Week9.1（4.29Mon)Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia（bailinhan)

 Summarize:

This Wikipedia page details a series of scams that have appeared on Wikipedia. These cases include various types of deception, from fictional characters to fabricated historical events to fabricated scientific research. Some scams may be simple misinformation, while others are carefully planned and disguised. The page also provides a description of each scam and related links for readers to learn more about. These scams highlight the challenges Wikipedia faces as an open editorial platform that requires ongoing efforts to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of its content.

An academic study investigates the impact and characteristics of Wikipedia hoaxes and proposes ways to automatically detect them. The study found that automated classification systems performed better than humans at identifying hoaxes on Wikipedia (86% accuracy vs. 63%), and used their algorithms to identify previously undetected hoaxes, such as "Steve... Mortel”, these pranks went undetected for nearly 7 years.

Ways to identify hoaxes include examining the article structure and content, its connections to other Wikipedia articles (i.e., embeddedness), and the characteristics of the editor who created the page. Hoax articles are likely to be longer than legitimate articles, less likely to link to other Wikipedia articles, references, images, or other "Wiki-like" markup, and less likely to be mentioned in other Wikipedia articles prior to their creation, and More likely to be created by a new account with few or no other editors.

While most hoaxes on Wikipedia are short-lived (89% of hoaxes are flagged within an hour of being created, and only 1% last more than a year), those that make it through initial screening have a longer "survival" "Potential (18% chance of lasting a year or more if the prank survives the first day). Long-standing successful hoaxes are more likely to contain some "Wiki-like" markup than unsuccessful hoaxes, and are more likely to contain links to other articles on Wikipedia. Compared to legitimate articles, successful hoaxes typically receive less traffic per day, have a longer median article length (134 words vs. 71 words), and contain links to other Wikipedia articles when considering their article length less.、

 

Interesting points:

This page lists some interesting scams that have appeared on Wikipedia. Some of these scams can be shocking because of how successfully they are fabricated and mislead readers over a period of time. Other cases may make people laugh because of their absurdity or creativity. Some scams may make you think about how Wikipedia works and the importance of trustworthiness of information. Additionally, you may find scams that expose how the Wikipedia editorial community works together to detect and correct misinformation, which also demonstrates Wikipedia's uniqueness as an open, collaborative platform.

 

question:

What examples in this list of scams make us think about the challenges of trustworthiness and editing of online content?

How do these cases highlight the evolution and dissemination of information in the digital age?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Introduction to the blog

 This blog is a digital forum where students from Collective Intelligence in Practice: Understanding Wikipedia at the Hanyang University in Korea (2024) will discuss their weekly readings and activities. Each week you are expected to post a blog post on our blog and make a comment on another student's post. You can do so on one of the following three topics: a) You can blog about the readings for the next week. As you are expected to do the assigned readings FOR the lectures they are assigned to, you are expected to post your blog and comments BEFORE that lecture. An ideal commentary should be about half a page in length (~200 words), divided into three clearly labeled sections in which you: 1) summarize in your own words of materials you read; 2) mention any new, interesting, or unusual items learned; 3) identify at least one question, concern, or discussion angle that is either problematic in some respect or could have been elaborated more. This question is likely to be...
Read more

W10.2 May 10 (Fri)—CHENG SHIYI

1.Summary   Remix culture is a culture that allows and encourages the creation of derivative works through the editing of existing material, challenges exclusive copyright restrictions, promotes the idea of remixing, and facilitates the free flow of creativity. In Remix, Lessig describes the shift from a read-only culture to a read/write culture, where the advent of digital technology has redefined the way culture is created and distributed in ways that facilitate the interactive relationship between producers and consumers and democratize the production of ideas and the distribution of content. The history of remix culture dates back to the 19th century, e.g.: according to American media scholar Henry Jenkins, but the balance between creation and consumption shifted with the advancement of analog recording and reproduction technologies.The analog era of the early 20th century, with its specialized creative equipment and cheap consumer devices, led to the strengthening of proprieta...
Read more

W1.1 Intro class: intro to class, blog, wiki and other assignments——CHENG SHIYI

1. Summary  I have taken classes from you, the professor, before and have always been interested in Wikipedia, so I chose to take your class this semester regardless. I understand from your introduction to all the courses in the lecture that this semester's Collective Intelligence in Practice course is centered around Wikipedia, which I understand is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that Wikipedia brings together knowledge from around the world. One of the quotes in your course syllabus is that Technocrati's chief technologist says that soon "Wiki-knowledge will be a required job skill." Wikipedia, a non-profit encyclopedic website, is ranked among the top 5 most popular websites in the world, all thanks to a little bit of contribution from volunteers in the world. I see from this that the Collective Intelligence in Practice program understands Collective Intelligence on the Internet through Wikipedia from a sociological perspective. There are many ways to s...
Read more