Wikipedia warning

[lynnmosher]

I heard a news report I wanted to pass along...there are some very mean-spirited people hacking into wikipedia and changing some of the entries about people and things. If you depend on wikipedia as a resource, check it against another. What is this world coming to that you can't even depend on the history books or other resources for the truth without someone messing around with it? Yikes! :eek:

[Ransom v. Unman]

Read 1984. With the internet, what Big Brother dreamed of regarding re-writing knowledge and history can all-too-easily become a reality.

I generally stick to wikipedia being a guide, and not an authority. It can lead me to good resources, but as a source itself, I only trust it as much as I'm familiar with the related subjects themselves.

But yeah, people have been doing that on Wikipedia for the longest. The mindless insistence that its founders have on "preserving anonymity" really shoots them in the foot, if you asked me.

[lynnmosher]

Amen to that!

[Marie Evergreen]

I have learned that all history is, is one man's take on what happened in a period of time. Take the civil war for instance. I grew up in California and learned it was to end slavery. My friend who grew up in South Carolina learned it was the war of southern Independence and had nothing to do with slavery.

Marie

[Ransom v. Unman]

Finer students of history would be able to assess both sides. And that's the problem with people trying to haxx0r wikipedia... People who have no interest in the other side of things are seizing the reins, and making it far more difficult to get to the truth.

[ProfessorAlan]

As a professional academic, I am emphatic to my students that wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source for information.

I like wikis in concept, but by there very nature (user-generated, community-based, democratic) can not be authoritative.

[lynnmosher]

Your students have a great prof...!thumbsup!

[ProfessorAlan]

awww, thanks.

[lynnmosher]

Awww, you're welcome!!! :D

[Lion_Angel]

I have learned that all history is, is one man's take on what happened in a period of time. Take the civil war for instance. I grew up in California and learned it was to end slavery. My friend who grew up in South Carolina learned it was the war of southern Independence and had nothing to do with slavery.

Marie

Someone's take on it is only part of history. If all history is is someone's take on it, then we really don't know our world's past, do we? The holocaust, revolutionary war, St. Patrick...No, history has records of what happened, and then historians collect as much as they can find about that part in time and pick up the pieces. If we don't follow the records, then all our past is is a winding blur.

However, there is such thing as misinterpreting history, like one of you did. And, like me, Columbus' arrival to America wasn't all peace and unity at all. They used the Natives in such brutal ways and forced the land from their fingers. But America made it seem like a beautiful part of history. So, yes, our take is part of it, but it's the solid facts that matter.

[Tommie Lyn]

If all history is is someone's take on it, then we really don't know our world's past, do we?
Most of recorded history is "someone's take on it." Because, as human beings, we each approach any given subject from our own, biased slant, no matter how hard we try to be objective (and many respected historians don't try all that much to be objective). And often, the "official" historians, whose "history" is the "approved" one, have slanted their "history" so as to make it acceptable to the powers that be.

But the other information will be out there, too, just not as widely known. From looking at all the sources of information, one can form a reasonable picture of what might have happened.

[Tommie Lyn]

Oops -- got sidetracked and didn't say what I'd intended about Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia as a quick source of easily verifiable information and as a jumping off point for more serious inquiry. There is usually a good bit of gathered information that I can use to Google and find corroborating sources, which I can evaluate as to reliability.

But for more serious research, I still rely on books.

[Tamera]

When writing a historical novel, we do have to understand different takes on it as well as the facts. Our characters will have different biases and therefore see the same historical events differently.

[Tommie Lyn]

When writing a historical novel, we do have to understand different takes on it as well as the facts. Our characters will have different biases and therefore see the same historical events differently.
Or, like the series I'm currently writing, there is very little information even available about certain events and their aftermath, and most of what is available is skewed to the victor's viewpoint. If your character is on the losing side, he is bound to see things from a different angle, based on how the events affect him.

In writing the sequel to my first novel, I've been researching the repeated destruction of Cherokee towns in their original homeland. And yesterday, while doing research on another subject, I found and reread testimony that had been given on behalf of a relative who was making application for enrollment in the Cherokee Nation. The person making the testimony said that she was present when soldiers had burned the homes of some men who were collateral ancestors of mine, and stated that the soldiers didn't cut down corn at that time because the weather was cold (i.e., it was winter, and there was no growing corn to cut down.) I'd read that testimony before, but at the time I had never heard about the destruction of the Cherokee towns and it made no sense to me. This time -- it hit me squarely between the eyes, affected me on a personal level. I knew what she was talking about because of what I'd learned during my research.

[Ransom v. Unman]

When writing a historical novel, we do have to understand different takes on it as well as the facts. Our characters will have different biases and therefore see the same historical events differently.

Well, obviously...

Your characters, however, aren't writing wikipedia articles that are supposed to be factual and unbiased. :)

[tlm]

I googled my name once and found I am mentioned in Wikipedia! Truthfully, it was a Yahoo search. I periodically search my name on different search engines.

My alma mater included my name when they did an article on the school.

[Lookin^Up]

Generally, real history is determined from eyewitness accounts, diaries, speeches by VIP's of the day, missives, memos, and letters of all kinds. People pushng their own agenda tend to make it up as they go. Thus we have a movie about Alexander the Great which, among other things, suggests a gay liaison with his generals. Certainly the old series about Daniel Boone did not do him justice; even half of the theme song is wrong.

On the other hand, other filmmakers do their best to be true to their subject. A recent movie about Jane Austen is, according to Plugged In (http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0003343.cfm), mostly accurate, but it looks more like one of her books than anyone's real life.

[Tommie Lyn]

Generally, real history is determined from eyewitness accounts, diaries, speeches by VIP's of the day, missives, memos, and letters of all kinds.
Even that approach is flawed. Think about it. Four eyewitness accounts of an accident will sometimes disagree, because people see and interpret happenings differently. So, a diary entry may include the person's perceptions of the event, which may have no relation to what actually happened.

With that being said, I do rely on those things, the letters, diaries, etc., because I feel they are more reliable than "history" written by someone who didn't even live in that time. But self-serving speeches by politicians? Hmmm. If the information in them is supported by other sources, yes. Otherwise, one has to take them with a grain of salt (or a whole shakerful).

[Lookin^Up]

Even that approach is flawed. Think about it. Four eyewitness accounts of an accident will sometimes disagree, because people see and interpret happenings differently. So, a diary entry may include the person's perceptions of the event, which may have no relation to what actually happened.
Well, look at the New Testament letters we rely on for our Gospel account. As Bible students, we know that, like eyewitness accounts of an accident, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John sometimes differ on certain details, but we know the truth is in all four. Other gospels have been written, but they're not considered canonical because they were written after the First Century, and more closely fit the statement of your last sentence.

With secular letters and diaries it's more difficult, because those are not inspired Scripture, but the principle is the same. We must also consider the writer of whatever document we're using. Is he/she a reliable reporter? Is he/she close enough to the action? Does he/she have ulterior motives for reciting events as they do?