 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#The_Onion_taken_seriously
That sounds exactly like something I'd do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That sounds exactly like something I'd do...
http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp
...but even I am not that stupid. o_O
Apparently few things are crazier than religious fanatics.
I believe the phrase is "epic fail".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> That sounds exactly like something I'd do...
bbspot.com has a whole section of their web site dedicated to mocking the
people who fall for their fake news also. (Also known as BBelievers.)
They're not as funny as the Onion, mind.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#The_Onion_taken_seriously
Reminds me of the case where wikipedia (being a user-edited encyclopedia)
inadvertedly created its own sourced fact.
In the article of one of those persons with really many names (like eg.
Pablo Picasso, although I think it was not his article), someone added,
probably as a form of vandalism, an additional fake name in there. This
went for a long time unnoticed, and at least some newspapers/magazines
copied this full name (containing the extraneous name) verbatim from
wikipedia.
At some point someone noticed this extraneous name and demanded for some
references that the person really was named like that. Lo and behold,
references to those newspapers using the name appeared in the article.
Of course the people who added the references didn't know that the
newspaper articles had copied the name from wikipedia.
So now wikipedia had a referenced fact that it had created itself
(until someone figured this whole thing out).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Reminds me of the case where wikipedia (being a user-edited encyclopedia)
> inadvertedly created its own sourced fact.
...
> So now wikipedia had a referenced fact that it had created itself
> (until someone figured this whole thing out).
I vaguely remember something similar with some relatively unknown
football team. Someone put some incorrect fact in the wikipedia page
(IIRC to do with hats the fans wear or something), the local paper
copied it out, then the wikipedia page could source the newspaper article.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 05:24 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion#The_Onion_taken_seriously
>
> Reminds me of the case where wikipedia (being a user-edited encyclopedia)
> inadvertedly created its own sourced fact.
Ah yes. All bugs are shallow given enough eyes, but are all facts
accurate given enough bored Internet surfers with nothing better to do?
I use Wikipedia quite a lot, but I wouldn't want to base any
life-threateningly important decisions on it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
