Whats with all the mis-information

[Pengwuino]

So yet again I've come upon another "famous quote" by a founding father on some persons sig that turned out to be fake and was actually termed by someone from only a few years back. Looking for people with something intelligent (or accurate to be exacty) to say as regards to science is almost impossible as well. One of my professors said 75% of what's on the web is total BS. My question is... why is this? What about the internet lends itself (if it does) towards massive amounts of disinformation and lieing?

 

[Danger]

So yet again I've come upon another "famous quote" by a founding father on some persons sig that turned out to be fake and was actually termed by someone from only a few years back. Looking for people with something intelligent (or accurate to be exacty) to say as regards to science is almost impossible as well. One of my professors said 75% of what's on the web is total BS. My question is... why is this? What about the internet lends itself (if it does) towards massive amounts of disinformation and lieing?

Maybe the same thing that makes it full of spelling and grammar like yours.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So yet again I've come upon another "famous quote" by a founding father on some persons sig that turned out to be fake and was actually termed by someone from only a few years back.

What was it?

 

[Pengwuino]

*surrenders to the grammer police*

 

[Pengwuino]

Someone claims thomas jefferson said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Turned out to be coined by some Howard Zinn a few years back.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Someone claims thomas jefferson said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Turned out to be coined by some Howard Zinn a few years back.

How do you know Jefferson never said it, and that this Zinn didn't plagiarize him?

 

[Pengwuino]

How do you know Jefferson never said it, and that this Zinn didn't plagiarize him?

searched archives of his quotes and the context of what the guy said a few years back makes no mention of our founding fathers or history in general.

 

[zoobyshoe]

searched archives of his quotes and the context of what the guy said a few years back makes no mention of our founding fathers or history in general.

Contact the person who has it in their sig and ask where Jefferson said it. His "quotes" means nothing. You'd have to read every damn word he wrote to be sure he didn't say it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well I am sure he doesn't have a time machine or any other piece of equipment that makes him privvy to any information that we have. He won't respond as to where he got the quote.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well I am sure he doesn't have a time machine or any other piece of equipment that makes him privvy to any information that we have.

I have no idea what this means.

He won't respond as to where he got the quote.

This is someone at PF?

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh god no, someone on some stupid gaming forum said this

 

[zoobyshoe]

Quotes are tricky. Sometimes several different people have said different versions of the same thing. Sometimes one quote is attributed to several different people. Who said: "England and America are two countries separated by a common language." ?

 

[Pengwuino]

Well I don't think this was the case. Some websites were even citing this as a 'myth' and I couldn't find a website that gave the quote in its actual context or where/when it was said.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, the only thing you can do is publically challenge that person to either prove Jefferson said it or stop attributing it to him.

 

[Danger]

I couldn't find a website that gave the quote in its actual context or where/when it was said.

I can't believe this! It's like the whole 'aunt' thing in the other thread. "On-line this", "On-line that". Why don't any of you ever look something up in a ****ing book and get the real facts?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I can't believe this! It's like the whole 'aunt' thing in the other thread. "On-line this", "On-line that". Why don't any of you ever look something up in a ****ing book and get the real facts?

Look it up for us, Mr. Research.

 

[Danger]

Look it up for us, Mr. Research.

Anything significant, I would. Who cares what some dead Yank said or didn't? The point remains that with the exception of subsidy publishers, who would stoop so low as to print something written by William Proxmire since the writer pays them, most things put out by a reputable publishing house have been researched and cleared by a legal department before publication. In the case of quotes, it's pretty much guaranteed that they're credible at least to the point of having been witnessed by one or more people. In addition, a lot of personal and public correspondence by historical figures exists in original form in some museum or private collection. That's where many quotes are gathered from, whether or not the utterance thereof was ever publicized.
Any web-site that you turn to as an authority could very well be controlled by a 10 year-old who still believes in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The trouble is, as I said, you'd have to read every word Jefferson ever wrote to prove he didn't say one thing or another. Better to challenge the person attributing something to him to show where they found it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok how bout let's throw this back onto the topic i wanted it to be lol. In general, why is there so much BS online?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, so far all you've presented is a obviously made up statistic by one of your teachers, and a complaint from you about one person whom you can't prove is wrong. As a matter of fact, most of the info I've looked up on the web has turned out to be perfectly fine.

 

[Pengwuino]

Im sure plenty of people on this forum would agree with my professor about most things on the internet beign a load of bs.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Im sure plenty of people on this forum would agree with my professor about most things on the internet beign a load of bs.

Now you've downgraded from a specific 75% to the vague "most". What is it exactly you're complaining about? The stuff people say in threads on forums? That's conversation, not reference material. You can't take any of that as hard fact without checking it.

 

[Pengwuino]

No, i don't mean to downgrade it, he said 75%. I didnt keep the percentage because... well, subconscious choice and i chose to say most, big deal lol. What I am complaining about is evvvverything based on any sort of "knowledge" that is on what we call, the Internet. Anything that attempts to convey the impression that they are telling you the "facts" is what I am talking about. Not conversations like this forum.

 

[FredGarvin]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/146858.htm

 

[Pengwuino]

See, what i want to know is why, at some point, someone would decide to put a quote with someone who didnt say it... maybe psychology would be a good major ;) lol.

 

[FredGarvin]

People are idiots. Plain and simple. It's the same reason morons take an e-mail quote (or even completely fabricated quote) and attribute it to someone else. People will do anything to make their point seem more justified, even if they are blatantly lying in the process. Others just take it for gospel and regurgitate it to others.

 

[jma2001]

This sort of thing has been going on since long before the Web. One notorious example was a "survey" that listed the top school problems in 1940 as talking, chewing gum, and running in the halls, in contrast with a list of modern school problems that included drug abuse, pregnancy, suicide, and rape. The survey was widely quoted on talk shows and in magazines such as Time and Newsweek. I remember hearing about the list when I was in public school in the eighties, many of our teachers talked about it and accepted it as true. It wasn't until 1994 that the survey was exposed as a hoax. It was fabricated by T. Cullen Davis, a wealthy oil businessman and fundamentalist Christian who in 1982 constructed the lists as part of an effort to attack public education. Mr. Davis admitted, “They weren't done from a scientific survey. How did I know what the offenses in the schools were in 1940? I was there. How do I know what they are now? I read the newspapers”.

I could only find one online copy of the article that exposed the hoax (the link is given below), in contrast to the hundreds of copies of the fake "lists" still being quoted everywhere around the Internet and in other places.

http://tafkac.org/collegiate/school_troubles_hoax.html

 

[Joel]

There is whole bounch of factors that make the internet a socially interesting place - and equally many papers about it. At some point I thought I'd became a 'net-shrink' when I grew up and read some papers from this woman: http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/

Anonymity, accountability, contact networks, group-identity and other fancy phenomenons are all upside-down on the internet. A legilslation that is lacking behind new technology doesn't help either. A mix of these things probably has something to do with it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Anonymity, accountability, contact networks, group-identity and other fancy phenomenons are all upside-down on the internet. A legilslation that is lacking behind new technology doesn't help either. A mix of these things probably has something to do with it.

Here, though, you're diagnosing the cause of a problem based on the assumption, being perveyed by penguino, that BS is somehow worse on the net than off the net. Jma2001 has pointed to an example which suggests this has been going on from time imemorial, and isn't a new development made possible by the net. FredGarvin mentions Urban Legends. I don't believe the BS you can find along with everything else on the web is anything new, or that its worse than it used to be.

 

[Joel]

Here, though, you're diagnosing the cause of a problem based on the assumption, being perveyed by penguino, that BS is somehow worse on the net than off the net. Jma2001 has pointed to an example which suggests this has been going on from time imemorial, and isn't a new development made possible by the net. FredGarvin mentions Urban Legends. I don't believe the BS you can find along with everything else on the web is anything new, or that its worse than it used to be.

Quite true and I don't know if the 'overal level of BS' is higher on the internet than it has been from time imemorial. However, I think this assumtions holds somewhat true; if a person acts anonymously, he cannot be held responcible for his actions and thus doesn't have nasty things like law and reputation to worry about, which in turn makes BS-behaviour more likely. I'm sure you've heard of more arguments of the like and I bet there are some quantitative studies of similar questions. Of course, it could just as well be that the 'overal amount of BS' is the same, but the BS is just worse than otherwise, or something else of the sort. I just find it hard to believe that the internet wouldn't affect our behaviour -somehow- and 'psychological truths' (like the one above) would suggest it's in some way negative.

Ps. Just speculating here, as you can see...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Quite true and I don't know if the 'overal level of BS' is higher on the internet than it has been from time imemorial.

The net is vast. It would take some exceptionally clever method to take it's pulse in this regard, and compare it to off-net BS. Penguino, however, jumped in with a cut and dried certainty that the net was primarily BS.

However, I think this assumtions holds somewhat true; if a person acts anonymously, he cannot be held responcible for his actions and thus doesn't have nasty things like law and reputation to worry about, which in turn makes BS-behaviour more likely.

It has always been possible to do surreptitious things. Every advance in technology just adds a new tool to the predisposed person's toolbox. In my childhood, it was anonymous notes, and phone calls, and well placed rumors.

I'm sure you've heard of more arguments of the like and I bet there are some quantitative studies of similar questions. Of course, it could just as well be that the 'overal amount of BS' is the same, but the BS is just worse than otherwise, or something else of the sort.

I think what is mostly at work is the assumption that what is on the net is made possible by the net. Seems logical at first, but doesn't hold up to detailed scrutiny. I don't think you would find that someone who uses the net to sling bull isn't also doing that in everyday life.

I just find it hard to believe that the internet wouldn't affect our behaviour -somehow- and 'psychological truths' (like the one above) would suggest it's in some way negative.

The only difference we can be sure about it that access to potential BS is faster and much more convenient than pre-web days. This still says nothing about the relative percentage of BS to good info.

 

[Moonbear]

See, what i want to know is why, at some point, someone would decide to put a quote with someone who didnt say it... maybe psychology would be a good major ;) lol.

They either are right and don't remember where they read it, are wrong and don't know they are wrong (picked up the quote from someone else who attributed it incorrectly), or are choosing to purposely mislead. I could also ask, "Why do students include incorrect references in term papers?"

There are some things that simply aren't online, and it drives me nuts when I run into folks on forums who want everything proven by providing a "link." Well, sometimes you just have to go to the library and pick up a book. And yes, I do find it humorous when people try to support their argument by posting links to a discussion on another forum or someone's blog site, as if someone else's uninformed opinion is authoritative because it showed up in a google search.

If you're sitting around in a bar, do you believe everything people there tell you? If not, why would you believe everything they write online? Always check your sources. If they say they are quoting a book, get the book and see the quote in context. When people are just relaying stuff 3rd and 4th hand, it's just hearsay until you can confirm it from the original source.

 

[Pengwuino]

haha oh man politically charged forums would die if the requirement was to read a book everytime you had something to say.

 

[jma2001]

Quite true and I don't know if the 'overal level of BS' is higher on the internet than it has been from time imemorial. However, I think this assumtions holds somewhat true; if a person acts anonymously, he cannot be held responcible for his actions and thus doesn't have nasty things like law and reputation to worry about, which in turn makes BS-behaviour more likely.

You are confusing two different issues. Yes, it might be true that the perceived anonymity of the Internet makes it easier for people to lie or deliberately spread false information. However, Pengwuino's original point was about someone who had a falsely attributed quote in their signature. I am sure that person was not purposely trying to deceive people with that quote, they were just copying something that they heard from somewhere else without bothering to verify its accuracy. The same is true of the "school problems" story that I referenced, all those news organizations that reported the survey were not deliberately trying to spread false information, they just never bothered to check their sources. That is just plain, old-fashioned laziness and incompetence which has been a part of human behavior since the dawn of history, it has nothing to do with the Internet.

 

[Pengwuino]

I wonder what a real survey of the school problems in the 40's would have actually turned up...

 

[Joel]

The net is vast. It would take some exceptionally clever method to take it's pulse in this regard, and compare it to off-net BS. Penguino, however, jumped in with a cut and dried certainty that the net was primarily BS.

Yes, just think of the size of a statistical sample needed to be representative of the entire web. And I also think the scope of the original question is much too wide to receive any definite answer.

It has always been possible to do surreptitious things. Every advance in technology just adds a new tool to the predisposed person's toolbox. In my childhood, it was anonymous notes, and phone calls, and well placed rumors.

Yes, no doubt it has always been possible, but do you really think the internet represents 'just another advance'? While non of the aspects (scope, anonymity, width of access, etc) by themselves may sound that special, I can think of quite few other technological advantages that has changes our lives lives on equally many ways, all happening in a very short period of time. I've also heard the 'information society revolution' to be compared with the industrial- and agricultural revolution.

I think what is mostly at work is the assumption that what is on the net is made possible by the net. Seems logical at first, but doesn't hold up to detailed scrutiny. I don't think you would find that someone who uses the net to sling bull isn't also doing that in everyday life.

Well, I think most of us will behave 'badly' or against the norms in some situations; collective happenings like rock concerts, hockey matches and demonstrations are often taken as examples. In those situations, we act more as a group member than as an individual and I think anonymity is partly to blame. So, I wouldn't say bull slinging is only a personal quality, it also depends on the environment - and I'd say the www has conciderable similarities to the earlier mentioned.

And copyright crimes and identity thefts for example has in my understanding reached unique proportions. While they have happened in history, I'd say the proportion is enough to calle it a 'new thing' made possible by the internet, wouldn't you say?

The only difference we can be sure about it that access to potential BS is faster and much more convenient than pre-web days. This still says nothing about the relative percentage of BS to good info.

Yes, that's a sure difference. And as I said earlier, I do not think we can say anything about the percentage of BS vs. good info as a whole. However, my point is that we can look at smaller aspects and note that some things has gone to the worse and I think that can partly be exaplined by all the stuff I just spit out. I'm just saying that it isn't out of thin air to suspect that it's easier to spit BS on the web than to someone's face.

 

[Joel]

You are confusing two different issues. Yes, it might be true that the perceived anonymity of the Internet makes it easier for people to lie or deliberately spread false information. However, Pengwuino's original point was about someone who had a falsely attributed quote in their signature. I am sure that person was not purposely trying to deceive people with that quote, they were just copying something that they heard from somewhere else without bothering to verify its accuracy. The same is true of the "school problems" story that I referenced, all those news organizations that reported the survey were not deliberately trying to spread false information, they just never bothered to check their sources. That is just plain, old-fashioned laziness and incompetence which has been a part of human behavior since the dawn of history, it has nothing to do with the Internet.

Good point about separating the two issues. But I wouldn't think of myself as confused just yet; I just answered the part of his questions where he asked, 'why', and concluded (as you see in my replay to zooby) that it may be easier to BS over the internet and that we are hard pressed to know if it has actually lead to more BS.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I just answered the part of his questions where he asked, 'why', and concluded (as you see in my replay to zooby) that it may be easier to BS over the internet and that we are hard pressed to know if it has actually lead to more BS.

The notion that it "may" be easier to BS over the net sounds logical at first because of the reasons you cited, but the forums I've participated heavily in (four others beside this one) don't bear that out: people seem actually to be more closely scrutinized than off the net. That is just my experience. There may be places where wild assertions are completely unchallenged.

 

[Joel]

The notion that it "may" be easier to BS over the net sounds logical at first because of the reasons you cited, but the forums I've participated heavily in (four others beside this one) don't bear that out: people seem actually to be more closely scrutinized than off the net. That is just my experience. There may be places where wild assertions are completely unchallenged.

Yes, rightly so. That it 'may in general' be easier, does of course not mean it happens all the time, or even that it happens more often. In fact, these forums have shown me an entirely new level of online communication I didn't know was possible (highly critical, without being official). My experience (mainly my university's student organization's public discussion board) isn't that positive and that's why I haven't participated very much. Now who knows... I have also used internet sources many times for essays and I see no problem in it, as long as one knows what one is doing. Citing an OECD or EU report differs from a forum or newspaper conciderably.

 

[jma2001]

The notion that it "may" be easier to BS over the net sounds logical at first because of the reasons you cited, but the forums I've participated heavily in (four others beside this one) don't bear that out: people seem actually to be more closely scrutinized than off the net. That is just my experience. There may be places where wild assertions are completely unchallenged.

Agreed, I find that my opinions are much more likely to be challenged online than in real life. I think it's because the forums I participate on are populated by people with similar interests and knowledge to my own, therefore they are in much better position to evaluate the validity of my statements. Also, it is much easier to pick apart an argument in writing, rather than trying to recall all the details of what someone has said in conversation.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, it is much easier to pick apart an argument in writing, rather than trying to recall all the details of what someone has said in conversation.

Yes, on the whole the web forum format lends itself to greater possible precision, rather than more BS. A person can spout anything they want on the web, but, unlike in one-to-one conversations in everyday life, there are usually at least several readers willing to challenge what is said from several different angles. It is usually possible to find reliable links to demonstrate facts. Questionable links can be challenged as well.

 

[Joel]

I suppose you could flip the anonymity argument and say that because we aren't bound by other kinds of 'constraints' (friendship, politness, etc) we are more likely to be bluntly honest, but I havn't heard it in this context before.

 

[jma2001]

I suppose you could flip the anonymity argument and say that because we aren't bound by other kinds of 'constraints' (friendship, politness, etc) we are more likely to be bluntly honest, but I havn't heard it in this context before.

Yes, I think that's true as well, it is much easier to tell someone they're wrong when you don't know them personally. I have encountered quite a few people online who seem to take pleasure in pointing out flaws in other people's arguments, their grammatical mistakes, etc.

 

[Joel]

Yes, I think that's true as well, it is much easier to tell someone they're wrong when you don't know them personally. I have encountered quite a few people online who seem to take pleasure in pointing out flaws in other people's arguments, their grammatical mistakes, etc.

Being dyslectic, not a native english speaker and sometimes sloppy, I can agree with that one without any hesitation!

 

[FredGarvin]

The notion that it "may" be easier to BS over the net sounds logical at first because of the reasons you cited, but the forums I've participated heavily in (four others beside this one) don't bear that out: people seem actually to be more closely scrutinized than off the net. That is just my experience. There may be places where wild assertions are completely unchallenged.

You are basing this on the idea that on-line forums are the main method of communication. That, IMO, is not the case. E-mail is, especially when less computer savy people are involved, is the main source of communication. In e-mail's case there is no direct interaction which tends to lead to one keeping theor sources straight. How many times have you seen an e-mail started by someone, thrown out to the masses and then soon enough it is taken as gospel? I've seen it quite a bit thanks to people like my Mom forwarding on the most inane crap imagineable.

 

[Moonbear]

And copyright crimes and identity thefts for example has in my understanding reached unique proportions. While they have happened in history, I'd say the proportion is enough to calle it a 'new thing' made possible by the internet, wouldn't you say?

I don't think I'd lump copyright crimes and identity thefts into this same category. Yes, those stealing personal information about people now have a much faster tool to do that, but the criminal mind has always been there, they have just been more limited in what they could do with it.

As for copyright crimes, there's really no way to know. It could also be true that the internet makes it possible for more people to read what is being written and increasing the likelihood a copyright infringement will be noticed.

As a similar example, students have plagiarized for ages, but when teachers themselves didn't always have access to the references the students were citing (at least not in the single night they had to sit and grade the papers), they were limited to how much they could do or if they could prove it was plagiarism, no matter how much the student's writing style seemed suspect. Now, if a sentence or paragraph, or entire term paper seems a little fishy, typing in a few phrases and finding out if the words are copied from another source takes only a few keystrokes now. So, it might be easier to buy term papers online and to find sources to plagiarize, but it's also easier to catch it too.

I suspect this is much more the case, that while there may be a more rapid venue for the spread of B.S. online, more people are also caught and called on their B.S. on the internet than they might be if they were spreading it around the local bar, or even publishing it in their local smalltown newspaper.

Consider this: if you live in backwoods hickville, and some reporter concocts a story citing sources halfway around the world, and you have no way to communicate with anyone halfway around the world, how would you know the story was fraudulent? Now, if you can get online and start asking people about it, or the newspaper publishes their articles online, and someone halfway around the world sees it and knows it to be untrue, the fraud is discovered.

 

[zoobyshoe]

How many times have you seen an e-mail started by someone, thrown out to the masses and then soon enough it is taken as gospel? I've seen it quite a bit thanks to people like my Mom forwarding on the most inane crap imagineable.

I am completely out of the E-mail loop, except for the occasional joke someone forwards. I have heard that many myths and rumors are spread this way, however. I am completely unable to gage how prevalent this is.

 

[Moonbear]

You are basing this on the idea that on-line forums are the main method of communication. That, IMO, is not the case. E-mail is, especially when less computer savy people are involved, is the main source of communication. In e-mail's case there is no direct interaction which tends to lead to one keeping theor sources straight. How many times have you seen an e-mail started by someone, thrown out to the masses and then soon enough it is taken as gospel? I've seen it quite a bit thanks to people like my Mom forwarding on the most inane crap imagineable.

That's not new with the internet, except people used to be a tad more restrained when it cost them a stamp to mail photocopies of the nonsense that came their way, or it simply took longer calling people individually instead of mass-mailing to everyone in your address book to tell them what you just heard from Aunt Betty.

 

[Moonbear]

I am completely out of the E-mail loop, except for the occasional joke someone forwards. I have heard that many myths and rumors are spread this way, however. I am completely unable to gage how prevalent this is.

I used to get at least one email a week with some nonsense rumor or myth in it, sometimes 10 copies of the same email from different sources. Everything from the cruelty of bonsai kittens to kids dying of cancer, to chain mail crap, to "petitions" that somehow knew you had signed your name to them if you forwarded it on to another 10 people, none of them the original sender. This has died down considerably in the past few years. Once in a while, I still get one, maybe once every few months, but I don't know many people anymore who haven't seen the same rumors spread around 4 and 5 and 100 times already, so if they're getting them, they at least aren't forwarding them to me anymore (hmmm...could also be attributed to my eventual replies to the senders with, "Why the h$ll do you keep forwarding me this crap?!")

Email has just replaced the phone as a method of spreading gossip and rumors.

 

[Pengwuino]

I am completely out of the E-mail loop, except for the occasional joke someone forwards. I have heard that many myths and rumors are spread this way, however. I am completely unable to gage how prevalent this is.

I think its the main way because the large majority of internet users are probably novices and since popular culture designates computers = email; its only natural people would spend a whole lot of time using email. People who are more computer savvy, like people in this forum most likely, know about forums and other methods of communication like newsgroups and such. But of course, we're vastly outnumbered by the novices ;).