Misleading History on the web.

[H.Johnson]

This is a source of fascination to me (what, you hadn't noticed?) I mean, the way that people can simply 'create' alternative versions of history, spurious facts and bogus happenings that are accepted by others. In this vein I recently posted an item about a fake medical condition that became accepted as genuine (and therefore people began to suffer from it).

That posting was removed by the Bartenders, but I think the issue is worth revisiting and can stimulate useful discussion on this forum, particularly the role of 'Web2' software in the process.

I am refering, of course, to the recent plaintive appeal by the inventor of Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales, that users try to check their facts before making or editing entries. He cited recent announcements on the site of the deaths of Senator Edward Kennedy and other important figures in public life and suggested a system of moderation, rather like this forum .

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm

My point is that Mr. Wales was criticised (on his own site) by people who accused him of restricting their democratic rights (to create misinformation?) As prominent British Lawyer Marcel Berlins stated, much netter than I could, in a Guardian article:
'Wales has become the archdevil of censorship, savaging contributors' basic rights to be allowed to tell lies and edit their own articles'. Or did he..?

 

[stephen1965]

I dunno

Is it not that what we read is often a history of crime written by the people who got away with the most?, so...
PERHAPS it's got to the stage where 'belief' as a system of living or thinking...or rather a way of life where 'belief' has a part to play has become untenable. And all the better for it some would say. Perhaps it promotes the idea that experiential knowledge and an understanding of 'probability' is the path towards understanding, or at least that a path towards understanding which doesn't rely on 'faith' or 'belief' is to be found...
I'm interested in the Work which builds understanding without unqualified belief..not based on physical might, nor emotionalism nor intellectual perception but perhaps a balance of these three. A fourth way shall we say?

But then, I come here to hear about vintage clothes so... I dunno.

 

[H.Johnson]

But then, I come here to hear about vintage clothes so... I dunno.

And so do I, and also about recent social history and other artefacts. And I want the facts if possible -that's why I think it is important for all web users to be as sure of their facts as they can be before contributing to the 'body of knowledge'.

 

[scotrace]

The Wikipedia entry for Churchill once contained a sentence about the PM going to X City "because he had to pee. "

Has the internet become an entity that blurs everything? International borders, market value, real methodology, historical fact?

If blogger x writes up a very authoritative few screens about some topic about which they actually know very little, and that information is read by a few thousand people and quoted and tracked back, its misinformation disseminated and multiplied at a very fast rate globally, do the dubious facts it contains become a part of the accepted body of knowledge? How does one (non-scholar) sort out what is true or correct? Especially in an era when outright codswallop is emailed around for decades and sites like snopes.com are needed as quick hoax de-bunkers?? The answer is to always return to original sources, and do original research, or rely on the informed interpretation by the discoverers of original source material, right? But is this becoming a lost practice?

What is real? And how do we differentiate through the coming centuries? We're all learning how to adapt to technology and vast amounts of available information on the fly. The average Jamoke has more information about the world at hand by noon than any head of state got in a year two hundred years ago.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I am refering, of course, to the recent plaintive appeal by the inventor of Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales, that users try to check their facts before making or editing entries.

This alone is such a resonate indictment! The least you can do is to check your facts before making an entry!

The web is an amazing tool for information and it is at its best when the libraries and archives of the world scan their collections. It is at its worse when the same four of five random facts about anything are cut and pasted from one entry to another. It's as if knowledge is no longer learned, but replicated.

As for sorting out what is correct, one must do what has always been done, check the first hand accounts. It remains the only way to approach the truth.

 

[stephen1965]

Yeah, I think this can be a really interesting and complicated issue as some facts can be more easily verifiable than others. I meant by my last remark(about coming here to hear about vintage clothe) that maybe I was in danger of sounding pretentious. I do think that the thing about 'alternate histories' showing up on Wikipedia is an example of what we see published in newspapers and the media in general but taken to the absurd conclusion. I suppose that there are two tiers(or more?) of factual knowledge. That which can be verified and that which relies on probablility. But I'm willing to be educated about other possibilities here.
Other than that, we have good old 'faith' which I think only 'works' in closed communities such as a monastery for instance. Or perhaps it works when there is an firmly established hierarchy such as a classroom or a forum where moderators could determine what's allowed. And that's fine with me because as we come to this forum for similar things (I would expect), I too want to know as many facts as possible. I wouldn't be here if people made up stuff about where to find certain clothes etc so the role of the moderators as 'leaders', or 'guarantors of truth' even, seems fair enough. But I would try and verify the facts as much as I could and unfortunately (or not) not 'believe' everything I hear. That's not to imply you're suggesting that, just that there's never any 100% guarantee unless you start talking about God or some such. Which I don't believe in either. Anyway, don't know if I've said much here so maybe someone else could have a go..

 

[Fletch]

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T Honored

"While other news and information websites chose to mark the anniversary in a muted fashion, if at all, Wikipedia gave it prominent emphasis over other important historical events from the same day, including the independence of the nation of Africa in 1847, the 1984 ascension of Constantine to Emperor of the Holy Roman Emperor, and the 1998 birth of Smokey, a calico cat belonging to Mark and Becky Rousch of Erie, PA."

-The Onion, 7/26/06

 

[LizzieMaine]

The essential flaw in the whole Wikipedia concept is the whole idea that there can be such a thing as "truth by consensus." Fifty people or fifty million people agreeing that something is true which is, in fact, not true doesn't make it true.

 

[H.Johnson]

I think that the basic issues with regard to 'communities of practice' are about belief and consensus of terminology - the processes of 'epistemology' and 'ontology' if you wish. To me as a researcher, a vintage or military clothing and/or lifestyle forum is an ideal place to observe these processes in action.

There are well-known instances of, for instance, versions of flight jackets (A-3, G-2, G-8, MA-2) that have never been proven to exist becoming accepted as genuine and 'historical' as a result of vendors offering them as 'reproductions' (of non-existent originals?) usually with a suitably stirring (but inaccurate) text. Now, to my point. It seems that if enough people accept these items to be 'authentic' and believe the 'hype', then they acquire a certain sort of reality through belief (epistemology) are accepted uncritically into the 'language' of the subject (ontology).

OK - the vendors are entitled to 'make a buck' and a lot of people like their style of jackets and seem to enjoy the feeling of 'buying into' this (to me) rather spurious history. I use the phrase 'buy into' advisedly, as I feel that when some buyers have paid 'good money' for an item, they are reluctant to accept that it may be spurious and (in some cases) will even attack posters who genuinely try to correct their misconceptions with the facts.

So - to my point. What is the point of historical fact? In a world where 'fact' is a democratic concept (e.g. wikis and Web2) and history is governed by what is most acceptable to current opinion (PC), does it matter anymore that history, factuality and public opinion do not match up?

As a university professor (teaching research methods) I am finding it increasingly difficult to inculcate into students the concept of tracing 'references' back to authoritative academic sources. More and more of them regard things that they read on a web forum (posted by someone they know little or nothing about) as at least as authoritative as a peer-reviewed journal paper by a famous author. And why not, I ask myself. No-one 'in authority' tells them what clothes to wear, what films to watch or what music to listen to. All this comes from 'Web2' sources - so why should not 'facts' and 'history'?

One of my colleagues calls this the 'new Dark Ages' (he is referring to superstition). I would like to call it 'democratic reality' and, once my horror of it and revulsion to it (as a lover of correctness and factuality) wears off, I can quite see myself getting to like it... Maybe.

 

[H.Johnson]

The essential flaw in the whole Wikipedia concept is the whole idea that there can be such a thing as "truth by consensus." Fifty people or fifty million people agreeing that something is true which is, in fact, not true doesn't make it true.

Jimmy Wales's original idea behind Wikipedia was to produce a modern encyclopedia more rapidly (and to update it more easily) than the traditional type of encyclopedia created by a single source*. Accuracy was not one of his main objectives - he (rather niaively, perhaps) assumed that contributors would take responsibility for 'accuracy' and 'correctness'. Mmm.

The term 'Wiki' was borrowed from an express airport 'bus service in Hawai by Ward Cunningham in 1995. Or was it?

 

[Creeping Past]

I doubt whether misinformation or erroneous entries last long on Wikipedia. The knowledge balance is always restored asap, at least, in my experience as one who monitors the status of various entries independently.

The problem with Wikipedia is a narrative one. The relative status of the facts contained in individual entries can be verified. I can do it; you can do it; everyone can. But the narratives made of the checkable facts and their sources are ultimately bland and flavourless.

It's not that there's too little actual fact, but that too little is made of so many facts.

Where's all the new research data on Wikipedia? I'm interested in history, yet anything worth reading remains encased in the covers of the learned journals.

Apart from the obvious monetary considerations, I don't understand why the universities don't rethink their proprietary relationship to intellectual property and make more research more immediately available for peer review and publication through Wikipedia, as a readily available source.

Here's my 10-pence-worth. Give academics a [unit of research score], for example, for adding an easily checkable note from the archives to a Wikipedia entry, rather than saving it up for the paper they'll write just as soon as they've written all the papers needed for them to fulfil this or that pressing professional academic requirement/exercise.

Wikipedia could be a parking place (as it currently is) and a springboard for knowledge, whether fact-bound or fact-led. It could even become an openly discursive forum, based on verifiable data, if people would let it.

 

[Subvet642]

There are three kinds of knowledge:

1) What a person Knows through direct observation.

2) What a person Believes, through sources believed to be reliable and/or through extrapolation.

3) What a person is completely ignorant of.

 

[Undertow]

I believe we can all take a lesson from an ironic quote pertaining to this discussion.

It was said (by whom depends on where you look) that, "If one tells a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".

Ironic because not only is this statement true in essence, especially regarding internet research, but if you look up this quote, and its variant forms, on Google, it's attributed to all sorts of people, including V. Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps they've all said it and are rightfully quoted as such. Or perhaps no one knows and we'll all just keep attributing it various despots when the need arises.

Here's my research in case you don't want to take my word for it:

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." - Hitler
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler.html

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vladimir_lenin.html

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...." - Joseph Goebbels
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Repeat_a_lie_often_enough_and_it_will_believed

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth." - Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/14/content_323217.htm

"A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." - This time it's G. Goebbles, maybe his brother George?
http://www.srmhp.org/archives/quotes-pseudoscience.html

Anyway, I could go on like this forever but I think you get the point.

 

[Creeping Past]

Big Lie — Wikipedia

Surely, the main 'problem' here is not lies accumulating through malicious intent or ignorance (although this can never be ruled out) but variant translations from the German.

Also, views on propaganda/lies weren't scarce in the revolutionary movements of the early to mid 20th century. It's not inconceivable that Lenin and Hitler (and even Stalin) had similar views expressed similarly.

 

[Rachael]

In the end, a vast majority of history is hearsay. This has always been the case and it always will be. The fact that we now have more sources simply means that we have more to sift through, weigh, and decide whether to accept the fact from once source over another.

History has always and will always be in flux. Perhaps instead of being written by the victorious, it will for a while be written by the prolific. Then it will get sorted out. And re-sorted.

 

[Lone_Ranger]

I believe we can all take a lesson from an ironic quote pertaining to this discussion.

It was said (by whom depends on where you look) that, "If one tells a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".

Ironic because not only is this statement true in essence, especially regarding internet research, but if you look up this quote, and its variant forms, on Google, it's attributed to all sorts of people, including V. Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps they've all said it and are rightfully quoted as such. Or perhaps no one knows and we'll all just keep attributing it various despots when the need arises.

Well, yes!

I heard Teddy Roosevelt quotes being quoted as JFK quotes. That's because JFK was quoting Teddy, but the person citing the quote didn't "get it."

"The outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man" I've heard it cited as a Ronald Reagan quote, but Reagan was quoting Churchill.

 

[stephen1965]

Experiencing the past Now

In the end, a vast majority of history is hearsay.

Yes. Perhaps in the end, or in the flux, it doesn't matter SO much who said what...

but the person citing the quote didn't "get it."

but whether an idea makes you more 'alive' that is important, kind of like the inverse of 'don't hate the sinner, hate the sin' (whoever said that?). IMO the idea of 'belief' or 'faith' in something which is not yet understood or experienced leads to being less 'alive'. The idea that the past is fixed is not necessarily true is it? We surely experience the past differently at different times in our lives and at different stages of our understanding.. Also if the past is 'fixed' then I'd be worried about the future being fixed too as a consequence. Perhaps a lot of it is but I don't believe all of it or I'd be feeling a lot less 'alive' right now.

 

[reetpleat]

The essential flaw in the whole Wikipedia concept is the whole idea that there can be such a thing as "truth by consensus." Fifty people or fifty million people agreeing that something is true which is, in fact, not true doesn't make it true.

Here we go again. Hope this doesn't go the way of the last thread on revisionist history.

I don't completely agree with your point, lizzie. While this is a flaw of many thing,s Wikipedia's major flaw is that anyone can change it for whatever reason they like. The opening for people to intentionally or unintentionally altering articles to fit their own needs or to fit their own point of view means it is practically useless for anything that is at all contentious.

Wikipedia is not truth by consensus, it is truth by the last person who edited it. There is no voting system, it is the lat person who edited it. Think about that last statement. it is crazy.

the other problem with Wikipedia, but also with any source of information, is that we assume there is one truth or fact out there. While in theory, that may be true. But your truth or fact may not be the same as my truth or fact, and unless we were there, witnessed it, and can somehow be sure our mind is not playing memory tricks on us, then we have no way of knowing if it is actually the fact or truth at all.

 

[reetpleat]

I think that the basic issues with regard to 'communities of practice' are about belief and consensus of terminology - the processes of 'epistemology' and 'ontology' if you wish. To me as a researcher, a vintage or military clothing and/or lifestyle forum is an ideal place to observe these processes in action.

There are well-known instances of, for instance, versions of flight jackets (A-3, G-2, G-8, MA-2) that have never been proven to exist becoming accepted as genuine and 'historical' as a result of vendors offering them as 'reproductions' (of non-existent originals?) usually with a suitably stirring (but inaccurate) text. Now, to my point. It seems that if enough people accept these items to be 'authentic' and believe the 'hype', then they acquire a certain sort of reality through belief (epistemology) are accepted uncritically into the 'language' of the subject (ontology).

OK - the vendors are entitled to 'make a buck' and a lot of people like their style of jackets and seem to enjoy the feeling of 'buying into' this (to me) rather spurious history. I use the phrase 'buy into' advisedly, as I feel that when some buyers have paid 'good money' for an item, they are reluctant to accept that it may be spurious and (in some cases) will even attack posters who genuinely try to correct their misconceptions with the facts.

So - to my point. What is the point of historical fact? In a world where 'fact' is a democratic concept (e.g. wikis and Web2) and history is governed by what is most acceptable to current opinion (PC), does it matter anymore that history, factuality and public opinion do not match up?

As a university professor (teaching research methods) I am finding it increasingly difficult to inculcate into students the concept of tracing 'references' back to authoritative academic sources. More and more of them regard things that they read on a web forum (posted by someone they know little or nothing about) as at least as authoritative as a peer-reviewed journal paper by a famous author. And why not, I ask myself. No-one 'in authority' tells them what clothes to wear, what films to watch or what music to listen to. All this comes from 'Web2' sources - so why should not 'facts' and 'history'?

One of my colleagues calls this the 'new Dark Ages' (he is referring to superstition). I would like to call it 'democratic reality' and, once my horror of it and revulsion to it (as a lover of correctness and factuality) wears off, I can quite see myself getting to like it... Maybe.

I agree this is a big issue. But would suggest that in some cases, outsider sources can blow the lid off of a well calculated lie, or subterfuge. We have always had alternative journalism, and thank god for them. But i agree that I do like my solid reliable sources.

 

[Foofoogal]

Once upon a time Google actually worked and one could find some good websites that had reliable information about the items I was interested in or at least would back up my own info. Mainly about vintage and antique items.
Now it is all a mess IMHO.