Why Sources are Important
This is not something I’m clearing up for once, but bringing to the attention of my one or two readers as an example.
It actually shocked me to learn today how much mainstream sources rely on the internet — for the purposes of this article, Wikipedia is in the spotlight — for their research… and don’t note sources. (Or the lack thereof)
Truthiness
One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head, that only I can hear. — Maurice Jarre
Truth
That was the opposite of true. The quote was edited into the late Jarre’s Wikipedia article by Shane Fitzgerald of Dublin. Not in ill faith, but as an experiment.
From the Irish Times:
The quote had no referenced sources and was therefore taken down by moderators of Wikipedia within minutes. However, Fitzgerald put it back a few more times until it was finally left up on the site for more than 24 hours.
While he was wary about the ethical implications of using someone’s death as a social experiment, he had carefully generated the quote so as not to distort or taint Jarre’s life, he said.
Fitzgerald was shocked by the result of his experiment.
“I didn’t expect it to go that far. I expected it to be in blogs and sites, but on mainstream quality papers? I was very surprised about,” he said.
However, the hoax remained undiscovered for weeks until Fitzgerald e-mailed offending newspapers to tell them that they had published an inaccurate quote.
“I don’t think it would have been found out unless I had told them so,” Fitzgerald said yesterday. In recent days the Guardian printed a correction and an article about the hoax.
Fitzgerald admits that he is not a sophisticated hacker or technology junkie. “I’m capable of using a computer but I’m not a whizz. Anyone can go in and edit anonymously,” he said.
The quote has since been relegated to a sub-section on mister Jarre’s Wikipedia entry, aptly titled ‘Wikipedia Hoax’, and has been removed and corrected in many cases. BBC Music Magazine is mentioned, for example. However, according to the Times the information remains intact on many websites and, somewhat less extraordinarily, blogs. (I am probably not free of blame)
The story is nothing if not a cautionary tale, highlighting the importance of checking the validity of statements, regardless of the source.
However
Don’t go wheeling off into a frenzy of paranoid source-checking yet. The reason I haven’t singled Wikipedia out is its relative accuracy (not much worse than Britannica) and the fact that the quote was removed multiple times before it stuck.
Wikipedia is a perfectly fine resource, just as long as you ensure the validity by checking citations within the articles themselves.
It should be noted that I have not contacted mister Fitzgerald myself, nor did I know of mister Jarre’s death. (Nor his existence) I have not relied on Wikipedia, but I have relied on sources in the media which have been shown as susceptible to mistakes based on unreliable sources. It can be hard to know what’s reliable and what’s not, and I have no good advice. I haven’t quite figured it out myself.
Sources (See?)
Student’s Wikipedia hoax … — The Irish Times The original article.
The Irish Times The journal itself. I felt sort of bad quoting such a large block of text without linking to their home page.
Ironically, Wikipedia I found the link to the original article through this entry.
ABC’s coverage I Stumbled Upon this article, which is what alerted me to the whole thing in the first place.
Influenza A(H1N1) Flu
I’m not going to do a ‘full’ post on this, because honestly I just heard about it a few days ago, and I haven’t been keeping up with the news.
According to the World Health Organization there have been 658 human cases, as of today at 17:00 GMT, of the Swine Flu confirmed. 397 in Mexico with 16 deaths, and 160 ‘laboratory confirmed’ cases in the United States of America with one death. In Texas, if you’re curious.
It is still a little startling, I admit, but compare it with the 36,000 flu-related deaths in the United States alone, every year, with 200,000 hospitalizations. (More info)
Now the flu isn’t necessarily the primary cause of those deaths. I honestly don’t know if the Swine Flu is the primary cause of death in H1N1. But the point is that the media is being a bit alarmist.
From the site above:
WHO advises no restriction of regular travel or closure of borders. It is considered prudent for people who are ill to delay international travel and for people developing symptoms following international travel to seek medical attention, in line with guidance from national authorities.
There is also no risk of infection from this virus from consumption of well-cooked pork and pork products. Individuals are advised to wash hands thoroughly with soap and water on a regular basis and should seek medical attention if they develop any symptoms of influenza-like illness.
Sources
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html — The World Health Organization’s Influenza A(H1N1) page
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/ — The CDC’s Influenza A(H1N1) page
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/ — The CDC’s (regular) Flu page
HR 669
This is the bill that actually inspired Two Uncommon Cents.
Truthiness
I was recently alerted to nohr669.com on a message board, by a genuinely concerned pet owner. Here’s the video, by Brian Barczyk:
If it doesn’t load, or if you don’t want to bother, here’s a few quotes that sum it up:
“This bill will affect anyone that keeps pet fish, birds, reptiles or small mammals.
The bill would ban all non-native species from being sold, bred or transported.
If you own a parakeet, a cockatiel, betta fish, angel fish, this bill will affect you.
Even if you own a hamster, gerbil, guinea pig, or virtually all reptiles, this bill will affect you.
If by chance your kid had two hamsters, and they happened to have babies, with this bill you would be in violation of the law. Your pets would be subject to confiscation, and terminated. And don’t even think about leaving state with your pets. It would be strictly prohibited.”
“If passed, this will cost the economy tens of billions of dollars, and millions of jobs.”
Truth
Most of the video is very alarmist, and only partially true.
There are two lists to be composed within 36 months of passing the bill, by the Secretary of the Interior. (Ken Salazar) One will be a List of Unapproved Species. Importation and breeding of these species will be prohibited in the United States. (except when permitted)
This list shall include:
(A) those species listed as injurious wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States Code, or under regulations under that section, as of the date of enactment of this Act;
While Secretary Salazar has the authority to add more to the list, and anyone may propose a new addition, most of the species to be affected are banned already.
Now the other will be a List of Approved Species. The preliminary list shall include:
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall include in the preliminary list under this section nonnative wildlife species that the Secretary finds, consistent with the factors described in section 3(b) and based on scientific and commercial information that is provided in a proposal under paragraph (2) or otherwise available to the Secretary–
(A) are not harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) may be harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health, but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.
This suggests strongly that Secretary Salazar should take into account the effect his lists will have on the economy. Plus, last I checked hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and fishes are far too widespread to do anything about, and they probably don’t pose much of a threat anyway.
By the way, pet owners are exempt, at least as far as possession goes, via a nifty grandfather clause if they own their pets before the law is enacted.
However…
This is all not to say that you shouldn’t be concerned, especially if you own an exotic non-native pet. You won’t lose your pet, and there is nothing in the bill to prevent sale of equipment for the proper care of your pet. BUT, sale of equipment and food directly related to your pet will fall, and prices will rise. Even if you own a similar pet to one on the Unapproved list, (eg one with the same needs) you will be hit. Each list will be made public 60 days before it goes into effect, though.
In Review
You won’t lose your job, or your pet, if this bill passes. But it may become more difficult to take care of your pet, and impossible to ‘replace’ him, for lack of a better term. In other words, most of the video above is alarmist, but it is built on a very real concern.
Sources and Further Reading
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h669/show — Resources and full text of HR 669
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/[...] — Full text of HR 669
http://nohr669.com/index.htm — NO on HR 669. Resources for spreading the word, and contacting your representative.
