Video Part 3 is the rest of the story
But, remember, this isn’t considered a valid source.
Here are some more questionable sources.
A web site that claims the author did not create the God
A web site that explains he did create and name her
And a blog about the matter (2012)
Remember, according to Wikipedia, the author could be a liar. So a book that got the info from Wikipedia, that is completely wrong, is a better source than the actual author of a book. Because if a book is published, it must be true. The book. But what people say, that might be wrong.
The Neil Gaiman quote is “… and noted that the thing in question had started in American Gods. Now all reference to me and to American Gods has gone. It now has, after all, a reference book link. And something that I made up has become, to all intents and purposes, a fact.”
AFAICT, this concerns the mythological Zorja Polunochnaya, variously known as the “Evening Star”, “Midnight Star”, or “Midnight Sister”.
Wikipedia states the following in the above link (emphasis mine):
The Zorja appear in the novel American Gods by English author Neil Gaiman. Here Gaiman includes a third sister, Zorja Polunochnaya, the “Midnight Star”. A third sister is described in some versions of the myth, but Gaiman has stated he invented her for his work.
I don’t doubt, as I said before, that there are isolated instances of Wikipedia being wrong, especially on obscure crap like this, but even here I don’t see it. The question here is not difficult: link to a Wikipedia article, and show why it’s wrong. I still haven’t seen anyone do this.
In the 2010 version, it’s wrong in that it describes three historic Gods, AND claims that “The three Zorya appear as characters in Neil Gaiman’s novel American Gods.”
Wrong but in a way alomst impossible to describe. It’s hilarious.
The current version says “The Zorja appear in the novel American Gods by English author Neil Gaiman. Here Gaiman includes a third sister, Zorja Polunochnaya, the “Midnight Star”. A third sister is described in some versions of the myth, but Gaiman has stated he invented her for his work.[4][5]”
See? It’s still wrong. Better, but still wrong. But more to the point, is what it does not state. For example, if you search WP for “Zorja Polunochnaya”, a character actually created by Neil, it goes neither to his page, the books page, or even the Zorya page. It’s not that all of those things couldn’t be fixed in a matter of minutes.
It’s that nobody will even try anymore.
“Wrong in a way impossible to describe”? Really? Try harder. The concept of “wrong” is usually pretty straightforward.
I don’t have a freaking clue how many of these stupid gods there were, but the Encyclopedia of Russian and Slavic Myths and Legends was saying back in 1998 – three years before American Gods was published – that “by some accounts” there were three of them. And I assume that Gaiman’s book talks about all three. So all of that would appear to be correct.
Maybe the reason it’s “almost impossible to describe” why Wikipedia is wrong is because it isn’t.
Seems correct to me, according to the other sources.
Have no idea what you’re talking about. The page on the Zoryas links both to Neil Gaiman’s bio and to his book.
You also incorrectly attributed my quote to dasmoocher.
I’ve alerted Moderation to fix it. I apologize, it certainly wasn’t by intent.
That 1998 book shows ZoIrja Polunochnaya? Because I don’t see it.
That’s a pretty good find. (it’s the source he used) He says quite clearly that he created the name of the third one, and it ended up being listed on Wikipedia as appearing in ancient literature, and due to somebody using Wikipedia as the source, published a book saying so, which was then used to prevent the author who made up the name, from correcting the Wikipedia article.
yeah, it’s complicated and most people just don’t care that much.
As I said, if you search for "“Zorja Polunochnaya” it does not take you to the creator of the name, or to the book where it first appears.
No, it doesn’t show whatever you’ve chosen to invent that it’s supposed to say. It shows what I said it shows. Which is that it states under “Zorya Utrennyaya” that she is “one of two – or in some accounts, three – daughters of Dazhbog, she is the goddess of dawn …”. Neil Gaiman didn’t invent the third goddess. He may have just brought her more into the mainstream. Which means it’s far from clear that Wikipedia is, or was, “wrong” in any way, even in this obscure mythological stuff.
Anyone obsessed about this should care quite a lot that the third goddess was being discussed in a published encyclopedia years before Gaiman was supposed to have “invented” her, supposedly leading to its erroneous inclusion in Wikipedia.
I couldn’t care less, myself. But on the subject of how Wikipedia operates, I’m just following the trail of evidence. What seems more likely here – that Wikipedia is wrong even though this third goddess may have been in mythology for centuries and indisputably predates Gaiman’s book, or that this sci-fi/fantasy author is promoting himself by falsely claiming that he “invented” her?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. It goes back to 2006 I believe (it has been a very long time) and the editor in question is called Onefortyone and he (?) had a history of making numerous and constant changes to a number of articles relating to starts and their sexuality.
Here is his page which pretty much lays it all out there: User:Onefortyone - Wikipedia. His talk page is one long (literally years) of editing on the Elvis page as well as other pages as well as constant battles with other editors. It seemed an obvious case of trolling to me and to many others but Wikipedia felt it had to rigidly adhere to their editing protocols which I believe hurts them in instances like this.
All that being said, I still enjoy the site very much.
Lochdale,
Thanks for the link. I read through some of the “talk” section and also found some references to your ID which gave me some idea of what that was about, like reading some of the stuff that “Onefortyone” had added that you apparently kept removing.
I didn’t go into it very deeply, though superficially I’d have to agree that Onefortyone seemed to be putting in some rather odd unsubstantiated stuff. One thing that I did note was that Onefortyone himself was under warning from yet another editor with a possibility of a ban hanging over him. Quite frankly the whole “talk” section there strikes me as a great deal of “he said, she said” which leaves me very ambivalent about what to think. What I do note with some gratification, just based on my quick read, was that at least the one contentious set of paragraphs that Onefortyone kept putting in are not in the current article and, in fact, were the sort of thing that was getting him in trouble.
So I suppose what one can conclude from this example is that Wikipedia editing is not exactly always smooth sailing and can be surprisingly tumultuous, something I already knew from some of the inevitable climate change controversies. But I still maintain that I have yet to see a concrete instance of a significant incorrect fact becoming permanently entrenched in Wikipedia, particularly an important fact on a major topic. I’m in no position to say that this isn’t the case, and I have no doubt that it has happened temporarily many times – I can only say that I haven’t seen it.
How do you define important fact? How do you define important topic? How do you define permanently entrenched?
Apparently you don’t think that the article on deforestation is important, and you don’t think the fact that the article has made no mention at all of the positive effects of deforestation for 10 years is n entrenched incorrect fact.
The standard example I bring up here is that the rainforest article stated for over a decade that rainforests were the lungs of the earth, a myth that was debunked 30 years ago and is accepted by no scientist in the world. I fought for 6 months to get that changed and eventually gave up. The last time we discussed this on these boards, it was right back to where it was.
But it’s not like there aren’t plenty more. The tree article stated for years that there is only one scientifically accepted definition of a tree and that bananas and bamboo are not trees. The forest article stated that there is only one definition of a forest and then gave precise figures on the amount of forest cover in the world, the species found in forests and so forth based on that single definition.
One of the problems with your definition is that whenever these sorts of examples are brought up on these sorts of boards, somebody runs in and makes the appropriate changes, so that the error ceases to exist, at least briefly. So Wikipedia champions then get to claim that the error wasn’t “long term” even though it existed for over a decade. And then the next time it gets discussed we have to go to the effort of finding more long-term errors, which are corrected by the champions in the discussion. And then the exact same subject is brought up next time.
Which is why i ask you o clearly define what you mean by important fact, important topic and permanently entrenched. When you are able to do that we might be able to decide whether it’s a meaningful definition, and if it is I’m sure we can find multiple examples… which will then be corrected by people in this thread.
Well, proving something is wrong can be difficult when you have differing views on what is fact. However here is a possibility, this long detailed entry on the Battle of Bouvines.
You’ll note a number of scholarly-looking footnotes, including from such luminaries of medieval military history as Philip Contamine. However the primary reference cited is George Dubuy’s examination of the historiographical tradition surrounding the battle. At any rate contrast the account in that wiki article with one linked to in the wiki. That second article is largely attributed to one John Sloan, though it looks very similar to the account in one of military historian John France’s books as well ( I think it was this one, though I don’t have it in front of me at the moment and my memory is a little hazy, so don’t quote me on it 
).
You’ll note a number of similarities, mostly in regards to the latter phase of the battle. But also some marked differences. In the xenophon essay unlike the account in wikipedia, Philip Augustus didn’t choose the battlefield - it was forced upon him. In fact he got caught with his ass in a crack halfway across a bridge. The wiki brushes over the whole opening phase of the battle, by far the most critical. Philip made the risky decision to turn around and a regiment of knights showing tremendous discipline in managing to keep the advance guard of Otto IV’s arriving army from falling upon the French rear as the French filed back across the bridge to form up orderly battle lines on the riverbank.
You may argue these are inconsequential differences but in fact they sort of change the whole complexion of the battle. The wiki essay has both Philip and Otto seeking a battle, when it is not all clear that Philip actually wanted one. Under the circumstances Otto and John needed a victory, Philip really didn’t - he just needed to avoid defeat. Philip Augustus was slicker than greased goose shit and surely knew this. It also shows Philip on the strategic offensive, which the xenophon account flatly contradicts.
Even the course of the battle itself becomes a much riskier proposition when you consider the boldness of Philip’s decision. Granted it was perhaps the lesser of two bad choices, but fleeing and guaranteeing his own safety instead of almost dieing after being unhorsed would have been an easy route to take.
Now which account is correct? Well…Philip Augustus was no idiot. In fact as above he was very, very smart and while perhaps not as naturally talented a general las Richard I, he was very experienced. Philip Contamine has noted that scarcely a year went by in his reign when Philip was not out campaigning somewhere in some capacity. It’s hard to imagine a man of his caliber, who was presumably forcing the engagement if we believe the wiki, choosing to fight with his back to a river only fordable by a single bridge. Medieval armies were prone to localized rout - rout there and get jammed fleeing across a bridge and the whole damn army can collapse frighteningly fast. That’s just a poor tactical position anyway you look at it, unless you are choosing to force a do or die conmclusion. And Philip II was not a do or die sort of leader.
On balance I think that article is badly flawed and have thought so for years. Ironically so since it links directly to what is probably a more accurate account. But you can judge for yourself.
Again, I have no stake in Wikipedia and if it’s often seriously wrong it would be good to identify that fact. All I’m trying to do is critically examine the evidence that’s being presented. With that in mind …
Here are the first two sentences on the article “Deforestation”:
Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use. Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use.
So it seems that you encounter the “positive effects of deforestation” before you get past the second sentence!
You’re also being rather disingenuous on this point. Expecting to see glowing praises of “deforestation” is like expecting to see praises of “CO2 emissions” – it’s an intrinsically negative phenomenon that happens to be a side effect of beneficial activities that we consider “progress”, and we should seek to minimize those side effects. Lumber production is a good thing, clearing land for farming and housing is a good thing, but deforestation is not – it’s mainly a side effect that we have to put up with when we do those other things.
Well, your “standard example” doesn’t work any better than the “deforestation” one. This is what Wikipedia says about that (emphasis mine):
Tropical rainforests have been called the “Earth’s lungs”, although it is now known that rainforests contribute little net oxygen addition to the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
When a claim has been widely made and subsequently proven not to be accurate, it’s not just appropriate but actually necessary to refer to the claim in order to juxtapose it with the facts and provide the correct perspective.
So your argument is that it’s difficult to point to errors in Wikipedia, because every time you find one, the dang thing gets corrected! You realize that’s not a very persuasive argument for Wikipedia being unreliable, right?
Aye, there’s the rub! Which one indeed? I’m quite willing to acknowledge that you may be entirely correct, as I have no background whatsoever in such historical matters on which you seem quite knowledgeable. I would argue, though, that if one has to cite what may be an inappropriate perspective on a fairly esoteric area of history on which expert viewpoints may differ, then Wikipedia is no worse and no different than any other typical encyclopedia. Here is an updated study, for instance, on how Wikipedia compares with Britannica. Here is a story of how a 12-year-old boy found errors in Britannica relating to an alleged Polish city and eastern European wildlife because, well, he was Polish and he lived in eastern Europe.
The article about the comparative study above is followed by a lengthy comment from a retired professor stating that the study is flawed and laying out the reasons that Britannica is much better than Wikipedia. It’s followed by a rebuttal pointing out the professor’s errors and why Wikipedia is much better than Britannica. What is one to make of this? I think the following: that the answer to “how horrible is Wikipedia really?” is “it’s about the same as any other good encyclopedia, perhaps even better and/or more thorough for some subjects.” I have yet to be persuaded otherwise.
I wouldn’t fully trust encyclopedias either ;).
In fact, I was wrong aout it being a prank. There’s a reference to what is undisputably an old book mentioning the character and his “exploits”. I still think the character is made up, but by a 19th century author rather than by a wikipedia contributor.
I find a lot of Wikipedia articles have way too much slant and political correctness about them. Even if the articles are factually OK, the tone of the writing is so slanted. To be fair, I’ve seen other articles that go obviously out of the way to be balanced to the point of losing credibility.
My biggest gripe is references. A heck of a lot of the references don’t link correctly, the info isn’t in the cited reference and references to books can often just be wrong or seemingly made up.
To paraphrase something I read on Wikipedia a few years back regarding the 1994 NFCCG:
Most experts believe that had Deion Sanders been called for Pass Interference, Dallas would have won the game.
Or course it should have read:
Most Cowboy fans believe that had Deion Sanders been called for Pass Interference, Dallas would have won the game.
Prompted by a post above, I took a look at Conservapedia. Somebody please tell me that website is ironic. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
That sort of stuff is borderline. Often it will be removed via non-NPOV, but sometimes the sore loser will find and use a cite of someone else whining about it, and it can stick.