>Several books have the false info too
Sounds like we shouldn't trust books blindly, either.
Is there a source we can trust blindly?
Sounds like we shouldn't trust books blindly, either.
Is there a source we can trust blindly?
But I've even seen University Press books get tripped up by Wikipedia. See the "Coati" example on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...
The thing is, this would have been avoidable. If Wikipedia tells you someone called J. Bloggs invented some kind of gadget 100 years ago, you can do a Google Books search to see if there are any 20th-century sources saying so.
If there aren't, then Wikipedia is having you on. Alan MacMasters is not the only example: exactly the same thing happened with the inventor of the hair-straightener. See Example 16 here:
https://www.theregister.com/2017/01/16/wikipedia_16_birthday...
- What often happens when a person is surprised to learn something: they assume most other people don't know it and become eager to repeat it without further nuance or investigation. Like moon landing conspiracy theorists who learn that there are no stars in the photos.
- The hazing, elitist attitude surrounding knowledge. I suffered, therefore you should suffer. From this perspective, it doesn't make sense for there to be a gargantuan, selfless compilation of knowledge more accessible than any library in history. It must be wrong.
- People are lazy and will paraphrase the Wiki page that appears at the top of a web search for the topic.
It's much easier to say Wikipedia can't be trusted than to instil upon pupils an understanding of epistemology, a distrust of what authority figures tell them, an appreciation of academic honesty, and the knowledge of how to construct a good bibliography.