Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1ris | Hacker News Reader

Given that almost all sources that constitute verifiability will happily copy and paste anything that is in wikipedia, it is arbitrary what is verifiable.

If is long enouh in there it will never get out.

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-a-raccoon-became...

View on HN

The brazilian aardvark is an interesting example because it created a genuine fact. It is now also known as the brazilian Aardvark with no caveats. It is more concerning if this happens with statements that aren't as self fulfilling. For example, saying that Elvis is alive to enough people doesn't somehow make it so.

It's possible nowadays with a bit of effort to create entirely new "facts" via a one-two shuffle between news sources and Wikipedia.

First, you publish an article on some news source, asserting the fact.

Then you update Wikipedia with that fact, citing your own article.

Other news sources check Wikipedia, find your new fact, and incorporate it into their own articles. Now you have a bunch of extra sources for your Wikipedia article.

This is called Circular Reporting[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting

And the requisite xkcd joke, in which it is called citogenesis. (Not to be confused with cytogenesis.)

https://m.xkcd.com/978/

And, of course, this then made its way to Wikipedia too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...

Well played, sir.

Except that any reputable "news source" won't let random people post stories with made up facts - and Wikipedia editors will shoot down disreputable sources such as your personal own blog.

Yes, but you just need it to survive long enough to get quoted somewhere more reputable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com