Re: Lewis mention in Wikipedia
- I sent this a few days ago but it apparently was not posted on the list
(perhaps I'm being moderated for bad behavior? Grin).
If it was moderated, can the mods just delete that previous post to
avoid double posting? Thanks.
I'll post it again, for what it's worth. My sole point (if I have one)
being that perhaps there is a personal motivation for this hoax, not an
"attack" on New College, per se.
I'm not a Wikipedia contributor, so am not entirely sure how the
behind-the-scenes talk goes on, but this entry has been discussed
before. I can't really tell if the person who posted the response (which
is noted as coming from "AlcockMarine") is or is not in reality Franck
Alcock, who is listed as a co-author and is at New College.
For what it's worth:
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
, 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
dit&redlink=1> ) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) It still reads "Journal
of AA of R" at the wikipedia site, though. Perhaps 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--or is it? Frank Alcock is on staff at New College
and is (or was) director of a "Marine Policy Institute".
<http://184.108.40.206/PublicAffairs/Documents/Alcock.htm> Not sure
what I think anyone wants to do with all this "intuition" and Googling
on my part, though. Grin. mary
--- In email@example.com, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:
> Hi, Wendell,
> At the risk of making a mountain out of an almost off-topic molehill,
let me try to clarify my own earlier comments, which I think (and hope)
will address yours as well. Others, please feel free to ignore this
entire message, if you aren't interested in the subject.
> > I think you all completely missed my point when I
> > said that this hoax was obscure and pointless.
> I don't think we're missing your point, but you did also ask
*why* someone would bother. I was making a stab at answering that
question e.g., vanity, an axe to grind with those professors, the
school, or literary theory, etc.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Is it aimed at the one of the professors? Why claim that the article wasExcuse me, Wendell, but I would think that the professors would care very
> written by six professors then? Why would any professor care that he was
> listed as one of the authors of a hoax article, and why put the only
> mention of
> this article in the Wikipedia article where no one would think about it
> being a
> hoax for months?
much that a bogus scholarly citation was out there on the internet with
their names attached. Particularly (as seems likely given the somewhat
insulting topic of "the paper") if the subject matter was quite contrary
to their own opinions and beliefs.
Someone somewhere could easily add this bit of joke-crap to a bibliography
of one of those professors, which would then be picked up and repeated by
anyone else referring to any of the professors.
It is an unfortunate truth that there are MANY people who think that the
more something is repeated on the internet, the truer it is. After 18
years of being obliged to find *independant* second sources on facts, I've
seen how easy it is to spread "information" on the net.
So... again, I think the professors would indeed be concerned with
something like this, which could easily turn into a professional mess for
them. Maybe only an irritating one, but a mess none the less.