More of a legend, really.
It seems like this would be something that is common in all types of communities, not just this message board. Thanks for pointing out something that’s so totally obvious, not everyone has time to research everything all the time.
Something to the effect of: the professor arrives and leaves his hat on the desk and then leaves and comes back in. The class has been waiting and he sees no problem with being late because his hat indicates he intends to be there. So the next time, the whole class leaves their hats on their desks and leave class…
halfway down
I was satisfied enough by the translator’s account that I edited the Wikipedia entry to reflect it.
When I was doing research for my thesis, I found this happened quite often. People obviously hadn’t read the thing they were citing, or had misunderstood, or taken it out of context. It was usually something that was not the main focus of their argument, but something they wanted to be able use as a premise, or a point of comparison. That makes their work that much harder to evaluate, because some of the pieces are a bit shaky.
As for the claim that doctors long resisted the idea that stomach ulcers had an infectious cause, here’s a good article debunking the legend:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth
There’s a certain amount of irony in people citing research to prove that research can’t be trusted. 
Preach it!
In my field there’s a well known paper that appeared in the proceedings of a one-off conference (hence the tome is fairly rare). When I was in grad school I noticed the library had a copy. I checked it over.
The paper wasn’t in there. The page numbers in the citation didn’t even match an actual paper in it.
I later talked to the author and he knew this was a mistake. It was supposed to appear in it but he ran out of time and didn’t submit it. He had no idea where the page numbers from the cites in the cites. He, of course, never used the false cite.
I pointed this out to people. In my papers I gave as a correct citation the guy’s masters thesis where the result could be found.
The false citation is still out there and is the only one you see.
BibTeX files are a virus. No one cares if their copy of a copy of a copy are correct or not.
Another weird citation example.
Back in the early days of the field, two different people came up with a key founding result. One appeared slightly before the other, datewise of the journals. So it has a priority.
But: the “first” one actually appeared in a later issue! And oddest of all, the footers on the article carried the earlier date despite being in among all the papers of the current issue! It’s like someone deliberately fudged the date so that reprints sent out would carry an incorrect earlier date.
Of course the author of this paper was never involved in any other shenanigans over his career which doesn’t create any blots on his Turing Award at all. :rolleyes:
I recall an urban legend a while back that claimed that Harvard was unaccredited, but didn’t need or seek accreditation because its prestige was enough to get by.
Just to balance, there is the old urban legend that is partly true at many schools, and is a favorite of freezing college students.
Yes there is an old tunnel system under the campus connecting the building, often for an old central campus steam system, but no it didn’t get closed because a girl got raped. It got closed for general security and safety, cramped as hell with concussion pipes all over the place.
And no everybody did not forget how to get into into it. Security and maintenance have keys for emergencies, but it is not used often because of asbestos coated pipes, or conduits you have to climb over or something. So if you do Indiana Jones your way to finding a door into it(which is actually pretty freaking obvious in the basements of the buildings) you will not have free run of the campus warm and dry, because you will be facing heavy locks, chains, security/alarm systems, and B&E and trespassing charges.
I’m surprised that this article doesn’t at all reference or recognize Latour and Woolgar’s book Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, which I would say made most of these points way back in 1979.
At my school (Illinois) that was well known by firsthand knowledge. My buddies and I would frequently roam around in those tunnels, usually after dark and after a few hours at the bar. We would pop up into various campus buildings for a cool drink at a water fountain, then go back to scurrying around underground. The tunnels were never intended for student use, though, only for maintenance.
A legend I heard repeated often (but never tested) was that if the professor was ten minutes late to a lecture, you could leave and not be marked absent. If the class was taught by a TA, you only had to give him five minutes before you could leave.
What kind or rink-dink college keeps track of student absences?
If you’re old enough to attend college, you should be responsible enough to control your own schedule.
True – attendance was not taken but “class participation” (in the TA-led sessions) counted in some classes.
And wolfman, Dartmouth for one gives tours of the underground plant.
I’d be careful. I got into an argument about this in the past, to the point that an actual college teacher said they would fail me just for having the opinion that absences shouldn’t count if the students know the material.
In short, there is a huge, huge debate about this sort of thing.
Pretty sure my grad school policy was no more than two per semester (barring sick days.)
Now that I think about it, most discussion courses at my undergrad school took attendance, too. I think this is likely quite common.
The place I’m going in September has some bursaries available, with conditions including an attendance rate of 85%+, so I guess they track. If they’re recording who’s in the building for fire safety reasons anyway, why not?
Story told before:
C. 1996, I had to present a seminar in graduate school. I chose protein folding mechanisms as my subject; it’s a field which, like so many other fields, has certain papers which must always being cited; in this case, one by Dr. Cyrus Levinthal. My undergrad teachers had made a Big Point of “never cite a paper you have not read”, so I obtained the Paper in question - and discovered it was not about proteins at all. It didn’t even include the word “protein”. It was about sugars. 
Eventually I found the actual Paper. Turns out it’s not an article but the notes from a round table discussion; apparently, many academics did not think that sounded “academic” enough, so they started citing the wrong paper. And many, many others cited without reading.
I got points taken off my seminar for Daring To Cite The Correct Paper instead of the one everybody mentioned, and again for Using a Joke Name (I’d named my seminar after the actual Paper). But a few months later there was an interview to Dr. Levinthal in C&EN in which he was asked “how does it feel to be the author of the most-cited article in chemistry?” and his response was “it would feel better if people cited the right paper! They all cite the wrong one.” People went oops and started citing the right one, but seriously - why the bloody broken test tubes would anybody cite an article without even verifying what it’s about?
How are you supposed to get make-up labs for justified absences if attendance has not been checked? Considering how horrid my students were about lab safety, I sure do not want them doing their labwork on their own 
Nava, that’s great that you did that, especially in 1996, when it wasn’t so quick and easy to access articles.
(Not that easier access today means more people are READING the articles they cite…I bet the scenario you described still occurs – perhaps even more often, since it’s easier now to find a “pull quote” without taking the time to digest its context).