Fake Professor in Wikipedia Storm

In summary: Exactly. That's the problem with Wikipedia. It's a repository of information, but it's also a playground for people who think they know more than they do.Very true. I worked with a post-doc who for some reason loved that cartoon, but I think her poor English must have given it a different meaning to her, because she used it for the most inappropriate situations (like stuck into a slide for lab meeting). Now I don't laugh at the cartoon (because I've seen it so many times), but at remembering her odd usage of it (we had to tell her to take it out of an interview seminar... she was very embarrassed).Apparently, this man is a theology
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Who cares. It's theology.
 
  • #3
But..what if he's got the transsubstantiation wrong??

That would be to propagate heresy, wouldn't it?
 
  • #4
arildno said:
But..what if he's got the transsubstantiation wrong??
All H*** would break loose. :biggrin:
 
  • #6
Astronuc said:
All H*** would break loose. :biggrin:

dontdisturbmycircles said:
What a dummy

I admit that I groaned instead of laughed, but it wasn't that bad of a joke.
 
  • #7
arildno said:
But..what if he's got the transsubstantiation wrong??

God forbid!

arildno said:
That would be to propagate heresy, wouldn't it?

Good. We need more heresy. Means people are thinking. And then they turn dogmatic too and...

Never mind, I'm in bad mood.
 
  • #8
BobG said:
I admit that I groaned instead of laughed, but it wasn't that bad of a joke.
Variable. The joke was that, not the dummy. :smile:
 
  • #9
I have a feeling there is a lot of people like him on Wiki..

few days ago, I was reading the discussion page of Bell theorem, people shouldn't write and edit pages on wiki when they are high...
 
  • #10
ziad1985 said:
I have a feeling there is a lot of people like him on Wiki..

few days ago, I was reading the discussion page of Bell theorem, people shouldn't write and edit pages on wiki when they are high...

They shouldn't have edit wars, either, where one editor deletes information, a second adds it back in, and on and on.

Wiki has its uses, mainly because its quick and mostly reliable. I wouldn't depend on it for anything formal. I'd use the links it lists as a quick means to a better source.
 
  • #11
My comment was in reference to him gathering his information from "Catholicism for Dummies". :smile: Appropriate book name for the context. Made me laugh.

EDIT: I am not saying that catholics are dummies, don't misunderstand. :P
 
Last edited:
  • #12
dontdisturbmycircles said:
"Catholicism for Dummies". :smile:

Quite. I mean is there any other? (Context : I'm technically Catholic).
 
  • #13
Dimitri Terryn said:
Who cares. It's theology.

Theology is a legitimate academic discipline. That's probably the reason this is being taken so seriously.
 
  • #14
Well if he pulled it off, it must mean that it isn't that difficult to pretend to be a theology professor. Perhaps that's why it is being taken so seriously... hehe
 
  • #15
verty said:
Well if he pulled it off, it must mean that it isn't that difficult to pretend to be a theology professor. Perhaps that's why it is being taken so seriously... hehe

The big deal of it is that Wiki apparently just take's people's word for it about their credentials, even if giving them a position of editor. C'mon, you don't have to make their real name public knowledge just to verify their credentials. I wonder how many of their other theology editors are frauds too if they didn't notice discrepancies in what the person claims their credentials are and what their knowledge level really is. Or maybe they did notice and that's the source of such editing wars that Janus mentioned.

It just reinforces that anyone can get away with pretty much anything for a very long time. Who's to say the entire editorial staff there isn't filled with frauds. When you rely on people's honesty to represent themselves accurately on an internet forum, well, it's the internet and we all know that not everyone is who they say they are.
 
  • #16
What I find more "amusing" about this is that people are still "surprise", "shocked", and "dismayed" that such a thing is happening on Wikipedia.

HELLO??!

Are people THAT naive (stupid?)?

I really do not blame this fella. I blame those who actually put "faith" in something like this. I've said this earlier, but really, if people actually expect a consistent valid info out of something like this, then they DESERVE to be taken in! They paid attention to something that can easily be bogus, and then acted surprised by it. At some point, some people should not be saved from their own stupidity.

Zz.
 
  • #17
ZapperZ said:
At some point, some people should not be saved from their own stupidity.

Zz.

That'll never happen. The whole purpose of humanity is to save each other from stupidity somehow. :rolleyes:
 
  • #18
When I read about this affair, my first thought was of a http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=22230. Egad, I can't believe it's approaching 14 years old!

Ironically, I had read about this guy before, in a recent article about Wikipedia in New Yorker magazine, before his "outing."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
jtbell said:
When I read about this affair, my first thought was of a http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=22230. Egad, I can't believe it's approaching 14 years old!

Very true. I worked with a post-doc who for some reason loved that cartoon, but I think her poor English must have given it a different meaning to her, because she used it for the most inappropriate situations (like stuck into a slide for lab meeting). Now I don't laugh at the cartoon (because I've seen it so many times), but at remembering her odd usage of it (we had to tell her to take it out of an interview seminar :bugeye:).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is a "Fake Professor in Wikipedia Storm"?

A "Fake Professor in Wikipedia Storm" is a term used to describe a situation in which an individual creates a fake identity as a professor and makes edits on Wikipedia pages related to their field of expertise. This is often done to promote personal agendas or to spread false information.

2. How common is it for individuals to pose as professors on Wikipedia?

It is difficult to accurately determine the frequency of individuals posing as professors on Wikipedia, as many instances may go unnoticed. However, there have been several high-profile cases in which individuals have been caught posing as professors and making edits on Wikipedia.

3. What are the potential consequences of posing as a professor on Wikipedia?

The consequences of posing as a professor on Wikipedia can vary. If the individual is caught and their edits are deemed to be malicious or intentionally misleading, they may face legal action and damage to their professional reputation. Additionally, their edits may be reverted or their account may be blocked by Wikipedia moderators.

4. How can Wikipedia prevent individuals from posing as professors?

Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines in place to prevent individuals from posing as professors. These include requiring citations and reliable sources for information, and monitoring user activity for suspicious behavior. Additionally, Wikipedia has a team of moderators who can block and revert edits made by fake professors.

5. Can Wikipedia be trusted as a reliable source of information given the potential for fake professors?

While there have been cases of fake professors on Wikipedia, the website has a large community of dedicated volunteers who work to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information. It is important for readers to critically evaluate the sources and information provided on Wikipedia, as with any other source of information.

Suggested for: Fake Professor in Wikipedia Storm

Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
812
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
453
Replies
3
Views
615
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
582
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top