A problem that prevents people from spotting things like this is that there are tons and tons of sites that just have copies of Wikipedia articles or the site just blindly copies things from Wikipedia.<p>For example... Alicia Keys birthday on Wikipedia is wrong, she was born in 1980, not 1981. If you read the Talk page about this there are several times where discussion of this takes place. But due to a Wiki Admin sitting on the page, he/she refuses to acknowledge this change and the articles he cites that she was born in 1981 most likely were using the Wikipedia article as reference. So how do you argue your position when the admin says, "Hey my source is Magazine X, it is reputable so therefore you are wrong"
The problem is that wikipedia has become too heavily relied on, and there aren't any better alternatives yet. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, and in some ways it's not actually a very good one. The standard of "proof" for a wikipedia article is actually not a primary source, it's a secondary source. Wikipedia is setup, in its blood, to avoid having to do original work to verify facts, they want other trusted organizations to do the leg work.<p>However, increasingly people are using wikipedia as a first and only source of data, and this includes many of those "trusted organizations", which produces a trust loop paradox. And this is because despite all these faults wikipedia still manages to be a solid, accurate source of information most of the time.<p>We're not going to escape out of this paradox until primary sources become more available on the internet and we start getting articles written which make use of primary sources.
This is a good reminder of the only safe way to use Wikipedia: as a pointer
to references, rather than as an actual source of information. And you must check those references yourself, rather than assuming that they say what the article authors claim they say.
According to Wikipedia[1] there have been several hoax articles that lasted even longer than this one.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...</a>
>...William Beutler, president of Beutler Wiki Relations, a Wikipedia consulting firm, told Yahoo News.<p>What? How is 'wikipedia consulting firm' a thing?
One of the results of Wikipedia, is that I now take every supposedly reliable article with a grain of salt. Any encyclopedia that doesn't provide detailed references that I can review, I presume to be <i>inaccurate</i> until proven otherwise.<p>That, I think, is the greatest contribution that Wikipedia has made - it requires people to cite their sources, before they get <i>any</i> credibility; and even then, there is always some doubt.
It's not even the worst of the bunch the hoax page on Wikipedia shows many more, or is that page a hoax too?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...</a>
One should not forget: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_War" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ned_Scott/Upper_Peninsula_...</a>
To me, the fact that these expertly-created hoaxes on Wikipedia have eventually been discovered is a testament to the strength of the Wikipedia model. It's certain that there are still weaknesses, as have been outlined in other comments on this story, but if we were to be given a crystal ball to verify all of recorded human history, we'd surely find that a staggering amount of it is wholly false winners-write-the-history-books nonsense.<p>What's more interesting about this article is the staggering, agressive ignorance displayed by the commenters on the India Times website. If you're interested in a dose of outrage to get your blood boiling, give them a read.
It should be relatively easy to create a Wikipedia page about something so obscure that nobody is actively looking for it or an expert in it. Add to it, it is well-written and appears to be well-referenced by made-up books.<p>The article talks about an admittedly little-known clash between India and Portugal in the 1600's where there was little damage or historical consequence after. It's like an island in the ocean of wikipedia, rather than a new island inserted into a river that people pass by every day.<p>It'd be much harder to make up something about a little known clash between Germany and Canada during World War 2 because so many experts on WW2 exist.
Those who are interested in seeing the hoax article can find a copy of it at this mirror site:<p><a href="http://www.thefullwiki.org/Bicholim_conflict" rel="nofollow">http://www.thefullwiki.org/Bicholim_conflict</a>
Could ``Bicholim Conflict'' have been a potential Mountweazel for Wikipedia:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry</a>