Week9-Review about the article “List of hoaxes on Wikipedia”-YUJIE 여결

Summary

"List of hoaxes on Wikipedia" includes multiple false entries that existed on the platform for a while and were not even promptly uncovered. This includes fictional plants and animals, historical events, and scientific discoveries. Some parody content is not only mistaken for authentic but has even sparked widespread discussion, undermining Wikipedia's overall trustworthiness.

This phenomenon reflects the challenges faced by open editing platforms in managing content accuracy. Despite Wikipedia's strict review mechanisms, false information can easily spread quickly due to the platform's openness and the fact that anyone can edit content. Therefore, how to balance free editing with information reliability remains a question worth deep consideration.


Interesting points

Some of the hoaxes listed on Wikipedia are quite fascinating. For instance, the "Alsacian rat" was a fabricated animal, complete with fake images and detailed descriptions, which led many readers and even scientists to believe it was real.

Another notable hoax is the "Tokyo Mystery Island," which was presented as a new discovery in Japan. It included falsified maps and a fabricated history, only to be debunked later.

There’s also the "Martian landing on Earth" hoax, claiming aliens visited in the mid-20th century. Despite being clearly absurd, it still managed to mislead some.

These examples highlight how easily misinformation can spread, emphasizing the importance of verifying sources.


Discussion

How can Wikipedia further improve its review mechanism to prevent similar incidents from occurring?


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 (2025) 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 incor...
Read more

Week 1. My Recent Wikipedia Edits - Jeong seolah (정설아)

I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for 'Daegu'.  Daegu, located in the southeastern part of South Korea, is the third-largest urban area in the country, following Seoul and Busan. With a population exceeding 2.3 million, it is the fourth-largest metropolitan city in South Korea and the second-largest in the Yeongnam region after Busan. Often referred to together with the surrounding North Gyeongsang Province as Daegu-Gyeongbuk, this region is home to over 5 million residents. Known for its rich history and vibrant economy, Daegu stands as a key player in South Korea's cultural and industrial landscape. Below is a summary of the changes I contributed. 1) Summarize and link Sights Section:  - Improved clarity by changing “mountains keep many traditional temples” to “the mountains keep many traditional temples.” Mosque Controversy Section:  - Simplified a sentence by removing “and of the authorities.” Festivals Section:  - Made phrasing smoother by changing “tho...
Read more

Week4 - Review about the readings for the next week. - Jo HyeonSeong (조현성)

 1. Summarize in my own words of materials. The book is primarily about the openness of Wikipedia. Openness means that anyone can participate in the creation and editing of articles without any qualifications. Openness can be a double-edged sword. While it means that you can edit without having expert knowledge of a topic, it also means that you can participate even if you have expert knowledge. For experts, articles written by non-experts can come across as inaccurate knowledge, which can anger experts. This anger can also be a catalyst for Wikipedia to continue to improve. However, articles edited only by non-experts can cause misunderstandings and convey incorrect information, so openness can be considered a double-edged sword. In fact, it sometimes causes some conflict, such as Wales' negative stance. Openness also means freedom from copyright, which means anyone can take it and use it anywhere. That is why the knowledge of non-experts can have greater impact. That is why appro...
Read more