Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] It took six professors to come up with this?

Expand Messages
  • mwilt
    On a Wiki Talk page at medlibrary (I m not a Wiki contributor so am not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this entry, in which
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 25, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On a "Wiki Talk" page at medlibrary (I'm not a Wiki contributor so am not entirely sure how that works!) there is a brief discussion of this entry, in which "AlcockMarine" responds to questions about the citation for the Lewis article:

      I was mistaken in the second reference- the title is a book chapter not a journal article. I will reinsert the section with the correct reference. AlcockMarine (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

      It still reads "Journal of AA of R" at the wikipedia site, though.

      I suspect (but it's just intuition so I may be mistaken) that the AlcockMarine user who said he would reinsert the text with the correct citation is the same Frank Alcock who is listed as an author of the article (?book chapter?) in question. Frank Alcock is on staff at New College and is (or was) director of a "Marine Policy Institute".

      Not sure what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling on my part, though.

      Grin.

      mary

      **********************
      In a message dated 12/25/2008 12:56:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
      dbratman@... writes:

      Have you considered the possibility that this may be some Wikipedia user's idea of a joke?

      I didn't think of that. The footnote on the Wikipedia page says that it was published in The Journal of the American Academy of Religion. That's a real journal, but I can't find a reference to this article when I search their archives.

      Wendell Wagner


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jason Fisher
      ...   The more believable the hoax, the more likely (and the longer) it will evade the legions of bots and volunteers constantly working to undo this kind of
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > I must say that the business of adding the fake
        > collaboration between the six professors to the
        > Wikipedia entry strikes me as one of the most
        > obscure and pointless jokes I've ever heard of.
        > Why would someone bother to do enough
        > research to use six real professors and a real
        > journal for the place where this hoax article
        > appeared?
         
        The more believable the hoax, the more likely (and the longer) it will evade the legions of bots and volunteers constantly working to undo this kind of "information vandalism". As to why somebody wanted to perpetrate the hoax in the first place, perhaps it was vanity? "Look at me! I can affect the Internet!" (My answer to that: start a blog. :-) Or perhaps the individual has an axe to grind with the school or those professors? I don't pretend to understand the motivation, but the method, yes, that makes good sense to me.
         
        Jason

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steve Schaper
        Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than dead-tree
        Message 3 of 9 , Dec 30, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information
          vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than
          dead-tree encyclopedias is an open question, I think. I don't know the
          answer to that.
        • John D Rateliff
          It s easier to sabotage wikipedia, and easier for them to fix it. By contrast, I found one error introduced into the 1970 edition of BREWER S DICTIONARY OF
          Message 4 of 9 , Dec 30, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            It's easier to sabotage wikipedia, and easier for them to fix it.
            By contrast, I found one error introduced into the 1970 edition
            of BREWER'S DICTIONARY OF PHRASE AND FABLE that's still not been
            fixed thirty-eight years later, and another that dates back more than
            a century. Wikipedia would have both fixed in a day.
            As with all reference books, you check the validity of what you
            don't know by their coverage of what you do, and takes yr chances
            accordingly.
            --JDR

            On Dec 30, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Steve Schaper wrote:
            > Well, even the people working for wikipedia engage in information
            > vandalism and heavy bias from time to time. Whether it is less so than
            > dead-tree encyclopedias is an open question, I think. I don't know the
            > answer to that.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.