Mediaboss Marketing

September 25, 2014|5:09 pm

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist and science communicator. He also hosts the podcast StarTalk radio show.

Wikipedia editors have removed references to evidence that famous scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson uses fake quotes, including one that he attributed to former President George W. Bush, in his speeches.

The controversy began with an article by The Federalist's Sean Davispointing out that Tyson, host of Fox's "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" and director of the Hayden Planetarium, confused the mean, or average, of a set of numbers with the median, or midpoint, of a set of numbers in one of his presentations. Tyson may have also used fabricated quotes for unnamed members of Congress and journalists. (Davis could not find the quotes on LexisNexis.)

Tyson responded to the criticism in the comment section by saying Davis misunderstood the context of the speech because he was not there for the whole speech.

"When I am invited to give a talk, especially to an audience that is not the general public, but to a specific gathering of people within a trade, I tune the contents for that audience, for that time, and for that place. So tone and flavor and context and intent are all key elements to any message I convey all missing to anyone who was not present at the time," he wrote.

(A spokeswoman for the Hayden Planetarium confirmed in a response to The Daily Beastthat the comment was written by Tyson.)

Davis responded to Tyson in a Sept. 15 articlewhere he found additional examples of Tyson using the same apparently fabricated quotes. He also found that Tyson changes the facts of a story he often tells about being called to serve on a jury.

On Sept. 16, Davis published another article about Tyson, this time misquoting Bush: according to Tyson, Bush sowed religious division after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by claiming that Christianity's God is the only true God.

In "attempting to distinguish we from they," Tyson said, Bush said in a speech within a week after the attack that, "our God is the God who named the stars."

See the rest here:

Why Is Wikipedia Removing References to Neil deGrasse Tyson Misquoting George W. Bush?

Wikipedia works using a complex network of buckets, cups, donuts, pointy hats, boxes and mysterious spherical objects.

Lies, damned lies, and Wikipedia articles.

Isn't it annoying how Wikipedia always copies your homework

Wikipedia isn't a good source. Didn't you know it was a fuckin' parody?

Mission Accomplished.

Wikipedia ("the 'free' encyclopedia") is a website that parodies Uncyclopedia. It was founded in 2001, when it began its noble goal of spreading the world's misinformation in the most inconspicuous way possible. For this reason, academic experts strongly urge students not to cite Wikipedia.[1] Originally written exclusively in Klingon, the project currently spans all the known languages of history.[2] The English version has over twelve million pages, most of them capitalization redirects.

Only one vehicle for article humor is employed at Wikipedia: actual information[citation needed]. However, much of the behind-the-scenes aspects of Uncyclopedia are also parodied, from the abundance of maintenance templates to the system for rating articles. Like Uncyclopedia, Wikipedia has guidelines regarding what is and is not acceptable content, and these guidelines have become exceedingly long and complex as a parody of Uncyclopedia's comparatively simple rules. The site has gained media attention due to its articles on places, people, and painfully obscure pop culture.

Wikipedia's name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for stealing content from other websites, from the Hawaiian word wiki, meaning 'thief') and pedia meaning 'children'; literally stealing content for perverting children's brains.[3] Its logo is a spherical magical puzzle globe, named Merlin after the loyal wizard of King Arthur's court, which serves as a spoof of Uncyclopedia's hollow potato logo.

The name "nupedia" clearly shows a connection with Jimbo's earlier project bomis.com.

Wikipedia traces its origins to 2001, when a pair of bored college students, Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger, decided that the same principles that made things like the graffiti on bathroom stalls great could also be applied to internet encyclopedias.[4] Armed with a pretentious sense of self-righteousness and a can-do attitude, the two bright-eyed youngsters created their website, named "nupedia.com". Naturally, this venture was a spectacular failure. Instead of learning from their mistake, though, Wales and Sanger decided to go the AIG route, and rename their idea while making no real changes to it.

Original post:

Wikipedia - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Wikipedia aspires to be a neutral source of verifiable information about just about everything of import. The problem is that sometimes people disagree about what information is relevant or credible. This is particularly the case for politically charged subjects, such as political figures or policy matters over which ideological partisans disagree. The result is that the more controversial the subject matter, the more one has to approach a Wiki page with caution.

The Wikipedia page for Neil deGrasse Tyson is a case in point. As I noted here, Sean Davis has made a powerful case that noted scientist Neil Degrasse Tyson has a tendency to embellish stories in his speeches and public remarks. Most notably, it appears that Tyson wrongly attributed remarks to former President George W. Bush in order to portray the former president in a particularly unflattering light. The tall tale was, according to theTampa Tribunes Tom Jackson, a vicious, gratuitous slander. Others find the charge against Tyson quite credible.

The problem is there is no record of Bush having made the remarks Tyson attributed to him, the alleged speech is not in the White House archive, and Bushs former speechwriters deny any such remarks were given. Moreover, the sentiment Tyson attributes to Bushconflicts with other contemporaneous remarks by the president and other incidental details about Tysons account dont line up.

We all make mistakes, particularly when speaking off-the-cuff. Yet this was not an impromptu remark. Rather it was part of a planned speech and a video of the relevant passage it is highlighted on the Hayden Planetarium Web site. So Tyson would seek to think it is significant. The charge is also the sort of claim that a scholarof Tysons statute should be able to substantiate. Yet as of this writing, neither Tyson nor his representatives have offered any support for the claim, or otherwise responded to the accusation.

So a credible accusation of wrongdoing has been made against a prominent public figure, and the charge has been noted in numerous publications. Including this on a Wiki page is a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. I understand why Wikipedia editors might not want to take sides on the underlying question, as more facts may yet emerge. Yet the fact of the accusation itself would seem to be the sort of thing that would be included in the subjects Wikipedia page, provided it is referenced in a neutral manner (e.g. Tyson has been accused of . . . ).

Since the charges were made there has been a mini-editing war over this portion of Tysons Wiki page. No doubt some of this is due to ideological partisanship. Some intelligent design proponents and climate skeptics wouldto take Tyson down a peg, as would some other conservatives. Others seem just as eager to safeguard his reputation at all cost. Indeed, some of the arguments against referencing Tysons alleged fabricationare quite amusing. Again, however, the charge is out there, and it seems quite credible. Its not as if someone is claiming Tysons speeches were written by Bill Ayers.

All this goes to show that while Wikipedia has its uses,when a Wiki pagecovers matters that are the subject of ideological dispute, the reader should be wary.

Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at the Case Western University School of Law, where he is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation.

View post:

Volokh Conspiracy: What makes an accusation Wiki-worthy?

Picher, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Picher, Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI created this video with the YouTube Slideshow Creator (http://www.youtube.com/upload)

By: Muhammad Haroon Aslam

Read the original:

Picher, Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Video

10 Articles Banned From Wikipedia
10 Articles Banned From Wikipedia Heavy metal music, weed, and radio stations have all been deleted from Wikipedia. Watch the clip to find out what the authorities have tried to stop you learning...

By: Alltime10s

Link:

10 Articles Banned From Wikipedia - Video