1116:"I've never seen anyone wonder why there's no dedicated noticeboard where one goes for help in figuring out whether questionable information in an article is accurate or not." That's what the article and it's talk page are for. If you find a questionable claim, just
892:
Despite the falsehoods he identifies, all of which have now been removed, Seife acknowledges that "by some measures one can argue that Knowledge (XXG) is roughly as accurate as its paper-and-ink competitors." (p. 29) He cites the well-known 2005
284:.) So Jemielniak's not spending nearly as much space discussing arbitration as one might expect in a book about Knowledge (XXG) hierarchies, leadership, and dispute resolution turns out to be a reasonable decision, but one that is not explained.
335:
became a meme and then a clichĂ© for a reason. Lots of us think we're sophisticated enough to avoid falling into the kinds of traps that Seife warns us aboutâbut the warnings in Seife's book are important and timely nevertheless.
1367:"Instead, people in the wikiless world would still perform the same Google searches that today bring up their subject's Knowledge (XXG) article as a top-ranking hit. They would find the same results, minus Knowledge (XXG), ... "
349:.) Some of Seife's examples will be well-known to "Signpost" readers, such as the Colbert-inspired tripling of elephants and the Bicholim Conflict; others were new to me, such as AC Omonia Nicosia and the Edward Owens hoax.
795:
555:
306:
for non-specialist readers. All of us who want Knowledge (XXG) to thrive, which requires that the project welcome newcomers and facilitate their becoming regular editors, can hope for more such wisdom from this Pundit.
844:
Experienced Wikipedians are well-aware of this problem, as are our critics. English Knowledge (XXG), in what can equally be considered admirable self-criticism or self-absorbed navel-gazing, contains discussions of
1060:
936:. Predictably, that page is the first Google hit on Seife's name (his own webpage at NYU is second). Unfortunately, the article bears a prominent, disfiguring banner at the top of the page, proclaiming that:
266:
conducted any systematic review of which approaches to dispute-resolution worked better than others. That's a different book that ought to be written, although it too risks selling fewer than 500 copies.
888:
put a stop to edit-warring. I've never seen anyone wonder why there's no dedicated noticeboard where one goes for help in figuring out whether questionable information in an article is accurate or not.
808:
568:
1243:
opens with a chapter listing some of the more egregious errors known to have been found in that work that beg to be considered intentional hoaxes, then proceeds to point out the other flaws in the
1096:
1070:
1050:
782:
542:
31:
Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It's True?, Charles Seife presents a more broadly themed work reminding us to question the reliability of information found throughout the Internet.
1065:
1055:
769:
678:
639:
529:
438:
399:
77:
977:
821:
717:
691:
665:
652:
626:
613:
581:
477:
451:
425:
412:
386:
373:
1248:
1038:
1008:
756:
743:
730:
516:
503:
490:
1475:
1032:
56:
45:
998:
on the Wikimedia projects, having first registered on the English Knowledge (XXG) in 2006. He has been a member of the English Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee since 2008.
292:(and the price of the book) will deter some readers, Wikipedians who want a taste of Jemielniak's thinking about the project can find it in a recent article he contributed to
192:âdiscusses Knowledge (XXG) from the standpoint of an experienced editor and administrator who is also a university professor specializing in management and organizations. In
704:
464:
342:
913:
right question. At least equally relevant today is how Knowledge (XXG)'s completeness and fairness and accuracy compare, not only to traditional media sources, but to
1528:
905:). The Knowledge (XXG) community should certainly aspire for our encyclopedia to land on the favorable side of such comparisons. I think that on balance it does.
989:
for many of us both the book and interview will reinforce, rather than challenge, our existing views about the reliability of the information that surrounds us.
299:
21:
1503:
1389:
1498:
1493:
958:
is an ill-written article as a reflection against Charles Seife. (If anything, the obvious circular reasoning suggests sloppiness in the crafting of the
850:
1488:
1286:
854:
1380:
flagging these as a Knowledge (XXG) hoax, have simply reproduced Knowledge (XXG) text verbatim, or regurgitated it with some form of paraphrase.
1388:, had proposed a heliocentric model of the solar system. Web pages peddling this nonsense had certainly already existed before the notorious
1413:
1235:
Well, from my experience I'd say practically all reference works have hoaxes, or errors so blatant to lead one to suspect they are hoaxes.
1179:
for all users. And maybe the WMF could fork over some grant money to homeless former Britannica employees for quality control-for-hire.
1483:
1020:
50:
36:
17:
346:
897:
article comparing the accuracy of Knowledge (XXG)'s scientific content to that of a canonical, traditional reference source, the
281:
1255:-- although I'd be surprised if anyone mistook that as anything but a joke. And then there's the book I've been using to revise
1003:
The views expressed in this book review are those of the author alone; responses and critical commentary are invited in the
1289:, and note that they, generally, are only checked by a handful of experts, rather than undergoing formal quality testing.
902:
846:
1161:
1461:
1436:
1418:
1372:
There is a significant omission form the second sentence: they would find the same results minus Knowledge (XXG)
1347:
1332:
1305:
1272:
1228:
1203:
1188:
1154:
1139:
962:.) After all, the reader would know that Charles Seife wouldn't have written the article and, as a matter of our
1360:
Thanks for the informative reviews and commentary. I have a nit to pick, however, with the following statement:
932:
Seife rather kindly refrains from discussing in the book, as an example of a questionable Knowledge (XXG) page,
1509:
1409:
1176:
970:
744:
Hoaxes in France and at university, Knowledge (XXG) used in Indian court, Is Knowledge (XXG) a cult?, and more
504:
Hoaxes in France and at university, Knowledge (XXG) used in Indian court, Is Knowledge (XXG) a cult?, and more
247:
and it deserves to sell well over 500 copies, but it won't make be making the wiki-best-seller list either.
332:
1285:, I'd say expecting stuff made by humans to be perfect is unrealistic. Transport the software figures to
1117:
1432:
1150:
319:
By contrast to Jemielniak's academic treatment specific to Knowledge (XXG), Charles Seifeâthe author of
1282:
901:
One continues to read of comparisons of Knowledge (XXG) with traditional library reference books (see
1325:
1301:
1184:
1135:
984:
The bottom line on these two books: Wikipedians should read (and think carefully about) Jemielniak's
928:(XXG) scholar may wish to focus more on these questions (and produce another 495-copy-selling book).
731:
Rush Limbaugh falls for Knowledge (XXG) hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Knowledge (XXG)
491:
Rush Limbaugh falls for Knowledge (XXG) hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Knowledge (XXG)
1424:
1404:
311:
181:
94:
1343:
1268:
1199:
1092:
240:
124:
1428:
1385:
1256:
1251:
for more about Einbinder's book.) Another example might be the article on "Gremlins" in the
1236:
1215:
1146:
995:
954:
Now, no well-informed reader of Knowledge (XXG) would take this pronouncement alleging that
294:
154:
1401:, but one result of that addition was a rapid massive increase in the number of such pages.
1374:
and its clones and adaptations and web pages which have mindlessly regurgitated its content
1172:
963:
870:
213:
104:
1320:
1297:
1180:
1131:
909:
But "Knowledge (XXG) vs. Britannica" is no longer the right question, or at least not the
134:
884:
1225:
244:
1522:
955:
933:
197:
1384:
reproducing some version of the absurd fiction that an 8th-century Islamic scholar,
1339:
1264:
1195:
1167:
Of course, Knowledge (XXG) being the pragmatical beast it is, we have to live with
114:
640:
WikiWomen's History Monthâmeetups, blog posts, and "Inspire" grant-making campaign
400:
WikiWomen's History Monthâmeetups, blog posts, and "Inspire" grant-making campaign
314:
Virtual Unreality: Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It's True?
170:
Virtual Unreality: Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It's True?
144:
1446:
1124:
236:
232:
185:
1007:. A previous review of the Polish translation of Jemielniak's book is archived
194:
Virtual Reality: Just Because the Internet Told You, How Do You Know It's True?
941:
This article may require cleanup to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s quality standards.
770:
News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones
530:
News and notes: Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones
1453:
1220:
280:
has radically declined in the past few years. (I've discussed this decline
718:
Hoaxes draw media attention; Sue Gardner's op-ed; Women of Knowledge (XXG)
478:
Hoaxes draw media attention; Sue Gardner's op-ed; Women of Knowledge (XXG)
1168:
189:
1253:
Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Legend and Mythology
1292:
The question is not whether there are problems with our content, but
1259:& provide reliable sources for that article -- Alan E. Samuel's
878:
Seife's discussion of misinformation on Knowledge (XXG) focuses on
627:
Saving Knowledge (XXG); Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax
387:
Saving Knowledge (XXG); Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax
55:
205:
1175:, the best we can do is enabling a souped-up version of the
1019:
945:
Article does not meet Knowledge (XXG) standards for quality.
356:
35:
822:
Attempt to foist false article on Knowledge (XXG) revealed
582:
Attempt to foist false article on Knowledge (XXG) revealed
783:
Media coverage of Knowledge (XXG) hoax results in article
543:
Media coverage of Knowledge (XXG) hoax results in article
1393:
1108:
1101:
1081:
994:
Ira Brad Matetsky is a New York attorney. He edits as
705:
An article is a construct â hoaxes and Knowledge (XXG)
465:
An article is a construct â hoaxes and Knowledge (XXG)
809:
Hoax articles on April Fool's rub some the wrong way
757:
Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
569:
Hoax articles on April Fool's rub some the wrong way
517:
Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
208:
Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Knowledge (XXG)
163:
Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Knowledge (XXG)
1106:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
178:
Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Knowledge (XXG)
915:the other information available on the Internet.
869:Neither Seife nor Jemielniak say much about the
1445:I'd clarify the introduction of the concept of
853:; and another compilation recently appeared on
679:How many more hoaxes will Knowledge (XXG) find?
439:How many more hoaxes will Knowledge (XXG) find?
300:"The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Knowledge (XXG)"
947:Please help improve this article if you can.
8:
796:Hoax exposé prompts attempt to delete author
692:Knowledge (XXG)'s sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax
614:UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
556:Hoax exposé prompts attempt to delete author
452:Knowledge (XXG)'s sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax
374:UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
188:on the English and Polish Wikipedias and a
1529:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2014-07
1130:it, delete it, or post on the talk page.
666:Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes
426:Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes
212:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1109:
1085:
71:
29:
7:
1294:is the amount of problems acceptable
347:Knowledge (XXG):Do not create hoaxes
217:Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit) in 2010
827:
814:
801:
788:
775:
762:
749:
736:
723:
710:
697:
684:
671:
658:
653:Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
645:
632:
619:
587:
574:
561:
548:
535:
522:
509:
496:
483:
470:
457:
444:
431:
418:
413:Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
405:
392:
379:
333:"Someone is wrong on the internet"
196:, journalism professor and author
57:
28:
1091:These comments are automatically
851:List of hoaxes on Knowledge (XXG)
165:(Stanford University Press 2014).
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
1476:putting together the next issue
964:conflict-of-interest guidelines
288:Although the academic style of
1102:add the page to your watchlist
903:Reliability of Knowledge (XXG)
1:
1462:14:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
1397:to Knowledge (XXG)'s article
1004:
871:biographies of living persons
226:I cannot pretend to evaluate
278:as an arbitration committee
1545:
1437:22:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
1419:05:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
1348:15:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
1333:23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1306:10:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1273:07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1261:Greek and Roman Chronology
1249:my review for the Signpost
1241:The Myth of the Britannica
1229:06:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1204:15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1189:19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1155:17:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1140:17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
943:The specific problem is:
849:; we also have a lengthy
847:hoaxes on Knowledge (XXG)
1287:long mathematical proofs
971:a recent radio interview
899:Encyclopedia Britannica.
1245:Encyclopedia Britannica
1214:Thanks for the reviews
72:Knowledge or unreality?
1099:. To follow comments,
1061:Wikimedia in education
1024:
361:
251:The eight chapters of
218:
172:(Viking/Penguin 2014).
40:
1023:
859:(Wikipediocracy link)
360:
216:
39:
1283:software engineering
1095:from this article's
161:Dariusz Jemielniak,
1425:User:David J Wilson
1281:Taking a hint from
1171:. IMO, in light of
1162:Wizard's First Rule
1247:. (Have a look at
1086:Discuss this story
1025:
855:a critic site here
362:
219:
182:Dariusz Jemielniak
46:â Back to Contents
41:
1417:
1110:purging the cache
860:
838:
837:
737:20 September 2010
497:20 September 2010
343:are not permitted
241:Jonathan Zittrain
155:Ira Brad Matetsky
51:View Latest Issue
1536:
1512:
1474:needs your help
1460:
1458:
1407:
1396:
1328:
1257:Eponymous archon
1237:Harvey Einbinder
1227:
1129:
1123:
1113:
1111:
1105:
1084:
1071:Featured content
1043:
1035:
1028:
1005:comments section
978:Ă la Philip Roth
858:
829:
828:14 February 2005
816:
803:
790:
777:
764:
751:
738:
725:
712:
711:11 February 2013
699:
686:
673:
660:
647:
634:
621:
595:
594:
589:
588:14 February 2005
576:
563:
550:
537:
524:
511:
498:
485:
472:
471:11 February 2013
459:
446:
433:
420:
407:
394:
381:
365:
364:Related articles
359:
304:Common Knowledge
290:Common Knowledge
253:Common Knowledge
228:Common Knowledge
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
1544:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1508:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1479:
1468:
1467:
1454:
1451:
1392:
1386:Ja'far al-Sadiq
1331:
1326:
1219:
1177:metadata gadget
1127:
1121:
1115:
1107:
1100:
1089:
1088:
1082:+ Add a comment
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1051:Recent research
1036:
1031:
1029:
1026:
841:
840:
839:
834:
776:10 January 2009
724:28 January 2013
536:10 January 2009
484:28 January 2013
369:
368:
363:
357:
352:
325:Alpha and Omega
317:
211:
168:Charles Seife,
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1542:
1540:
1532:
1531:
1521:
1520:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1402:
1381:
1377:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1323:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1290:
1276:
1275:
1232:
1231:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1165:
1090:
1087:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1066:Traffic report
1063:
1058:
1056:News and notes
1053:
1048:
1042:
1030:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1000:
981:
975:The New Yorker
969:Meanwhile, in
952:
951:
929:
919:
906:
889:
875:
866:
861:
842:
836:
835:
832:
831:
825:
819:
818:
812:
806:
805:
799:
793:
792:
786:
780:
779:
773:
767:
766:
760:
754:
753:
747:
741:
740:
734:
728:
727:
721:
715:
714:
708:
702:
701:
695:
689:
688:
682:
676:
675:
672:13 August 2014
669:
663:
662:
656:
650:
649:
643:
637:
636:
630:
624:
623:
617:
610:
607:
606:
598:
592:
591:
585:
579:
578:
572:
566:
565:
559:
553:
552:
546:
540:
539:
533:
527:
526:
520:
514:
513:
507:
501:
500:
494:
488:
487:
481:
475:
474:
468:
462:
461:
455:
449:
448:
442:
436:
435:
432:13 August 2014
429:
423:
422:
416:
410:
409:
403:
397:
396:
390:
384:
383:
377:
370:
366:
355:
354:
353:
350:
337:
316:
310:
308:
285:
272:
267:
257:
248:
245:Zygmunt Bauman
223:
210:
204:
202:
174:
173:
166:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1541:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1524:
1511:
1505:
1500:
1495:
1490:
1485:
1477:
1473:
1463:
1459:
1457:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1399:Heliocentrism
1395:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1322:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1224:
1223:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1126:
1119:
1112:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1083:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1034:
1027:In this issue
1022:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1001:
999:
997:
992:
991:
990:
987:
982:
979:
976:
972:
967:
965:
961:
957:
956:Charles Seife
950:
946:
942:
939:
938:
937:
935:
930:
926:
920:
916:
912:
907:
904:
900:
896:
890:
886:
881:
880:intentionally
876:
872:
867:
862:
856:
852:
848:
833:
830:
824:
823:
817:
811:
810:
804:
802:8 August 2005
798:
797:
791:
789:17 April 2006
785:
784:
778:
772:
771:
765:
759:
758:
752:
746:
745:
739:
733:
732:
726:
720:
719:
713:
707:
706:
700:
698:29 April 2013
694:
693:
687:
681:
680:
674:
668:
667:
661:
659:11 March 2015
655:
654:
648:
646:11 March 2015
642:
641:
635:
633:15 April 2015
629:
628:
622:
620:22 April 2015
616:
615:
609:
608:
605:
604:
603:
602:More articles
597:
596:
593:
590:
584:
583:
577:
571:
570:
564:
562:8 August 2005
558:
557:
551:
549:17 April 2006
545:
544:
538:
532:
531:
525:
519:
518:
512:
506:
505:
499:
493:
492:
486:
480:
479:
473:
467:
466:
460:
458:29 April 2013
454:
453:
447:
441:
440:
434:
428:
427:
421:
419:11 March 2015
415:
414:
408:
406:11 March 2015
402:
401:
395:
393:15 April 2015
389:
388:
382:
380:22 April 2015
376:
375:
351:
348:
344:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
315:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
291:
286:
283:
279:
273:
268:
264:
258:
254:
249:
246:
242:
238:
234:
229:
224:
215:
209:
206:Jemielniak's
203:
199:
198:Charles Seife
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
171:
167:
164:
160:
159:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1472:The Signpost
1471:
1455:
1405:David Wilson
1398:
1373:
1293:
1260:
1252:
1244:
1240:
1221:
1120:it. You can
1118:WP:CHALLENGE
1045:
1039:all comments
1033:30 July 2014
1002:
993:
985:
983:
974:
968:
959:
953:
948:
944:
940:
931:
924:
921:
914:
910:
908:
898:
894:
891:
879:
877:
868:
863:
843:
826:
820:
815:4 April 2005
813:
807:
800:
794:
787:
781:
774:
768:
761:
755:
750:14 June 2010
748:
742:
735:
729:
722:
716:
709:
703:
696:
690:
685:30 July 2014
683:
677:
670:
664:
657:
651:
644:
638:
631:
625:
618:
612:
611:
601:
600:
599:
586:
580:
575:4 April 2005
573:
567:
560:
554:
547:
541:
534:
528:
521:
515:
510:14 June 2010
508:
502:
495:
489:
482:
476:
469:
463:
456:
450:
445:30 July 2014
443:
437:
430:
424:
417:
411:
404:
398:
391:
385:
378:
372:
371:
339:
328:
324:
320:
318:
313:
303:
293:
289:
287:
277:
274:
269:
262:
259:
252:
250:
227:
225:
220:
207:
193:
177:
175:
169:
162:
58:30 July 2014
1510:Suggestions
1447:ethnography
1429:Newyorkbrad
1216:Newyorkbrad
1147:Newyorkbrad
1093:transcluded
1046:Book review
996:Newyorkbrad
949:(June 2013)
934:his own BLP
885:flyspecking
763:11 May 2009
523:11 May 2009
367:Book review
345:; see also
237:Clay Shirky
233:Jimmy Wales
186:User:Pundit
69:Book review
1321:Smallbones
1298:Paradoctor
1181:Paradoctor
1132:Paradoctor
329:Proofiness
263:everyone's
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2014-07-30
1504:Subscribe
1390:Jagged 85
1327:smalltalk
1097:talk page
1523:Category
1499:Newsroom
1494:Archives
1394:added it
312:Seife's
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
20: |
1340:llywrch
1265:llywrch
1196:hfordsa
1169:reality
190:steward
115:Twitter
1173:WP:WIP
923:Would
895:Nature
327:, and
243:, and
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1489:About
1452:czar
986:Slate
925:those
295:Slate
16:<
1484:Home
1433:talk
1414:cont
1410:talk
1344:talk
1302:talk
1269:talk
1222:Pine
1218:.---
1200:talk
1185:talk
1151:talk
1136:talk
1009:here
911:only
321:Zero
282:here
145:Digg
1239:'s
980:.)
960:tag
298:,
176:In
153:By
80:â
1525::
1435:)
1423:(@
1412:·
1346:)
1304:)
1296:?
1271:)
1202:)
1194:--
1187:)
1153:)
1138:)
1128:}}
1125:cn
1122:{{
857:.
323:,
239:,
235:,
180:,
1478:.
1456:â
1431:(
1416:)
1408:(
1342:(
1330:)
1324:(
1300:(
1267:(
1198:(
1183:(
1164:.
1149:(
1134:(
1114:.
1104:.
1041:)
1037:(
1011:.
184:â
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
