Wikipedia vandalism copied by research websites

[[FnG]magnolia]

I teach English in college. Around 2005-2006 I would vandalize Wikipedia in-class to demonstrate why you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a primary source, or a source at all without fact-checking.

One of my targets was Granville T. Woods, chosen purely at random. He was a black inventor in the late 1800s. I added to his page that he made "speed equipment for carriages," telling my class that he was the Summit Racing of the 1800s. It was all a good joke and the Wikipedia page was revised some time later and I forgot about it.

Until last week. I was teaching the class again and I wanted to see what happened with Mr. Woods. The Wikipedia page had no trace of my vandalism, but to my surprise when I googled "speed equipment for carriages," I found the following: http://www.google.com/search?q="speed+equipment+for+carriages"

Over 20 pages with information blatantly stolen from not only Wikipedia, but VANDALIZED Wikipedia. Reference.com, Ask.com, African-AmericanInventors.org all stealing from a vandalized source.

I found it profoundly funny and an excellent example of how Wikipedia has developed to a point that it's a reasonable place to start digging for research, but the web itself is a scary, dangerous place filled with pure garbage.

Whilst utterly awesome and extremely amusing, it does show just how much incorrect info the internet can give you. I wonder how many students have unwittingly handed in utter nonsense in papers or how many online arguments have been won based on incorrect facts started by some prankster

 

[iNPUt]

Wikipedia is ok to find proper sources in the references part, who would dupe that, would be pretty epic.

I did laugh, and did the search..

 

[998cc]

Only trouble is when so many sites "rip" the vandalized info, when you come to google it yourself for fact checking you're let to believe its true.

 

[Edrof]

As someone who is almost constantly researching things I don't know for online and print articles I use Wikipedia all the time. It is great for an introduction to a topic and a the source list often has things in it you might not have found so easily with a Google search.

I'm not at all surprised that the teacher found his 'work' imitated around the net. The web is awash with stolen copy. For example, I wrote this artticle a few months back: The 10 Worst WWF Outfits of the 90s. Enter the title into Google and suddenly pages and pages of links that refer to it appear (including an OcUK thread ). Some even use my work without permission or attribution.

 

[guyfawkes5]

Wikipedia is a good introduction to a basic topic. Articles on more advanced subjects are touch and go based on who's writing it. I was researching a quite specific theoretical historical area and was bemused by the (mis)direction of the article on it after a month or so of research. I'd imagine it would have set me back quite a bit if I read it intially and used it to springboard my research.

 

[Narj]

Some even use my work without permission or attribution.

Flair’s robes were like works of art, incorporating frills, floral motifs, elaborate stitching and sequins by the bucket load. In fact, they often had so much stuff stuck to them that it looked like a child had covered his mother’s dressing gown in super glue and thrown it in a transvestite’s trash can.

Randy Savage was up there with the most eccentric and crazy wrestlers that have ever entered the squared-circle. Not only did his sartorial flair seem to be inspired by a particularly bad LSD trip..

Proper lols!

 

[Morbius]

If it teaches people to double check facts before using them ad verbatim then it's a worthwhile lesson to learn.

 

[apatia77]

Wikipedia is one of the best sites there is.

 

[Vulcan]

 

[Bes]

^^LOL

 

[gillywibble]

Brilliant

 

[Edrof]

snip

That's great.

 

[Cosimo]

[/QUOTE]

:D

It's only a starting point if you are looking into something.

 

[Deadbeat]

Is Usain Bolt faster than a dog?

 

[Energize]

Wikipedia is fine for information as long as you check the sources.

 

[Ziggy]

I teach English in college. Around 2005-2006 I would vandalize Wikipedia in-class to demonstrate why you shouldn't use Wikipedia

What a great teacher. :/

 

[Valentino]

He does sound pretty good doesn't he!

 

[Knight_Of_Zero]

LOL, who would have thought these vandals could be that funny eh?

 

[iviv]

Wikipedia is fine for information as long as you check the sources.

Not always. As mentioned in the OP, someone edits something into wikipedia, some news website researcher sees it, takes it as being fact, and posts an article including the 'fact' and then wikipedia uses that posting as the source.

 

[MikeHunt79]

Not always. As mentioned in the OP, someone edits something into wikipedia, some news website researcher sees it, takes it as being fact, and posts an article including the 'fact' and then wikipedia uses that posting as the source.

Am I right in saying that wrong information has made it into print before now, due to wrong info being used from Wikipedia?