Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I Am Curious (Wiki)
I'm pro-Wikipedia. I think it's an inspiring example of bottom-up collaborative creation. Knock it for its inaccuracies, and I'll reel off the usual defenses: Sure, it isn't completely reliable, but there are thousands of eyes monitoring it. When someone makes an obviously inaccurate edit, someone else will usually pounce to fix it. In the meantime, the uncertainty encourages a different, more skeptical sort of reading.
That said: Boy, but some weird crap manages to slip through the cracks there. From the entry on Curious George:
As stated in an interview, the book Curious George Takes a Job was inspired by a true story. A boy, whose name is not known today, was born in Hamburg in 1909 with Down's Syndrome. He was institutionalized by his parents, condemned to a life at the facility.
When the boy was 15, he escaped from the institution and fled into the city streets. Hungry and in search of food, he found the briefly unattended kitchen of a restaurant, where a cook found him playing with the food and eating it. The cook, intrigued, put him to work to clean dishes, and took him home that evening. Within the following days, the cook arranged with a friend to have the boy wash windows at an office building.
The boy's work went well at first. But in one office, he found colored paints. He used them to paint a mural on the wall of the office. The tenant returned to his office after a lunch break to find the boy busy painting, and he started to chase after him. The boy jumped out a third-story window, breaking some bones.
The story made local headlines. After several weeks of hospitalization, the boy was formally adopted by the cook, and he later became the star of an amateur movie. He was recognized in the coming years as a talented artist. Some of his artwork was sold by the renowned bookseller, A.S.W. Rosenbach.
Tragically, his identity, art, and other details of his life were lost in the ravages of World War II, and he is believed to have been put to death by the government of Nazi Germany.
That passage has been part of the article for over a year. During that time, the page has not suffered from an absence of attention. There has been a long-running battle about whether George is an ape or a monkey. There have been arguments over the political subtexts of the stories. There have been efforts to add obviously phony info to the entry, prompting editors to leave comments like this one:
I seriously doubt "Curious George Gets AIDS" was one of the books. I don't want to change it myself since last time I made a minor edit I was banned from making any further ones by Wikipedia.
Yet that shaggy-dog story about Curious George Takes a Job is still there. No one has even suggested that it be sourced with a citation stronger than the vague "As stated in an interview."
It is my power as a Wikipedia reader to make the necessary changes myself. But a bizarre and funny passage like that one deserves to be immortalized, so I'm blogging it instead.
Bonus links: A communiqué from the Curious George Brigade.
Fr. Archimedes Aloysius Anarchy's Curious George fan fiction, including such unforgettable tales as Curious George Goes to Jail and Curious George Does LSD.
A Curious George true crime story.
Curious George meets rave
culture:
Ska|4.29.08 @ 3:06PM|#
When I was a kid my older brother always used the phrase, "drop
ether." I guess it was his seventies version of "are you on
crack?"
I do remember one where Curious George goes to the hospital and
drops ether. That one is my favorite.
Orange Line Special|4.29.08 @ 3:07PM|#
It's not much of a surprise to see a defense of WP here,
considering that they're an egregious example of spreading disinfo.
See this site I'm
working on for a few examples.
1. *Nothing* in WP can be trusted. The articles constantly change
even if the underlying facts don't. And, the more pernicious issue
is that unless you're familiar with a topic you don't know what's
missing. Some of the things that are missing are due to people
removing things they don't want others to know. Considering that WP
turns up at the start of most searches, it's a very pernicious
influence.
2. I run a blog with 1000 posts on one topic, tagged with over 400
tags many of them very obscure. Many of the posts are
summaries/excerpts from MSM articles, but a few involve original
reporting. The site was almost immediately linked by the Yahoo
directory; if anyone's tried to get in there without paying you'll
realize how difficult that is. I added it to the closely-related WP
entry, and, in bytes, it has 100 times as much content as that WP
entry.
It stayed there for several months until someone started a crusade
to remove it. I went to arbitration on it and a higher-up said it
wasn't eligible.
To summarize: it's got 100 times as much raw data as the WP entry,
covering the subject in very great detail and a great resource for
those doing research. Yet, WP doesn't want to link to it. Details
here: tinyurl.com/2d6dso
3. WP is very stingy on links, so if something's there there's a
good chance that someone higher-up wants it there for some
agenda-based reason or there was some sort of fight over it before
it was allowed to remain.
4. WP puts nofollow tags on almost all their outbound links,
meaning that those linked receive no search engine benefits, even
if some parts of the WP entry are based on the sites that are
linked.
5. However, some interesting sites don't have nofollow tags on
their links, meaning that WP funnels all the search engine juice
they get from the useful idiots who link to them into a very small
set of interesting sites.
Also, it's interesting that so many bloggers link to WP, when WP
strongly discourages linking to blogs, and when the very word
"blog" is a pejorative to many there.
I won't even link to them with a nofollow tag; if I have to I just
write out the URL (i.e. non-HTML format).
I used to make contributions, but I stopped for the reasons above.
I've made one change there since 4/07, and it was reverted a few
days later: tinyurl.com/2jmj9k
I very strongly suggest dropping all your links to WP.
Neil before Zod|4.29.08 @ 3:14PM|#
considering that they're an egregious example of spreading
disinfo
LonePot, meet KettleWacko.
Paul|4.29.08 @ 3:27PM|#
I like Wikipedia too, but not for it's accuracy, but for how it
makes us ask questions about the nature of knowledge. Having said
that, Wikipedia as a difinitive encyclopedic source? Not
really.
Sure, it isn't completely reliable, but there are thousands of eyes monitoring it. When someone makes an obviously inaccurate edit, someone else will usually pounce to fix it. In the meantime, the uncertainty encourages a different, more skeptical sort of reading.
Those thousands of eyes are monitoring some of it. The open source
software system has had some of the same problems, acknowledged by
some open source advocates: The 'many eyes' theory tends find all
the eyes looking at the rock star stuff, but very few eyes going
over the detials of drudge and tedium.
2. When someone fixes (corrects), someone can come back and
uncorrect it just as quickly. Wikipedia does not move towards
accuracy, it moves towards accuracy and inaccuracy at the same
time. Wiki has addressed this to some degree, by doing what? Making
it more top-down. Locking articles etc.
3. Uncertainty encourages a skeptical sort of reading, especially
for Wikipedia. The problem with a source like Wikipedia is that we
know there is a tremendous amount of bad or inaccurate fact. Most
of us don't know what percentage is good, and what is bad, so out
of self defense, we kind of have to discard it all.
Again, I think Wikipedia is a great tool for raising questions
about the nature of knowledge across a broad spectrum of people. It
has value. It's just hard to quantify.
Paul|4.29.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Also, it's interesting that so many bloggers link to WP,
when WP strongly discourages linking to blogs, and when the very
word "blog" is a pejorative to many there.
Interesting. Wikipedia is, in essence, a blog of knowledge.
|4.29.08 @ 3:32PM|#
I do remember one where Curious George goes to the hospital
and drops ether. That one is my favorite.
I think I had a t-shirt back when I was in high school with an
image depicting C.G. lying unconscious next to a bottle of ether.
Is there really a book like that? I always just thought the cartoon
on the shirt was just a blanket pro-drugs statement.
|4.29.08 @ 3:34PM|#
As long as you make significant contributions to the wikimedia foundation, you can do whatever you want on wikipedia. Truthiness shall set you free!
robc|4.29.08 @ 3:35PM|#
A few years back, a came up with a wikipedia game. The idea was
to set some time limit (like 30 or 90 days) and to put something
false on wikipedia that would last past the time limit. The crazier
the lie, the more common the page and the ability to get it cited
elsewhere would all add to your points. Length of time could also
be a point getter.
The author of the Curious George BS wins.
Ska|4.29.08 @ 3:38PM|#
After a little searching, the title is Curious George Takes
a Job.
I can't believe I've never seen the shirt, yet remember the book so
vividly. Funny what sticks from childhood memories.
Bingo|4.29.08 @ 3:45PM|#
2 months ago I made a substantial edit to an article that makes it factually inaccurate and it still hasn't been reverted! Eat that suckers hahaha!
|4.29.08 @ 3:50PM|#
What does huffing ether have to do with getting a job -- and more importantly, where can I find a job like that?
Kolohe|4.29.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Wikipedia is awesome for
1) 80% answer to stuff you have no idea about
2) quick refresher to some more obscure fact in a field you are
familiar with.
3) pop culture trivia
It sucks for everything and anything else.
True fact: I just used wikipedia to answer a question on < a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_rate">sampling rate
that my boss asked me about 3 min ago.
Jolly Bloger|4.29.08 @ 3:53PM|#
I should point out that the quoted section has already been removed from the Wiki article. While the information itself may not be totally reliable, it is a great starting point to find more reliable sources through the footnotes, and a more casual source of information for the majority of readers not doing academic research.
Orange Line Special|4.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#
A few years back, a came up with a wikipedia game. The idea
was to set some time limit (like 30 or 90 days) and to put
something false on wikipedia that would last past the time
limit.
I'm not going to bother searching for it, but there's a UK online
newsletter that runs things like that. They were involved in some
way (IIRC) with the Sinbad issue from some months back.
Here's the official WP policy strongly discouraging against using
blogs as sources: tinyurl.com/55gknb
And, if you don't see anything wrong with WP, see if you can tell
what's wrong with this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site
Give
up?
|4.29.08 @ 3:55PM|#
My one and only substantial contribution to wikipedia.
Shaggy God
story
Amazingly, it wasn't immediately rewritten or or deleted.
robc|4.29.08 @ 4:02PM|#
SugarFree,
I may have to edit that Shaggy God article. Doesnt mention to
obvious Niven stories: Protector and What Can You Say
About Chocolate Covered Manhole Covers?
robc|4.29.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Actually, rereading, maybe they dont fit. Those stories explain
what "really" happened, not allegories.
For those not familiar, in Protector, it turns out the fruit in the
Garden of Eden was the plant that Pak breeders eat to turn into
protectors. Humans are descendents of those Pak, the plant went bad
on earth and so we never have had any 3rd stage
(child->breeder->protector) protectors.
In Manhole, the Adam/Eve story turns out to be near true, its
actually done with 2 males and 2 females, humans are being
carefully bred by an alien race to make an intelligent slave
race.
BakedPenguin|4.29.08 @ 4:14PM|#
...including such unforgettable tales as Curious George Goes to Jail and Curious George Does LSD.
Considering the title of the thread, "Curious George Gets Nookie"
was probably the most appropriate fanfic title there.
Jesse Walker|4.29.08 @ 4:16PM|#
I should point out that the quoted section has already been
removed from the Wiki article.
I figured that would happen. But "already" is a stretch, given that
it sat there for over a year before I called attention to it.
While the information itself may not be totally reliable, it is
a great starting point to find more reliable sources through the
footnotes, and a more casual source of information for the majority
of readers not doing academic research.
Yes, that's why I'm pro-Wikipedia. Well, that and the fact that
they have the good sense to reject Lonewacko as a source.
|4.29.08 @ 4:23PM|#
robc,
Edit away. I've been building up stories to add to the list, I just
haven't got around to it yet.
Shaggy god stories are a bit hard to separate away from The Last
Man On Earth genre. I've been sorting them for awhile.
Speaking of Last Man stories, Turner Classic Movies is showing
The World, The
Flesh, and The Devil on May 9th at 9:45pm EST. Never
released on DVD in the US, I've only seen it once at the George
Eastman House Film Preservative Archives in Rochester, NY. Double
feature with Panic In The Year
Zero.
I think I wouldn't mind being the Last Man on Earth if Inger
Stevens was the Last Woman...
Episiarch|4.29.08 @ 4:32PM|#
I see you mention Moorcock, NutraSweet. You an Elric fan like me? Or a sissy Hawkmoon fan?
|4.29.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Epi,
Neither really. The only stuff of his I ever liked was the Jerry
Cornelius novels.
You may need Moorcock, but I can get by on just Philip K. Dick.
|4.29.08 @ 4:36PM|#
I edit Wikipedia if I deem it necessary, but my fear of the
WikiOverlords often stays my hand.
Seriously- if you piss them off, they'll hit you with the banhammer
so hard you'll shit blood. Things that piss off the the Wiki Sith
Lords include: disagreeing with them, arguing with them, editing
articles which they feel they own, and knowing more about something
than they do.
Episiarch|4.29.08 @ 4:48PM|#
You may need Moorcock, but I can get by on just Philip K.
Dick.
I guess you'll just have to Brin and Bear it.
Charles|4.29.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Oh, Lonewacko, you delightful bigot. Wikipedia being one of your bizarre obsessive hatreds is almost too perfect. I would also like to nominate Sara Lee baked goods, any flowering plant not native to the Americas, and umbrellas to add to your list.
|4.29.08 @ 4:56PM|#
But, seriously, I do have a very large Dick. Collection. Of
books.
I have a very large collection of Philip K. Dick books, I
mean.
And my penis is staggeringly vast.
(spot the obscure sitcom ref.)
|4.29.08 @ 4:59PM|#
(spot the obscure sitcom ref.)
Coupling? The (good) British one, not the (bad but with
awesome actors) American one?
My penis is like an enormous train, BTW.
|4.29.08 @ 5:02PM|#
grylliade,
Sweet.
"They're just fat litter! Pets for furniture!"
What a fine series, until the implosion during the fourth
season...
Orange Line Special|4.29.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Jesse Walker writes: Yes, that's why I'm pro-Wikipedia.
Well, that and the fact that they have the good sense to reject
Lonewacko as a source.
How wonderfully cute. However, I don't see a response to any of my
points above. And, while others may disagree with my conclusions on
various things, I'm also quite credible, having to make only a few
corrections at most after several thousand posts. I've only deleted
a few non-spam comments, and I'm not aware of anyone offering a
correction to something I wrote in comments. If Walker has an
example of me getting facts wrong, feel free to point it out.
And, of course, I'm not the only blogger out there, so supporting
WP's braindead policy just because it would exclude me is kind of
stupid, no?
Episiarch|4.29.08 @ 5:10PM|#
I have noticed a MarkedIncrease in LoneWacko's HostilityToReason (in multiple senses) recently. Did you ChangeYourMeds, dude? Go back to the PreviousOnes.
|4.29.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Speaking of Last Man stories, Turner Classic Movies is
showing The World, The Flesh, and The Devil on May 9th at 9:45pm
EST. Never released on DVD in the US, I've only seen it once at the
George Eastman House Film Preservative Archives in Rochester, NY.
Double feature with Panic In The Year Zero.
Thanks for the heads up!
Jennifer|4.29.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Lonewacko, I've been linked in Wikipedia at least twice that I
know of, and I'll tell you how I did it: CashPayments to the
MexicanGovernment.
I was smart enough to do this back when the AmericanDollar was
relatively strong compared to the peso, too. That's because I have
what you would call ForeSight.
the innominate one|4.29.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Yes, that's why I'm pro-Wikipedia. Well, that and the fact
that they have the good sense to reject Lonewacko as a
source.
nice burn, Jesse
LoneWacko, we don't care about the issues you care about, because
you care enough for all of us. so keep it up! but go away.
|4.29.08 @ 5:30PM|#
What a fine series, until the implosion during the fourth season...
And even then it was watchable.
However, I don't see a response to any of my points above.
Make a point for him to respond to first.
|4.29.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Someone should do a "ten most outragous articles" on WP poll. For example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period, which cites "The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" and other nonsense.
Jennifer|4.29.08 @ 5:39PM|#
However, I don't see a response to any of my points
above.
What points? "I have a ShitLoad of blog posts and they won't link
to any of them and they do nothing to improve my SearchEngine
rankings, boo hoo."
robc|4.29.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Wasnt Coupling (the british one) originally a ripoff of Friends? I found it amusing when Hollywood then ripped it back off to make an american version. While Friends was still on.
|4.29.08 @ 5:46PM|#
robc,
Yes. Americans didn't watch the American remake of the British
remake of an American sitcom.
The American Coupling was sort of like a pretty girl's
ugly sister. All the parts were the same but the placement was
horribly botched.
|4.29.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Wasnt Coupling (the british one) originally a ripoff of Friends?
Other than the fact that there were three men and three women in
the main cast, not many similarities to me. And I'm not saying that
out of disdain for Friends; I liked the show, and watched
it when it was on, and I still like watching reruns.
Coupling was much more biting than Friends.
|4.29.08 @ 5:53PM|#
grylliade,
And the girls were better looking and the "Chandler" analog was
much funnier. Combine that with "The Cupboard of Patrick's Love"
and you had a fine show.
Rimfax|4.29.08 @ 6:21PM|#
lonewacko,
You don't seem to understand any of the Wikipedia policies that
make it manageable. You definitely don't appear to understand
"Assume Good Faith" or "Reliable Sources". You see a conspiracy, we
see you acting like a jerk who doesn't appear to listen to what
anyone says who disagrees with you.
The Wikipedia is large enough that it is similar to modern culture
in that you can browse for years and not intersect even a fraction
of everyone else's browsing. The Wikipedia that I Watch has it's
share of vandals and crypto-vandals. Sometimes, it takes a new
vandal to make old crypto-vandalism stand out for deletion.
"Assume Good Faith" works in favor of the crypto-vandals, which is
what makes them lower scum than the "YOU SUCK" vandals. They are
using the good faith of the community against it.
So, remember the next time that you add sane-sounding bullshit to
an article, there are probably a dozen people who see that edit
come through on their watch list. All of them suspect that it is
bullshit, but they assume good faith and either tag it with a fact
tag or they hope someone else does.
In other words, you're not really fooling anyone. You're just being
indulged by someone else's good faith.
Orange Line Special|4.29.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Congratulations to Reason! One person out of about thirty has
tried (but failed) to rebut my points above.
What I've witnessed over and over is that when I put negative
information about a leftwing group into WP, it tends to disappear
after a while. I might put it back, but there it goes again. While
some of that has been links to my sites, others have not.
It's clear that Rimfax has no clue about the entries at the site I
linked in my first post, my entries at my main site dealing with
this issue, or the edits I made from about 2005-2007. The bottom
line is that I provided much-needed information to several
articles, and almost all of it was removed eventually.
The burden of proof is on Rimfax to present examples of me entering
incorrect or unnecessary information. Otherwise, it's just arguing
from ignorance.
the innominate one|4.29.08 @ 6:44PM|#
it's just arguing from ignorance.
you've described yourself perfectly
Paul|4.29.08 @ 6:50PM|#
A few years back, a came up with a wikipedia game. The idea
was to set some time limit (like 30 or 90 days) and to put
something false on wikipedia that would last past the time
limit.
Case in point. We've got people who actually use it as a playground
for spreading urban legend. Not that there's anything wrong with
that.
Paul|4.29.08 @ 6:53PM|#
disagreeing with them, arguing with them, editing articles
which they feel they own, and knowing more about something than
they do.
Jim Bob: I've run across this, too. It's the whole top-down irony
of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is strangely top-down, until it isn't.
|4.29.08 @ 7:53PM|#
I've been a long time wikipedia contributor, and in all that time have made exactly one malicious edit. Mostly because one hit wonder Wall of Voodoo can suck it.
Mike Laursen|4.30.08 @ 12:49AM|#
WP is very stingy on links, so if something's there there's
a good chance that someone higher-up wants it there for some
agenda-based reason or there was some sort of fight over it before
it was allowed to remain.
In the right context, you might have had a good point. But
considering the context for your comment is a discussion of
misinformation in a Wikipedia article about Curious George, this
has to be the most hilariously paranoid comment you have ever
made.
Beavis|4.30.08 @ 4:56AM|#
"You may need Moorcock, but I can get by on just Philip K.
Dick."
Awesome, it's like, une embarrasse do richesse, or something, huh
huh, huh huh.
Moorcock, huh huh.
Rimfax|4.30.08 @ 7:42AM|#
Mike Laursen,
Bikeshedding is one of the most popular pastimes on the Wikipedia.
The smaller the minutiae, the bigger the agendas. An argument about
capitalization can take tens of megabytes.
Rimfax|4.30.08 @ 8:12AM|#
lonewacko,
Sorry, it didn't take as long as I'd thought.
Conclusion
lonewacko's source is obviously ineligible per WP:External Links
and WP:Reliable
Sources. Reams of editorial, blog, or inexpert forum content is
still reams of unsupporting sources. Regardless, Jsw663 still threw
you a bone and you didn't even bother to respond on the
arbitration page.
In fact, your only contribution to your own arbitration was to make
an opening statement. No offer of compromise and no acknowledgment
of the options left open to you.
Your "conspiracy" of liberals removing your link consisted of one
editor who realized that your link violated several policies,
including the one on self-promotion.
David Gerard|4.30.08 @ 8:25AM|#
The creative stuff should, of course, go on Uncyclopedia instead ;-)
Ash Lux|4.30.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Rimfax, I agree with your conclusion about lonewacko's issues.
It is against policy to use your own website, blogs, forums, etc.
as a source on Wikipedia. Adding/editing information about
yourself is no good.
And if you're going to use arbitration, it works best if you don't
start the process than stop communicating altogether.
Orange Line Special|4.30.08 @ 3:01PM|#
My response is at the link. Aren't there higher-quality libertarians around?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245