Hacker News Reader

Comment by qudade | Hacker News Reader

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.

View on HN

I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff.

Have you ever tried changing something on Wikipedia regarding politics (which now includes several health issues) or religion?

Edit: also, I did write "I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited." and yet you're suggesting I get into that argument. I quite clearly don't want to because it's pointless, and we had years of it anyway.

> I can point you to several pages that are protected by groups of interested admins that will make changing even blatantly obvious misinformation impossible, let alone contentious stuff.

Please do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46664426

Responded there.

"If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected."

It depends on its nature.

Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.

If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus.

I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.

My go-to example is the "Constitution" of Medina[1]

> It is widely considered to be one of the first written constitutions of mankind.

Now go to the page on constitutions in history[2] and see how far down the list that one is.

Now go back to the Constitution of Medina (itself an example of misinformation, since it should be charter or even more precisely, treaty, but those protecting the page have meddled with the title too) and look at the reference it uses[3] and what it says to get a feel for the kind of "reference" that is being used there, and then try and update said Wikipedia page by removing the parts about its being the first.

The talk pages of both show that invested groups have been trying to force their views, and they've done it quite successfully.

Let us all know how you get on with that, and then I'll point you to the next example, and the next example…

Some other notable things to check are co-founder Larry Sanger's 9 theses[4], and the news that broke yesterday about a PR firm doing "Wikilaundering"[5].

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_devel...

[3] https://journalijcar.org/issues/first-written-constitution-w...

[4] https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/#1-end-decision-making-b...

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/16/pr-firm-p...

I don't really understand how you've come to that conclusion. If you look at the protection log[1], Constitution of Medina was protected in 2016 for a bit under a month, and never outside of that. The "earliest constitution" was also discussed in 2016[2][3], and there was consensus not to include the claim. Then, in November 2025, it was re-added by a new editor who made no other edits[4]. Looking at the talk page of Constitution, it was discussed exactly once, in 2005[5].

So, next example?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_n... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constitution_of_M... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution/Archive_1#Fi...?

Why is the protection of a page relevant?

Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included?

Why did it have to go to dispute at all?

> So, next example?

Please.

> Why is the protection of a page relevant?

>> those protecting the page have meddled with the title too

> Why is this "consensus not to include the claim" relevant when the claim was already included? Because anyone can dispute anything. But saying it's some kind of agenda by a group of admins is incorrect.

> Why did it have to go to dispute at all? Because someone disputed it. Though, really, it may not have been necessary in this case. You may also refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/One_against_man...

You’re taking those questions too literally. The need for dispute resolution implies a dispute, well done… if you’re in to one-step thinking. Explain how there was a dispute over the facts there and how it wasn’t intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties that have continued to press their case from before that date until now.

Or, you can put it down to an honest mistake or difference of opinion. That really is the oldest written constitution in the world, or it’s got a valid claim to be, and those people don’t want to add any respectability to their pet project.

Tough choice. The phrases “die on that hill” and “never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake” come to mind. Do continue.

I cannot fathom where you get "intentional misinformation pushed by a group of interested parties". You're welcome to read the original dispute at [1]. Such things are not uncommon when collaboratively editing. There doesn't need to be a cabal of editors behind it.

This must be one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Medina/Ar...

Again, please explain how such an obvious piece of misinformation wasn't misinformation but an honest mistake, yet occurring over several years and with several people, some of whom were sock puppets and still it persists in some form.

Explain it. Lay it out.

You seem to be arguing in bad faith, so this will be my last reply.

It does not persist today; I removed it. It occured once, 10 years ago, and again, a few months ago.

"Arguing in bad faith" - what would that actually mean? Would it be the same as using a sock puppet to push an agenda? That wasn't me, that's what I'm pointing out and you're dismissing for no good reason.

Regardless:

- The page is still titled "Constitution…" when the opening paragraph contains "The name "Constitution of Medina" is misleading as the text did not establish a state." Make that make sense.

- "and the first "Constitution"" is still in the page

It persists.

Now, what I might consider bad faith is:

- being unwilling to answer simple, straightforward questions, which is apt, considering Socrates was an Athenian

- having such an interest in the page that you claim you made edits

- not checking properly and thus thinking this only happened twice, and wasn't part of attritional arguments, rollbacks, edits and counter-edits

Wikipedia must be alright if one does not wish to see a problem.

worse yet, you might read some topics and won't expect them to be poisoned with misinformation. Like the Holocaust history in Poland

https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151... https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-th...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com