• After a half-decade, massive Wikipedia hoax finally exposed
    57 replies, posted
[url]http://www.dailydot.com/news/wikipedia-bicholim-conflict-hoax-deleted/[/url] Up until a week ago, here is something you could have learned from Wikipedia: From 1640 to 1641 the might of colonial Portugal clashed with India's massive Maratha Empire in an undeclared war that would later be known as the Bicholim Conflict. Named after the northern Indian region where most of the fighting took place, the conflict ended with a peace treaty that would later help cement Goa as an independent Indian state. Except none of this ever actually happened. The Bicholim Conflict is a figment of a creative Wikipedian's imagination. It's a huge, laborious, 4,500 word hoax. And it fooled Wikipedia editors for more than 5 years. But even exposed and deleted, Wikipedia's influence over the Web is such that the Bicholim Conflict continues to persist, like a resilient parasite. The perpetrator of the hoax is a mystery. Wikipedia admins deleted the edit history along with the article. Users of the Wikipediocracy forum have pinned down a likely suspect, however, a Wikipedian who went by the handle "A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a." He or she authored a big chunk of the article's text, and also nominated it for "featured Article" standing in October 2007, writing: "I'm nominating this article for featured article because after much work I believe it has reached its maximum potential. It is not a very huge event and doesn't have more than a few chapters in literature based on it but I've still created the article to quite a good size." "Featured Article" status is a bit of a badge of honor on Wikipedia, a recognition bestowed to only the highest quality pieces on the site. Out of more than 4 million English Wikipedia articles, only 3,772 are "featured." Thankfully the Bicholim Conflict didn't pass muster—editors who reviewed it cited an overreliance on a few weak sources, never realizing that those sources never existed in the first place. And the Bicholim Conflict was still labelled a "Good Article," a status it had received just two months after being created in July, 2007. That status is a step down from featured, but still a designation given to less than 1 percent of all English-language articles on the site. Enter Wikipedian-detective ShelfSkewed, who decided in late December, for no apparent reason, to delve into the article's sources. What he found was pretty amazing: None of the books used as source material in the article appeared to exist. On Dec. 29, 2012, ShelfSkewed nominated the whole thing for deletion: After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the [Oxford University Press] site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. He or she added: "Ridiculous." Six other editors agreed. And with that, the five-and-a-half-year lie was finally snuffed out of existence. A half-decade sounds like a long time. But while impressive, seven other Wikipedia hoaxes have actually lived longer. These include an article on a supposed torture device called "Crocodile Shears" (which persisted for six years and four months) and one on Chen Fang, a Harvard University student who, intent to demonstrate the limitations of Wikipedia, named himself the mayor of a small Chinese town. It took more than seven years for Wikipedia editors to finally strip Chen of that mayorship. And then there's the case of Gaius Flavius Antoninus, whose Wikipedia page described him as a perpetrator in one of the most famous events in history—the assassination of Julius Caesar. "He was later murdered by a male prostitute hired by Mark Antony," the Wikipedia entry told us. Antoninus, like the Bicholim Conflict, never existed. The hoax evaded Wikipedia's legions of volunteers for more than eight years, until it was finally uncovered in July, 2012, and similarly purged from existence. Except, not really. While Wikipedia editors do their best to battle the army of trolls and vandals who disrupt the millions of articles on the site, the scams continue to live on elsewhere. There is a small club of Wikipedia copycat sites on the Internet, which scrape, copy, and paste the encyclopedia's content en masse to their own sites, then plaster it with ads (copying Wikipedia content is legal under its Creative Commons license). So while the Bicholim Conflict is now dead on Wikipedia, it still persists on the "New World Encyclopedia" and "Encyclo". And for just $20, you can buy a hard copy.
Well this certainly beats replacing Mitt Romney's article with the word cumguzzler. I tip my hat to the hoaxer
[QUOTE] So while the Bicholim Conflict is now dead on Wikipedia, it still persists on the "New World Encyclopedia" and "Encyclo". [/QUOTE] You know it's a well done hoax when...
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39094168]And then there's the case of Gaius Flavius Antoninus, whose Wikipedia page described him as a perpetrator in one of the most famous events in history—the assassination of Julius Caesar. "He was later murdered by a male prostitute hired by Mark Antony," the Wikipedia entry told us. Antoninus, like the Bicholim Conflict, never existed. The hoax evaded Wikipedia's legions of volunteers for more than eight years, until it was finally uncovered in July, 2012, and similarly purged from existence..[/QUOTE] That's pretty impressive, especialy seeing as the subject is so widely studied. It is my fondest hope that it snuck into at least one junior high paper.
[QUOTE=Damoman;39094305]That's pretty impressive, especialy seeing as the subject is so widely studied. It is my fondest hope that it snuck into at least one junior high paper.[/QUOTE] I'm sure it has! hahaha
That must be so embarrasing for Wikipedia. Also proves that not everything you read on wikipedia is 100% true. It makes my guts boil when someone disagrees with a freaking doctor about ways of medicine because he red on Wikipedia that xyz.
Wow. [url=http://xkcd.com/978/]One of the few times xkcd has actually been funny or, such as in this case, relevant.[/url]
[QUOTE=proch;39094418]That must be so embarrasing for Wikipedia. Also proves that not everything you read on wikipedia is 100% true. It makes my guts boil when someone disagrees with a freaking doctor about ways of medicine because he red on Wikipedia that xyz.[/QUOTE] Yeah, only trust articles that actually have valid citations.
[QUOTE=smurfy;39094235]Well this certainly beats replacing Mitt Romney's article with the word cumguzzler. I tip my hat to the hoaxer[/QUOTE] that's beautiful, and so is the OP some people are creative, sneaky motherfuckers
[QUOTE=Last or First;39094466]Wow. [url=http://xkcd.com/978/]One of the few times xkcd has actually been funny or, such as in this case, relevant.[/url][/QUOTE] Xkcd is ALWAYS relevant.
The thing to note is that it really didn't lie about anything that actually happened chances are it was just someones joke project, then when wikipedia baseme-mods couldn't find the book they figured it was some old out of print relic
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39094168]From 1640 to 1641 the might of colonial Portugal clashed with India's massive Maratha Empire in an undeclared war that would later be known as the Bicholim Conflict. Named after the northern Indian region where most of the fighting took place, the conflict ended with a peace treaty that would later help cement Goa as an independent Indian state[/QUOTE] someone did this on empire total war and then wrote about it
They should have kept it on wikipedia and edited to to state that it was a hoax. Wikipedia has destroyed history. very disappointing.
And kids still bitch and whine why their professors and teachers tell them to not use internet sources much, if at all.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094919]And kids still bitch and whine why their professors and teachers tell them to not use internet sources much, if at all.[/QUOTE] what the hell kind of professor disallows internet sources in the year 2013?
[QUOTE=Lazor;39094949]what the hell kind of professor disallows internet sources in the year 2013?[/QUOTE] Many, actually.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094955]Many, actually.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]
Even if it totally wasn't real, this "Bicholim Conflict" could still make for an interesting alternate history setting.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094919]And kids still bitch and whine why their professors and teachers tell them to not use internet sources much, if at all.[/QUOTE] It depends what you mean by internet sources. With sites like JStor and Questia as well as the inordinate amount of newspaper backlogs that can be found online, the internet has made research a heck of a lot easier and far more comprehensive than it ever was before. Obviously there are plenty of crap sources online but even wikipedia is useful for the citations provided, which can lead to legitimate, useful sources when researching.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094955]Many, actually.[/QUOTE] Any internet sources, or just Wikipedia? Wikipedia I could understand, but disallowing any internet source is just ridiculous because it contains a great deal of information that isn't in print. Online periodicals and journals and whatnot.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094919]And kids still bitch and whine why their professors and teachers tell them to not use internet sources much, if at all.[/QUOTE] Because a small handful of articles being false out of four million articles is a good reason to ignore quality sources. Books are found to be false all the time, but we don't see anyone restricting those now do we.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094955]Many, actually.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't in my opinion, they should teach them how to find information on the Internet and how to know if it's valid or not instead of just outright banning it's use, either that or just simply grade the student accordingly, I'm sure he'll figure out that the Internet isn't right all the time. I mean, this kind of school work that requires sources are made to teach students how to hunt for information so why the hell not allow Internet sources? In this day and age it's invaluable to know how to search for correct information on the Internet.
Also for some reason when I opened this thread I expected the hoax to be about the donations thing they always have on the top of the screen. Thanks for breaking my automerge
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39094955]Many, actually.[/QUOTE] Mine don't they just say if your getting it from the internet be sure its factual.
[QUOTE=Dr. Faustus;39095112]It depends what you mean by internet sources. With sites like JStor and Questia as well as the inordinate amount of newspaper backlogs that can be found online, the internet has made research a heck of a lot easier and far more comprehensive than it ever was before. Obviously there are plenty of crap sources online but even wikipedia is useful for the citations provided, which can lead to legitimate, useful sources when researching.[/QUOTE] JStor is a database. There is a difference between "an online source" and "a source that is online". Online databases, such as JStor, have never been considered "online source" by any of my professors.
tehe there is one tiny edit I made that is still there unchanged for a year already.
[QUOTE=Bentham;39095128]Any internet sources, or just Wikipedia? Wikipedia I could understand, but disallowing any internet source is just ridiculous because it contains a great deal of information that isn't in print. Online periodicals and journals and whatnot.[/QUOTE] Online periodicals and journals are not "online sources", like wikipedia would be.
Is there somewhere where I can read it?
Good thing I had history lessons, in which I've never ever heard of this either.
[QUOTE=Damoman;39094305]That's pretty impressive, especialy seeing as the subject is so widely studied. It is my fondest hope that it snuck into at least one junior high paper.[/QUOTE] I am currently a sophomore in college. When I was a freshman, I had a class about basic Roman history, and I swear to god I've heard this name before. Gaius is a common name. [editline]4th January 2013[/editline] And one that's seen often in Roman politics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.