Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ah yes, the Wikipedia approach.

> Required XKCD quote: http://www.xkcd.com/978/

  I think there was an actual case of exactly that. Apparently a wikivandal
had added an additional name to a person's biografy in wikipedia. It was one
of those people who had a really long list of names (like eg. Picasso,
although I'm pretty sure it was not him in this case). Some magazine or
newspaper then copied the entire name, the fake one included, verbatim from
wikipedia. Then someone added the reference to wikipedia.

  Of course in this case checking the fact is relatively simple, as long as
someone notices it and bothers to check: Since wikipedia keeps a log of the
entire history of the page, check if the ostensibly fake name was added
before or after the name's appearance in the referenced magazine. If the
magazine is newer than the date that the name was added, it's immediately
suspect.

  I think that should be a rule in wikipedia: All references *must* be older
than the page which includes the (purported) fact being referenced. If it's
newer, then it's not reliable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message