Misleading History on the web.

[reetpleat]

Big Lie — Wikipedia

Surely, the main 'problem' here is not lies accumulating through malicious intent or ignorance (although this can never be ruled out) but variant translations from the German.

Also, views on propaganda/lies weren't scarce in the revolutionary movements of the early to mid 20th century. It's not inconceivable that Lenin and Hitler (and even Stalin) had similar views expressed similarly.

While they may not say it, I would suggest that just about every leader of every nation has thought and even acted on this very idea. Us included. I hardly think that hitler and lenin have some patent on the idea.

 

[HungaryTom]

Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence
Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T Honored

Well,

I am not aware of any colony existing on the territory of USA in 1259 AD - and Mr. and Mrs. T http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/MUJA_04.jpg weren't subject to any foreign administration either. Consequently it must have been independent for quite a long time

Encyclopediae underwent strict censorship - authors, lecturers, revisors, editors so the output can be called an encyclopedia instead of white noise printed on paper and bound in volumes.
Wikipedia is a genial invention and his inventor seems to target the same goal: verified and reasonable information through controlled uploading of contents.

 

[John Boyer]

I have been taking periodic classes at a local univeristy. They seem relatively consistent that research be limited to only one Internet source; primarily for lack of accuracy. All-in-all, I agree with this philosophy, preferring primary and secondary sources with sufficient footnotes and bibliographies. However, I use Wikipedia, occassionally, for personal reasearch and curiosities; just not for anything that really matters or is really important; research that I want to ensure is accurate! John

 

[reetpleat]

I have been taking periodic classes at a local univeristy. They seem relatively consistent that research be limited to only one Internet source; primarily for lack of accuracy. All-in-all, I agree with this philosophy, preferring primary and secondary sources with sufficient footnotes and bibliographies. However, I use Wikipedia, occassionally, for personal reasearch and curiosities; just not for anything that really matters or is really important; research that I want to ensure is accurate! John

I would assume that they mean one internet only source, or something like that. i don't imagine going to the New Yorker on line, or the Encyclopedia Britanica or a scholarly journal on line would be out of bounds. The internet of course, can bring many conventional sources to us without having to dig through stacks or microfilm etc.

 

[Story]

Sounds like a case of precognition

A number of The Times which might, because of changes ... in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made. Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed: always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.

1984 (1.4.8) - George Orwell

 

[Bourbon Guy]

The average Jamoke has more information about the world at hand by noon than any head of state got in a year two hundred years ago.

200? Try 20 years ago. Everyone reading this post now has an entire reference library available to them 24/7 that is vastly superior to what they could source even a decade ago, because of sites like wiki and gutenburg, and now Google, which wants to have all books ever printed available on line. This is a good thing.

What has not changed, and what will never change, is the requirement that we all develop the ability to discern fact from dreck. Sure, total nonsense can go viral and circle the globe before anyone with some sense begins to question it. But so can truth. It has always been, and always will be, up to us to strengthen and condition our powers of logic and reason so that we may recognize the difference.

 

[Pilgrim]

It is worth remembering that history is written by (in the case of war) the victors, and in the case of general history, those who survive with the resources and skills to create that history.

There are plenty of cases in US history in which what we "know to be true" is highly debatable. When historical record depends on human observation, then perhaps it is best recorded by the observations of more than one person. When history is based on scientific fact and record, it is less debatable.

Wikipedia has been compared to a reputable encyclopedia and was found to contain errors at rates comparable to that authoritative tome. Of course, Wikipedia can be amended and become more (or less) accurate much more quickly than the encyclopedia, since changes in a print document wait for the next edition.

I am considerably LESS reluctant to quote and use Wikipedia than I was a year ago, as I feel the constant scrutiny of the site monitors and millions of users provide a reasonably accurate level of review.

Sure, Wikipedia may contain entries which are incorrect. However, 80 years ago the history books probably considered George Armstrong Custer to be the epitome of a hero. We now know that characterization to be less than accurate.

Judging the accuracy and dependability of any web source is the responsibility of the web user. And no matter the source, when information found on the web contradicts what your own experience and observation tell you is true, it's time to challenge the web source.

Remember the classic ironic phrase "If it's in print, it must be true"? That's no more true of print than it is of the web.

 

[John Boyer]

I think Pilgrim makes a great point, history is often written by the victor. Regardless, history intepreted by the "winner" or "loser" is rarely objective.

With this in mind, I had a history professor that argued that any historical intepretation should be discounted unless developed "at least 25 years after the principal characters have died." The point being, of course, time provides for more of an accurate intepretation of event(s) and, with Public personalities, it takes a lengthy period of time to get full access to and intepret corrospondence,other writings,&/c necessary for an objective evaluation.

I also agree that the Internet has put a lot more responsibility on users to--as Bourbon Guy notes below--"...the requirement that we all develop the ability to discern fact from dreck."

John

 

[Undertow]

It's not inconceivable that Lenin and Hitler (and even Stalin) had similar views expressed similarly.

I agree with you. I'm sure we've all heard the phrase, "There's nothing new under the sun". And considering the global situation of that era, I'm sure each despot did, in one way or another, agree on the whole "lie" concept.

Of course I'm referring to our arm chair historians of 2009 attributing quotes to whomever, whenever they choose. I know I'm probably only accurate 60% of the time I attest to know a fact, so I try to limit myself as often as possible (and then I try to make sure I back myself up with some "reputable" sources).

Thanks for that link, by the by; I enjoyed rereading that information. I've read it in the past but I hadn't touched up on it for a few years.

 

[dr greg]

what you see

I think we might have covered some of these issues in a previous thread relating to the 'Hollywood' view of history, and the relevant responsibilities , or lack thereof, regarding the depiction of the past.
Much of the 'history' that we have access to about the period before say, the 17th century, relies on very few sources, often one or two, often written a lifetime or two after the event, by a small select literate group, often celibate monks in some draughty garret, and their worldview and prejudices are paramount in assessing what they wrote, so who's to say they were dispassionate chroniclers? We are now at the opposite extreme, where practically every clown thinks he knows more than he does, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that would have to be an exponential problem they way things are going.....

 

[Creeping Past]

We are now at the opposite extreme, where practically every clown thinks he knows more than he does, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that would have to be an exponential problem they way things are going.....

Hmm, a similar tone to the one adopted in the past when voting rights were to be extended to the general populace. Look at us now... every clown has the right to vote.

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, surely loads of knowledge (proliferating on the internet) is beneficial.

 

[dr greg]

Hmm, a similar tone to the one adopted in the past when voting rights were to be extended to the general populace. Look at us now... every clown has the right to vote.
.

And from what I can gather, most don't bother, this is one of the few places on earth where it is compulsory, but the turnout in most of the Western world is pathetic, what's the percentage in the UK for example?

 

[reetpleat]

Hmm, a similar tone to the one adopted in the past when voting rights were to be extended to the general populace. Look at us now... every clown has the right to vote.

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, surely loads of knowledge (proliferating on the internet) is beneficial.

I agree. And I am sure you were not out to completely contradict Dr. Greg, because he makes a good point about the dangers of everyone thinking they are an expert on things they know nothing about. But i agree with you too that the web democratizing the flow of information and opinion ha had many beneficial results.

There is also a danger in all the information being controlled by one or a few sources.

 

[Rachael]

the introduction of the internet has completely altered how we distribute information and relate to humanity. Everything is available to everyone all of the time. Because of this, the volume of chatter (and dreck) is unavoidably overwhelming. But as we have with each new leap (forward or back) in our civilization, things will level out eventually and history will be able to record this particular story.

And yes, anything written withing 25 years of an incident or a person's life is at best commentary but cannot be fully impartial.

 

[Treetopflyer]

Legend VS Fact

Comedian Robert Wuhl has had a few HBO specials called “Assume the Position” in which he lectures to students at New York University about this exact topic. Being a historian I find this very topic extremely interesting. He uses a quote from the movie “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” stating “No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” I think that says it all.

 

[H.Johnson]

'History altered' to suit politician

I like this. In the UK Parliament the PM Gordon Brown and Leader of the Opposition David Cameron clashed over the age at death of Rennaisance Italian painter Titian (the issue was over it being too late to learn lessons on the economy).

Cameron said he died at 86, Brown countered with the age of 90. One of Cameron's political aides looked it up on Wikipedia and it apparently said 90 - so (loyal chap) the aide admits he changed it to 82! Although he could in fact be correct (there is no agreement as to when Titian died) he has been disciplined.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-apologises-over-Titian-Wikipedia-change.html

 

[Fletch]

I've been reading a lot of postmodern Marxist pinko commie rat theorists for school lately, and so am coming to think of "history" as something that is essentially socially constructed.

The problem with that idea, of course, is that if not a lot of people know or care about something, it's not history. I care a lot about some of this un-history.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

What has not changed, and what will never change, is the requirement that we all develop the ability to discern fact from dreck. Sure, total nonsense can go viral and circle the globe before anyone with some sense begins to question it. But so can truth. It has always been, and always will be, up to us to strengthen and condition our powers of logic and reason so that we may recognize the difference.

Exactly right. When the printing press became widely available, a lot of absolute junk was published by greedy printers. No one checked facts, let alone spelling and punctuation ... at first. Yet it's thanks to the printing press --the Internet of its time-- that printers eventually began the work of standardizing our language's spelling and punctuation.


What will happen is this: some websites will step up and fill the need for scrupulous scholarship, fact-checking, etc. Among such websites, a few will gain a good reputation and become well-known. It is these websites that we'll turn to when in need.

.

 

[Undertow]

...if not a lot of people know or care about something, it's not history. I care a lot about some of this un-history.

Fletch, I can't agree more! I think alot of this "un-history" is quite important. :eusa_clap

Imagine if this were true; do future generations really need to know about the struggles and anguish of Britany Spears? Or about the boring old "Economic Crisis" their grandparents lived through?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Cameron said he died at 90, Brown countered with the age of 90. One of Cameron's political aides looked it up on Wikipedia and it apparently said 90 - so (loyal chap) the aide admits he changed it to 86! Although he could in fact be correct (there is no agreement as to when Titian died) he has been disciplined.

errr, Herbie, Brown claimed 90 (1485-1576 originally stated in Wiki); Cameron claimed 86; overeager Aide to cameron altered the Wiki to state 82 (1490-1572, the changed Wiki). Wrong info on the webospheres, eh?

bk