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...