How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/

by sasvari • 14 years ago

135 67 14 years ago

jvrossb• 14 years ago

I'm ashamed to admit in my youth I created a fake Wikipedia page in a couple hours (between 3 and 5AM) that lasted for months before a friend of mine accidentally exposed it as fake by being silly in the talk section.

It was flagged as dubious because the date that the fictional piece the fictional composer I created had supposedly been performed the day of a new Pope's election didn't match the date on that Pope's wikipedia article.

Turns out we had the right date and the Pope's wikipedia article the wrong one. So our hoax ended up resulting in another article being corrected. From then on, anyone who looked at the talk page saw that someone had already flagged the page as dubious but that it had been resolved in our favour. This gave the hoax quite a bit of credibility. Made me realize how easy it is to create convincing hoaxes.

rangibaby• 14 years ago

Or the person who had an extra name added by a Wikipedia editor, which was then copied by mainstream media. The hoaxers then used that as a citation, creating "truth". Wow!

DanBC3• 14 years ago

Well, wikipedia doesn't talk about truth, but about verifiability. That's a bit of a problem because most people (even most wp editors) don't get the difference. Certainly people visiting wp expect it to be both truthful and verifiable.

kulkarnic• 14 years ago

I'd rather have a link to the actual Atlantic web page for this story, not the Print view. It's at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-th...

I think directly linking to the print view is dishonest: telling the Atlantic you plan to print an article, and instead posting it to HN is essentially stealing their ad revenue.

PS: Even if you claim ads are distracting and this is actually a service to the community, I'd rather install ad blockers and make such decisions myself.

reneherse• 14 years ago

What annoys me is the complete loss of affordances for navigation, date, author info, context, etc.

masklinn3• 14 years ago

I often prefer print pages for BI-type "articles" where 300 works are split across 5 different pages, but yeah in this case the article is a single page originally, and the site's own chrome isn't overbearing. There was no reason to link to the print version.

masklinn3• 14 years ago

> It's tough to con Reddit.

That is debatable, Reddit has been conned a lot in the past.

But one error when trying to con the site seems to be too much information: many users apparently love snooping around and digging (and are pretty good at it), so giving more information initially makes claims more credible, but also gives more strings on which users can pull risking unraveling the whole thing.

Furthermore, there's a high level of dependency on the subreddit in which things go "viral", some subreddits are far more credulous than others (and credulity depends on the subject matter as well, you can get both /r/atheism and /r/libertarian to lap up claims unchecked, but it's unlikely the same claim will work on both) (this also means hoaxes are far more likely to unravel as they spread outside of a given subreddit and get wider exposure in the community)

wyck• 14 years ago

Exactly, the hive mind at work, for example: http://gawker.com/5751581/misguided-internet-vigilantes-atta...

Also every once and a while a hoax reaches the front page, usually some highly suspect family situation or someone finding a treasure chest in their basement and asking reddit what to do.

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

I wonder if you also find this professor really really objectionable?

I certainly do. First off, any bona-fide academic ought to have respect for the truth, not deliberately set out to build his carreer on lies. One has to wonder: does he also encourage lies in academic publications? Does the publishing outlet, i.e. traditional paper journal versus the internet justify that much difference to the principle of being honest in research? I think anyone this confused about the necessity of the truth should not be an academic. If I was his colleague, I would support steps to have his tenure terminated forthwith.

Secondly, the techniques prof. Kelly teaches and employs are classical disinformation tools, as practiced by Hitler, KGB and other such illustrious preceptors of his. Presumably some of his college funding is intended 'for the public good'. I really question prof. Kelly's idea that expanding the skills base in the disinformation field is for the public good.

Thirdly, and most importantly, one has to ask: what is his real agenda? Clearly it is to disable/discredit/damage/destroy the free exchange of valid information on the internet. If there ever was a real 'information terrorist' it must be him.

cirwin• 14 years ago

I agree that this behaviour is quite objectionable, though for a subtly different reason.

In particular it's not a case of malicious spreading of misinformation, it seems that in the case that the hoax worked the lies were deleted.

Rather it's a case of abusing a public resource. It feels to me somewhat like training a group of school-children to play Rugby on a village bowling green. Sure the damage to the grass will be undone over time, and sure the chance of knocking over any real old ladies is very small; but it's still an irreverent gesture that shows a dangerous lack of respect.

In the real world we have checks to make sure this kind of behaviour doesn't get too out of hand; on the internet we've so far managed to avoid the need. I hope that continues.

Robin_Message5• 14 years ago

That certainly makes sense. But hopefully, since he is in some sense a public figure, we rely on him to make sure the good done is in excess of any damage caused, since he would be censured if that were not the cases. For example, if he had got students to break into museums and make actual changes to historical documents with bleach and ink, he'd make the cons more believable but the harm would be too great.

I don't think he did cross that line though. Some solutions if he did: what if he escrowed (and set a time to release) the pranks in case they aren't caught? What about donating to wikipedia, since it's their green they are mainly playing rugby on?

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

Yes, I can relate to that but I think the quaint imagery of a village green does not nearly capture the insiduousness of this. He enourages his students to do their best to make the hoax work. Deleting the lies later, while laudable, does not undo the real (intended?) damage to the reputation of the internet.

I really struggle to think of positive educational outcomes from teaching students to pull off successful disinformation exploits.

Robin_Message5• 14 years ago

Firstly, I think you are confusing different kinds of lies. Lying is bad for society when it is used to get an unfair advantage, i.e. to commit fraud. But lying in other contexts, for other reasons? If he tells his wife she looks great when, objectively, she's no Helen of Troy, should he also be stripped of tenure?

Secondly, teaching defense against the dark arts generally requires giving the students a working knowledge of the dark arts. Would you object to the publication of Robert Cialdini's Influence on the same basis?

Thirdly, by illustrating how easy it is to damage the free exchange of information, he helps individuals become more resistant to lies and helps the internet develop new ways to fight misinformation. Think of him as a vaccine to the actual 'information terrorists.'

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

You might be right that lying in research is not legally fraud. It just breaks the academic contract and so people do get stripped of tenure for it alone, not for making money out of it, and rightly so. If you think that this kind of lying is cost-less, you will hardly find anyone who had ever been to a university agreeing with you.

This guy is not teaching defence against the dark arts. He is teaching the dark arts.

I do not object to the publication of anything at all, except of deliberately fabricated lies. Anywhere, with whatever artificially constructed post-justification.

And yes, it is easy. That is exactly why I am concerned and it should not be encouraged.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

I don't agree. I think the professor is just trying to teach people that you can't trust what you read to be true, and test the rigour by which fact-checking actually takes place on the internet (rarely). He's not trying to say 'truth isn't necessary' or anything of the sort.

His cons are generally harmless, and he has revealed them so wheres the net loss? There is a long way between this and someone who actually subversively tries to push his views on others (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax )

ttt_• 14 years ago

I don't think he is objectionable. In fact, I think he's a great teacher. He manages to not only teach his students, but educate a good portion of internet communities and users.

He seems to me much akin to a whitehat security hacker.

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

No, he fucks with innocent reader's knowledge of history and with his students' moral values.

But maybe you are right. I am about to start writing erroneous and deeply misleading programming manuals to teach you schmucks not to believe what you read. Wheee, I am on my way to become a great teacher with a bloody big white hat!

nollidge3• 14 years ago

> set out to build his carreer on lies

You may wish to turn down the hyperbole, it's obscuring whatever point you have. He's not "building a career" here, he's teaching a class about historical hoaxes. What better way to teach than to demonstrate?

> does he also encourage lies in academic publications?

He's not encouraging lies at all in the first place. He's using carefully crafted lies as, like one of your repliers said, an intellectual vaccine against actual hoaxes.

He's helping inoculate his students and those aware of the hoax against gullibility in the future. How is that not a net benefit?

> I really question prof. Kelly's idea that expanding the skills base in the disinformation field is for the public good.

I think teaching people magic tricks enables them to deconstruct the magic show in front of them. Teaching them how hoaxes are constructed teaches them how to recognize and call them out in the future.

> Clearly it is to disable/discredit/damage/destroy the free exchange of valid information on the internet.

That's not clear at all.

It's interesting, you say "valid information" as if there's a clear way of recognizing information out there as valid. But there isn't. THAT's what his agenda is: how do we tell the real from the fake?

djcb• 14 years ago

Teaching students about being careful about sources -- online or not -- is good of course. But he should just have shared a paper about or something like that.

I agree with Wales; deliberately putting untruths on Wikipedia is really anti-social behavior. Wikipedia, however imperfect, is a really great asset -- people using it for their own little experiments like this is really doing everyone a great disservice, and I can only imagine how many others he has inspired to do similar things.

eru2• 14 years ago

> But he should just have shared a paper about or something like that.

Would anyone would have paid attention?

blahedo• 14 years ago

The best way to teach someone to be a security expert is to teach them to crack a system; he is doing an analogous thing, I think.

Where this project goes astray (and I agree that it does) is that his academic and professional community don't seem to have the well-developed concept of "white hat" vs "black hat" that we have here. Translating this into an analogous situation in our primary domain, we're upset because he's teaching them security by leading them through a significant black-hat operation.

The larger problem is, although we can train white-hats by constructing isolated networks and systems to practice on, it's not really possible to construct an isolated system when your "system" is and has to be a social network of actual people.

spodek• 14 years ago

Speaking of Reddit, People on HN often jab them when they discipline others for violating community norms, as in "This isn't Reddit. Please keep on topic."

Not once have I seen the Reddit jab helpful. I've only seen it superfluous and petty. I like people saying "Please keep on topic," but why jab another community? I don't even use Reddit.

I say this hoping it helps people simply remind others of this community's norms without needlessly jabbing others.

mmahemoff2• 14 years ago

It's not a jab. It's just different community norms. HN wouldn't be HN if people were allowed to open up 10-level nested comedy threads. If I want to read those - and sometimes I do - I know I can go to Reddit.

masklinn3• 14 years ago

> It's not a jab.

It is a jab.

> It's just different community norms.

There are no "community norms" for reddit, each subreddit has its own norms and things which work in one may get all your comments mod-deleted in an other.

jasonlotito4• 14 years ago

If your comment amounts to "This isn't Reddit", then you're part of the problem. There are several ways to show your displeasure without having to resort to posting pointless and wasteful comments.

In truth, I find the posts whining about such things worse then the posts they are in reply to.

anotherthrow4• 14 years ago

Well, one of HN's aims is to avoid the eternal september that is very much affecting reddit at the moment. Given that, superfluous jabs at reddit might actually be effective in maintaining a barrier between the communities, or at least strongly remind people of the very specific conversational norms which apply here.

Although I started using HN a while ago, I would definitely count myself as someone who uses HN to get interesting stories after going through digg and then reddit (and I'm sure there are a lot of us here) but I'm strongly aware of the particular rules here and do find myself making more of an effort to converse in good faith / be less snarky.

jasonlotito4• 14 years ago

Your comment is beside the point. The issue isn't the quality of the comment the "This isn't reddit" comment is in reply to. Rather, it's the "This isn't Reddit" comment itself. Unless things have changed, you cannot upvote or downvote a post you reply to, or that replies to you (at least, your vote doesn't count). Replying means you are doing nothing more than calling attention to the comment.

If the comment is not worthy of being on HN, then it's also reasonable to conclude that most comments it sparks will be of equal or lesser value. Read that part again.

Understand that if a comment sparks intelligent discussion, it's generally a good comment. And comments that spark intelligent discussion should be supported.

So, either you are part of the problem, or you are wrong, by posting "This isn't Reddit. Please keep on topic." comments. The best solution? Vote accordingly and contribute.

abrahamsen• 14 years ago

I don't see it as a jab, but a helpful reminder. At least, personally I often find myself starting to compose a funny reply that would be fine for reddit, before remembering that this is Hacker News with different standards. Like many others, I'm active both places, and don't want to dilute the difference.

debacle• 14 years ago

It isn't a jab. Reddit is a different community, much closer to the 'average' than what people want HN to be.

JonnieCache• 14 years ago

It seems more and more that "this isn't slashdot" might be the more relevant admonishment.

ralfn• 14 years ago

Im on both Reddit and HN. Those comments are not jabs, but just reminders, that the intent, purpose and scope of the sites is different.

HN is about on topic knowledge sharing, and well formulated opinions.

Reddit is more a social interaction, where debate and knowledge sharing are just one of the many types of interactions.

willvarfar• 14 years ago

So these students failed. A new batch will be back next year, and they'll not slip up this way - they could well be creating wikipedia aliases already in preparation for taking the course later, for example, or using other collaborative sources.

The key thing is that reddit hasn't just saved us. It hasn't just demonstrated you cannot put out bias and falsehood on the Internet. Its just whacked a mole because the students were, well, students.

scott_w• 14 years ago

I don't think it's about success or failure.

What's more interesting is how the different communities responded to the attempted hoaxes. This can help us understand how different hoaxes, memes etc. are spread and how they are, or aren't, debunked.

rbanffy• 14 years ago

I feel strangely compelled to check on Reddit if this really happened ;-)

cafard• 14 years ago

How big a feat is fooling Wikipedia? I doubt I look 50 pages per year.

uxp• 14 years ago

It's not hard. A friend of mine nicknamed a very rare disease on Wikipedia. A few months to a year later a news organization used the Wikipedia page's nickname for the disease when writing an article for it. He then cited the use of that nickname on the Wikipedia page with the news article, and thus, the nickname had a validated citation, and will possibly never go away.

Robin_Message5• 14 years ago

Obligatory xkcd refernce: http://xkcd.com/978/

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

I posted some comments below laying out the reasons why I don't like this. I got heavily downvoted and the majority opinion is clearly against me, saying essentially that he is a great teacher with the white hat for teaching everyone not to believe what they read on the internet. I guess I ought to gracefully admit defeat and bow out to oblivion.

Still, I cannot resist making one final farewell appeal. Consider carefully the near future, when prof. Kelly will have produced a flood of busy graduates, all experts at disinformation. What is the likely outcome of his program if it succeeds? It is not that hard to guess. You will get what you applaud: you will no longer be able to trust anything you read, ever. You seem to consider this to be of some great educational value but I must admit that the value escapes me.

Let me extrapolate one step further. What is the point of reading anything if it is all likely to be false? Exactly. Stop reading and sit on your dumb asses watching TV.

Robin_Message5• 14 years ago

Snipping some insults in return and focusing on the issue here: "graduates, all experts at disinformation" — snort!?!?

The world is full of experts in disinformation, and they're not the graduates of a short University course on History that couldn't even fool reddit (no offense redditors!)

They are politicians, lobbyists, campaigners of all political stripes, bureaucrats, journalists, historians etc. Knowing how to sort the wheat from the chaff (and knowing it necessary to do so) is half the point of education, especially in History. And that's what the professor is helping achieve, not a systematic destruction of the written word through a single demonstration as part of a 3 credit University course. Experts at disinformation my hat!

eru2• 14 years ago

And you think not having this one course will make it easier for you to keep your illusions?

tytso• 14 years ago

>Still, I cannot resist making one final farewell appeal. Consider carefully the near future, when prof. Kelly will have produced a flood of busy graduates, all experts at disinformation.

As others have pointed out, masters of disinformation have existed long before this class existed. To take just one example, if you're left-leaning, Fox News (to liberals, Faux News). If you agree with Fox News, then you'll consider everything from the the "Mainstream Media" (or "Lamestream Media") to be disinformation.

Furthermore, there is a grand tradition in explaining about how the "darks arts" are done so you can defend against it. In order to devise defenses to nerve gas, you need to understand how to effectively deploy nerve gas. If you want to understand how politicians and other masters of disinformation use statistics, the book "How To Lie Using Statistics" is an invaluable guide.

> What is the likely outcome of his program if it succeeds? It is not that hard to guess. You will get what you applaud: you will no longer be able to trust anything you read, ever.

Yes, this. You should never blindly trust anything that you read. That's what critical thinking is all about. The point of reading is to find alternate points of view and information that you might not have known before, but everything should be cross-checked to some degree. In some cases you can trust the source because you've previously found the source to be authoritative (say, a professor teaching a class).

But the point of what people are trying to point out with respect to wikipedia is that just because one Wikipedia article has been proven to have a reliable secondary source of information, aggregating multiple primary sources into a handy reference article, is absolutely no guarantee that that particular article will continue to be reliable, or that any other Wikipedia article is guaranteed to be reliable. Using Wikipedia to expose yourself to something that you didn't know before: Good. Not cross-checking anything you read at Wikipedia with primary source material to learn more and to verify the facts that you found in the Wikipedia article? Foolhardy.

SagelyGuru9• 14 years ago

>In some cases you can trust the source because you've previously found the source to be authoritative (say, a professor teaching a class)

Allow me to laugh. This is a professor teaching a class (how to lie)! I guess that makes him an authority on lying but can someone like that be said to be authoritative? Or all other professors, by association?

I must say that I accept many of the valid responses here, thank you. His classes no doubt are educational and one should, of course, check the sources.

However, he is taking practical assignments too far. You can teach students to beware of liers without them first having to lie themselves. It does not seem like the skill of a great teacher to make them actually lie to the public. More like a desperate stunt from a teacher running out of ideas and morals.

Understading is one thing and I agree with all that but in terms of your examples, he is demanding the equivalent of his students actually deploying the nerve gas against unsuspecting people. (Thank you for suggesting that hyperbola)

nollidge3• 14 years ago

> you will no longer be able to trust anything you read, ever.

Were you born yesterday? You already can't trust anything you read, at least not 100%. Even if you had actually shown (as opposed to simply declaring repeatedly) that he's making the problem worse, it would be a drop in the ocean.

sevenstar• 14 years ago

The top of the page says, "...helps reveal the shifting nature of the truth on the Internet". It makes it sound like the ►internet is a different reality. The internet is just a reflection of what is already going on in the world. What people do offline is what people do online.

How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit

Related Stories