
How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit - sasvari
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/
======
masklinn
> It's tough to con Reddit.

That is debatable, Reddit has been conned a lot in the past.

 _But_ one error when trying to con the site seems to be too much information:
many users apparently love snooping around and digging (and are pretty good at
it), so giving more information initially makes claims more credible, but also
gives more strings on which users can pull risking unraveling the whole thing.

Furthermore, there's a high level of dependency on the subreddit in which
things go "viral", some subreddits are far more credulous than others (and
credulity depends on the subject matter as well, you can get both /r/atheism
and /r/libertarian to lap up claims unchecked, but it's unlikely the same
claim will work on both) (this also means hoaxes are far more likely to
unravel as they spread outside of a given subreddit and get wider exposure in
the community)

~~~
wyck
Exactly, the hive mind at work, for example:
[http://gawker.com/5751581/misguided-internet-vigilantes-
atta...](http://gawker.com/5751581/misguided-internet-vigilantes-attack-
college-students-cancer-fundraiser)

Also every once and a while a hoax reaches the front page, usually some highly
suspect family situation or someone finding a treasure chest in their basement
and asking reddit what to do.

------
spodek
Speaking of Reddit, People on HN often jab them when they discipline others
for violating community norms, as in "This isn't Reddit. Please keep on
topic."

Not once have I seen the Reddit jab helpful. I've only seen it superfluous and
petty. I like people saying "Please keep on topic," but why jab another
community? I don't even use Reddit.

I say this hoping it helps people simply remind others of this community's
norms without needlessly jabbing others.

~~~
mmahemoff
It's not a jab. It's just different community norms. HN wouldn't be HN if
people were allowed to open up 10-level nested comedy threads. If I want to
read those - and sometimes I do - I know I can go to Reddit.

~~~
masklinn
> It's not a jab.

It is a jab.

> It's just different community norms.

There are no "community norms" for reddit, each subreddit has its own norms
and things which work in one may get all your comments mod-deleted in an
other.

~~~
bgilroy26
To be specific, jokes are much more welcome in /r/programming than they are
here, which invites Eternal September.

I think the pro-business mindset helps as well. People start complaining when
the depth that they remember isn't present in the discussions of the internet
community (sometimes the gap is only perception/nostalgia).

I am pretty much a poster child for someone who threatens HN culture. While I
am deeply interested in the intersection of computers and human enterprise, I
came over from Reddit, and I don't have any practical experience to speak of.
There are many times here (or in /r/askscience) when someone leaves an opening
for a joke and I feel like I just _have_ to make it. I'm sure that originally
the impulse was tied to the possibility that a lot of people would like it,
but now it's merely a conditioned response.

At any rate, my tendency to temporarily believe that my youngish impulsiveness
would be a positive thing for the community make me an outsider here, but I
don't want to change that.

I know that that having a clearly defined purpose helps a community to be
strong and it isn't worth making HN (or /r/askscience) more like me if it
jeopardizes their existence.

What's more, once in a great while, when it _really_ is time to make a joke
I've watched them go by unmolested.

Edit: I'm sorry about the double post. I was having trouble typing on my
phone.

Edit2: In response to your comment below, I'd say that people who are pro-
business are probably less introverted than I am. Given that assumption, I'd
say they'd be less motivated to make those kneejerk comments because they're
probably getting enough social validation elsewhere. Granted, those are
assumptions layered on assumptions, but at least that was what I meant

------
SagelyGuru
I posted some comments below laying out the reasons why I don't like this. I
got heavily downvoted and the majority opinion is clearly against me, saying
essentially that he is a great teacher with the white hat for teaching
everyone not to believe what they read on the internet. I guess I ought to
gracefully admit defeat and bow out to oblivion.

Still, I cannot resist making one final farewell appeal. Consider carefully
the near future, when prof. Kelly will have produced a flood of busy
graduates, all experts at disinformation. What is the likely outcome of his
program if it succeeds? It is not that hard to guess. You will get what you
applaud: you will no longer be able to trust anything you read, ever. You seem
to consider this to be of some great educational value but I must admit that
the value escapes me.

Let me extrapolate one step further. What is the point of reading anything if
it is all likely to be false? Exactly. Stop reading and sit on your dumb asses
watching TV.

~~~
tytso
>Still, I cannot resist making one final farewell appeal. Consider carefully
the near future, when prof. Kelly will have produced a flood of busy
graduates, all experts at disinformation.

As others have pointed out, masters of disinformation have existed long before
this class existed. To take just one example, if you're left-leaning, Fox News
(to liberals, Faux News). If you agree with Fox News, then you'll consider
everything from the the "Mainstream Media" (or "Lamestream Media") to be
disinformation.

Furthermore, there is a grand tradition in explaining about how the "darks
arts" are done so you can defend against it. In order to devise defenses to
nerve gas, you need to understand how to effectively deploy nerve gas. If you
want to understand how politicians and other masters of disinformation use
statistics, the book "How To Lie Using Statistics" is an invaluable guide.

> What is the likely outcome of his program if it succeeds? It is not that
> hard to guess. You will get what you applaud: you will no longer be able to
> trust anything you read, ever.

Yes, this. You should _never_ blindly trust anything that you read. That's
what critical thinking is all about. The point of reading is to find alternate
points of view and information that you might not have known before, but
everything should be cross-checked to some degree. In some cases you can trust
the source because you've previously found the source to be authoritative
(say, a professor teaching a class).

But the point of what people are trying to point out with respect to wikipedia
is that just because one Wikipedia article has been proven to have a reliable
secondary source of information, aggregating multiple primary sources into a
handy reference article, is absolutely no guarantee that that particular
article will continue to be reliable, or that any other Wikipedia article is
guaranteed to be reliable. Using Wikipedia to expose yourself to something
that you didn't know before: Good. Not cross-checking anything you read at
Wikipedia with primary source material to learn more and to verify the facts
that you found in the Wikipedia article? Foolhardy.

~~~
SagelyGuru
>In some cases you can trust the source because you've previously found the
source to be authoritative (say, a professor teaching a class)

Allow me to laugh. This is a professor teaching a class (how to lie)! I guess
that makes him an authority on lying but can someone like that be said to be
authoritative? Or all other professors, by association?

I must say that I accept many of the valid responses here, thank you. His
classes no doubt are educational and one should, of course, check the sources.

However, he is taking practical assignments too far. You can teach students to
beware of liers without them first having to lie themselves. It does not seem
like the skill of a great teacher to make them actually lie to the public.
More like a desperate stunt from a teacher running out of ideas and morals.

Understading is one thing and I agree with all that but in terms of your
examples, he is demanding the equivalent of his students actually deploying
the nerve gas against unsuspecting people. (Thank you for suggesting that
hyperbola)

------
jvrossb
I'm ashamed to admit in my youth I created a fake Wikipedia page in a couple
hours (between 3 and 5AM) that lasted for months before a friend of mine
accidentally exposed it as fake by being silly in the talk section.

It was flagged as dubious because the date that the fictional piece the
fictional composer I created had supposedly been performed the day of a new
Pope's election didn't match the date on that Pope's wikipedia article.

Turns out we had the right date and the Pope's wikipedia article the wrong
one. So our hoax ended up resulting in another article being corrected. From
then on, anyone who looked at the talk page saw that someone had already
flagged the page as dubious but that it had been resolved in our favour. This
gave the hoax quite a bit of credibility. Made me realize how easy it is to
create convincing hoaxes.

~~~
rangibaby
Or the person who had an extra name added by a Wikipedia editor, which was
then copied by mainstream media. The hoaxers then used that as a citation,
creating "truth". Wow!

~~~
DanBC
Well, wikipedia doesn't talk about truth, but about verifiability. That's a
bit of a problem because most people (even most wp editors) don't get the
difference. Certainly people visiting wp expect it to be both truthful and
verifiable.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Well "verifiability" means the ability to show that it is true. Something
verifiable is demonstrably true. WP verifiability means something different.
'being cited as true by a trusted source' seems close but you can't blame
users for Wikipedia's misuse of a word. Of course that just shifts the focus
to what is a trusted source ... presumably the answer is one that is true ...

I can prove it too ... <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verify> [lol!].

------
SagelyGuru
I wonder if you also find this professor really really objectionable?

I certainly do. First off, any bona-fide academic ought to have respect for
the truth, not deliberately set out to build his carreer on lies. One has to
wonder: does he also encourage lies in academic publications? Does the
publishing outlet, i.e. traditional paper journal versus the internet justify
that much difference to the principle of being honest in research? I think
anyone this confused about the necessity of the truth should not be an
academic. If I was his colleague, I would support steps to have his tenure
terminated forthwith.

Secondly, the techniques prof. Kelly teaches and employs are classical
disinformation tools, as practiced by Hitler, KGB and other such illustrious
preceptors of his. Presumably some of his college funding is intended 'for the
public good'. I really question prof. Kelly's idea that expanding the skills
base in the disinformation field is for the public good.

Thirdly, and most importantly, one has to ask: what is his real agenda?
Clearly it is to disable/discredit/damage/destroy the free exchange of valid
information on the internet. If there ever was a real 'information terrorist'
it must be him.

~~~
cirwin
I agree that this behaviour is quite objectionable, though for a subtly
different reason.

In particular it's not a case of malicious spreading of misinformation, it
seems that in the case that the hoax worked the lies were deleted.

Rather it's a case of abusing a public resource. It feels to me somewhat like
training a group of school-children to play Rugby on a village bowling green.
Sure the damage to the grass will be undone over time, and sure the chance of
knocking over any real old ladies is very small; but it's still an irreverent
gesture that shows a dangerous lack of respect.

In the real world we have checks to make sure this kind of behaviour doesn't
get too out of hand; on the internet we've so far managed to avoid the need. I
hope that continues.

~~~
SagelyGuru
Yes, I can relate to that but I think the quaint imagery of a village green
does not nearly capture the insiduousness of this. He enourages his students
to do their best to make the hoax work. Deleting the lies later, while
laudable, does not undo the real (intended?) damage to the reputation of the
internet.

I really struggle to think of positive educational outcomes from teaching
students to pull off successful disinformation exploits.

~~~
Joeboy
> Deleting the lies later, while laudable, does not undo the real (intended?)
> damage to the reputation of the internet

Your problem is that people might start to mistrust things they read on the
internet? That's surely the opposite of a problem.

~~~
SagelyGuru
Yes, call me old-fashioned but I just don't like the idea of the internet
becoming totally discredited and useless.

~~~
pyre
You're setting up a false dichotomy. You seem to feel that either the Internet
is a place that is 100% trust-worthy (so much so that you can take off your
critical-thinking cap), or it's a place where everything is a lie. The point
here is that people should learn that they can't blindly believe things just
because they read it on the web, not that lies on the web will render it
completely useless.

------
willvarfar
So these students failed. A new batch will be back next year, and they'll not
slip up this way - they could well be creating wikipedia aliases already in
preparation for taking the course later, for example, or using other
collaborative sources.

The key thing is that reddit hasn't just saved us. It hasn't just demonstrated
you cannot put out bias and falsehood on the Internet. Its just whacked a mole
because the students were, well, students.

~~~
scott_w
I don't think it's about success or failure.

What's more interesting is how the different communities responded to the
attempted hoaxes. This can help us understand how different hoaxes, memes etc.
are spread and how they are, or aren't, debunked.

------
rbanffy
I feel strangely compelled to check on Reddit if this really happened ;-)

------
kulkarnic
I'd rather have a link to the actual Atlantic web page for this story, not the
Print view. It's at
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-
th...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-
professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/)

I think directly linking to the print view is dishonest: telling the Atlantic
you plan to print an article, and instead posting it to HN is essentially
stealing their ad revenue.

PS: Even if you claim ads are distracting and this is actually a service to
the community, I'd rather install ad blockers and make such decisions myself.

~~~
masklinn
I often prefer print pages for BI-type "articles" where 300 works are split
across 5 different pages, but yeah in this case the article is a single page
originally, and the site's own chrome isn't overbearing. There was no reason
to link to the print version.

------
sevenstar
The top of the page says, "...helps reveal the shifting nature of the truth on
the Internet". It makes it sound like the ►internet is a different reality.
The internet is just a reflection of what is already going on in the world.
What people do offline is what people do online.

------
cafard
How big a feat is fooling Wikipedia? I doubt I look 50 pages per year.

~~~
uxp
It's not hard. A friend of mine nicknamed a very rare disease on Wikipedia. A
few months to a year later a news organization used the Wikipedia page's
nickname for the disease when writing an article for it. He then cited the use
of that nickname on the Wikipedia page with the news article, and thus, the
nickname had a validated citation, and will possibly never go away.

~~~
Robin_Message
Obligatory xkcd refernce: <http://xkcd.com/978/>

~~~
DenisM
Now you'll have to wonder if the events in the parent post were inspired by
the xkcd comic you cited. :)

