# Favourite wikipedia bloop



## feralimal (Sep 14, 2020)

What's your favourite Wikipedia bloop?  Feel free to share below.

I know wikipedia is much derided, but nevertheless it is the source the world uses.  No one buys encyclopedias any more and anyway, I reckon that they were just as fallible anyway.  Personally, I accept Wikipedia for what it is - a fallible, sometimes propagandistic, source of information.  I like to think I can read between its lines and as such I find it a useful source for getting the official story on some part of our reality.  I have heard somewhere that I should go ahead and improve it by editing it myself.  Its a fair criticism frankly.  My response though, is that life is too short.

Anyway, here's one I thought wikipedia would do better on.  We all know the largest land animal right?  The biggest one, we would all look out to see one at the zoo...  *The Elephant*, of course!

My question was *"How heavy was/is the biggest elephant?"*

Pause for a sec.  As far as I know, elephant size is a politically neutral topic.  Its also a topic beloved of school kids (and adults) everywhere - what is the biggest/fastest/most poisonous/etc..  I was sure that for this sort of info wikipedia would be good.  I was surprised.

If you look at this page: Largest organisms - Wikipedia
under: Heaviest terrestrial animals
you can see:
African bush elephant,  Maximum mass [tonnes] = *12.25*

If you click on the link to the African bush elephant you get to this page
African bush elephant - Wikipedia
and under: Size
you can read:
The African bush elephant is the largest and heaviest land animal on Earth, being up to 3.96 m (13.0 ft) tall at the shoulder and *10.4 t* (11.5 short tons) in weight.

Oh my!  An elephant might be 12.25 t OR 10.4.  That's basically a 2 tonne give or take!  For me this is instructive over just how bad wikipedia can be!  "Yeah, how big is the biggest land animal in world?  The biggest elephant was either 10t or 12t." 

​
Btw, I first spotted this _last year_.   It does make me think that no one really checks anything.





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SuperTrouperDate: 2019-09-12 23:26:57Reaction Score: 0


It's our collective responsibility to improve wikipedia.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: StarmonkeyDate: 2019-09-12 23:36:04Reaction Score: 1


Or just make everything ambiguous. Maybe we'll transcend WIKI.
I'd sooner kiss a wookie!


----------



## codis (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: codisDate: 2019-09-13 06:19:08Reaction Score: 1




SuperTrouper said:


> It's our collective responsibility to improve wikipedia.


Hmmm, not sure if I smell sarcasm here - or not.
Better don't get me started on Wackopedia.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SuperTrouperDate: 2019-09-14 04:03:00Reaction Score: 1




codis said:


> Hmmm, not sure if I smell sarcasm here - or not.
> Better don't get me started on Wackopedia.


Not at all. Wikipedia is not going to change on its own. The easiest thing to do is complain about it, right? "No one is going to give it to you, you gotta take it." (Quote from the Departed)


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2019-09-14 04:06:03Reaction Score: 1


Wikipedia reflects the narrative and is not going to change, IMHO. It's probably easier to create an alternative. Unfortunately too much work it is. The majority of the world population are main stream through no fault of their own.


----------



## feralimal (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FeralimalDate: 2019-09-14 05:56:04Reaction Score: 5


Yep, I agree KD.

But even if I was inclined to fix it, and could stomach the waste of my time as I stepped in to 'edit wars' with other self proclaimed experts over what is truth, what then?  In this case, what would actually be the fix I could apply?

I'm no elephant expert, I just wanted to know how big the biggest elephant is/was.  Fine, I spotted a logical error, but how would I then decide which one of the possibilities is right (10t or 12t or something else)?  I wasn't there when a big elephant was shot.  I cannot personally verify anything and haven't checked the sources for validity.  I just did a quick search...

In fact, I'm not actually moaning -  Wikipedia may well be there best we can do.  Nevertheless, *I think it's funny that the world's most authoritative source cannot even tell us the weight of the biggest land animal! *

Actually, this is also a good example of a personal understanding on establishing truth.  I believe you can uncover lies, but you cannot uncover truth.  Here I have proved an inconsistency, but I couldn't prove the truth to you.  I can only stand by my personal experience, whether that's what I can personally verify or what I have researched.


----------



## codis (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: codisDate: 2019-09-16 12:54:28Reaction Score: 0




SuperTrouper said:


> Not at all.


Fully agree.


SuperTrouper said:


> Wikipedia is not going to change on its own. The easiest thing to do is complain about it, right?


I view Wackopedia as The Guarding Gatekeeper Of Misinformation. Truth and facts are less then secondary, it is mainly a propaganda tool to push agendas. You are not allowed to interfere.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SuperTrouperDate: 2019-09-17 00:35:50Reaction Score: 1




codis said:


> Fully agree.
> 
> I view Wackopedia as The Guarding Gatekeeper Of Misinformation. Truth and facts are less then secondary, it is mainly a propaganda tool to push agendas. You are not allowed to interfere.


Look, I absolutely take your comment, as we all have different experiences. I suppose that it all depends on the topic area. As I said, I've created a lot of pages and edited even more, but by and large not in the "politically sensitive" areas - this is probably why our experiences have been different. I actually haven't had any negative experiences.


----------



## codis (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: codisDate: 2019-09-17 05:31:36Reaction Score: 1




SuperTrouper said:


> Look, I absolutely take your comment, as we all have different experiences. I suppose that it all depends on the topic area. As I said, I've created a lot of pages and edited even more, but by and large not in the "politically sensitive" areas - this is probably why our experiences have been different. I actually haven't had any negative experiences.


I agree.
A lot of technical, scientifical or cultural pages are not that heavily guarded. Until the Party decides that 2+2=5 ...
Not only have seen many political entries that are either biased or leave out important information, you can find plenty of complaints of others that were refused editing access.


----------



## JWW427 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: JWW427Date: 2019-09-17 20:48:27Reaction Score: 3




*A bastion fort, star fort,* *Star Trek Fort*, or _*trace italienne*_ (a phrase improperly derived from French, literally meaning _Italian outline_), is a fortification in a style that evolved during the early modern period of gunpowder when the cannon came to dominate the battlefield. We think. Maybe. Sounds good anyway. It was first seen in the mid-15th century in Italy. Mmm, sort of. Some types, especially when combined with ravelins and other Frenchified outworks, resembled the related *star fort* of the same era. Kindly do not confuse this lame explanation with those of the Tinfoil-hatted Sheeple-derived forums of Starforts.org and Stolenhistory.org, they are only doing your precious little minds great harm in the long run. We control the flow of good information, quality information, the only good quality information that's fit to print. Are you listening? That's a good citizen. Have a nap.


----------

