In this XKCD Randall Munroe claims he read a “pop-science book by a respected author […] based around wildly inaccurate data traced back to…Wikipedia” He declines to state the book or author.
Any ideas as to the author and the book? I’m so intrigued.
Doesn’t look like anyone has figured it out, though there are some similar examples in the xkcd forum:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=76475
Personally I like the theory that Randall is being coy to make us cynical about all pop-sci.
I think it’s Stephen Pinker’s latest (“The Better Angels of Our Souls”) which has been accused of citing wikipedia (see http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/16/2453870/review-of-steven-pinkers-the-better.html for example)
Stephenson’s ‘Reamde’
My interpretation of the description “pop-science” was that he was referring to nonfiction, though I suppose that isn’t necessarily a given.
Hijack: I had an experience just last night, via a SDMB thread, where a Wiki article claims that hockey player Clint Malarchuk had his internal carotid artery slashed. Every reference listed at the end of the article states that it was the jugular vein, including every mention by him of the statements by the doctors, as well as the team trainer who used to be a combat medic and who pinched off the vessel. You can Google and find scans of original newspaper articles, or transcriptions of originals from that time, that all confirm this.
Someone checked out the edit history and discovered that a contributor is citing some unnamed video (probably the footage on YouTube) as the “proof” that it was the internal carotid. Any edits to indicate that it was the jugular are reverted. So anyone who looks at that Wiki article appears to see a well-cited article, with a reference right on the name of the vessel. And the reference says something totally different.
In my experience it is not all that unusual, even in the peer reviewed scientific literature, to find references that do not support, or even directly contradict, the claims that they are cited in support of.
I have also noted this, however, the malleable nature of material on the net adds another level of complexity to the problem, in that the bad citation then becomes wrapped around to support itself.
cite?
Corrected title: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Thanks.
He has a double “was” in the first cell.