|
Fake Dictionary/Encyclopedia Entries
|
Posted By:
von slonecker
Feb 15, 2005
|
Does anyone know of instances where fake entries were inserted into standard
reference works? I know that there were some cases where the New Grove
Dictionary of Music and Musicians had some fake entries that went undetected
in that standard reference work for a long time. Anyone have more
information on the New Grove hoax articles or others?
|
Comments
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 11:08 AM
I haven't heard of the New Grove Dictionary, but check out what I've written about Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography. This was a notorious case of fake entries being inserted into a standard reference work. A lot of libraries still have the Appleton's Cyclopedia on their shelves. |
Katherine
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 01:22 PM
Quite a lot of my friends like to falsify Wikipedia, and then of course there are the standard copyright traps on maps. Beyond that I can't help you, though. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 01:28 PM
I always suspected there was a good amount of fake info on Wikipedia. I've come across one or two instances where people have taken info from my site and put it up on wikipedia. Which wouldn't make the info fake, except for the fact that they had stripped out any mention that I was the one who had written the material. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 01:38 PM
I never even heard of a Wikipedia; you all are a little too inteligent for me.... |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 03:07 PM
Stephen, here's the wikipedia. Now you're as intelligent as we are. |
Mark-N-Jen
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 04:02 PM
Katherine, (or anyone else able to answer)
To what are you referring when you say "standard copyright traps on maps"? Just curious and appreciate the info...
😊 |
Katherine
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 | 09:03 PM
Here's a link that talks a bit about it:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_165.html
Also Google "copyright trap" AND "map" and you ought to be able to find something. |
super_sharp_shooter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 | 12:25 PM
Samuel Johnson in his 1755 English dictionary defined oats as 'a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.'. Whether this meets your criteria of fakeness i'm not sure, as Dr. Johnson was clearly just being a joker. But he did print it (see http://www.bllearning.co.uk/live-extracts/287832/).
(Note that the Scots' reply was "that explains why England has the most beautiful horses but Scotland has the most beautiful women!") |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 | 12:44 PM
Yeah..these are supposed to be little 'roads' that only exist for the particular cartographers (that's the correct word, right??). Good way to check for copyrights. My question is...how do you copyright a location?? I never quite got that. Technically wouldn't the location be under the state/city/county that created the road? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 | 12:59 PM
You don't copyright a location, you copyright your rendering of that location. By including fake locations, streets, rivers, etc., you can show that someone infringed on your copyrighted rendering by including these locations as well.
Did this make sense? |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 | 01:10 PM
Thanks Alex, now I can join the masses again!!! |
wayne levy
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 | 03:55 PM
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1374754
On December 4, 1884, the Philadelphia Medical News published a letter from an ex-Army physician named "Egerton Y. Davis" which purported to describe an actual case study of a rare form of vaginismus called penis captivus (or alternatively, de cohesione in coitu). Until this point, the condition had existed as a purely hypothetical situation. Dr. Davis recounts an unusual house call he made late one night to the home of a well-to-do patient. When Davis arrived, the gentleman explained that his coachman required the doctor's services. Allegedly, the master of the house, whilst investigating strange noises coming from the servants' quarters, had inadvertently stumbled upon the coachman and the downstairs maid mid-coitus. The maid was so surprised at the interruption that her entire body, including her vagina, just locked up. As she was apparently a very small woman, these muscular contractions held the coachman's penis in place, and no amount of pushing or pulling could disengage the couple. After several abortive attempts to use ice and lubricant to solve the problem, the good doctor dosed the woman with chloroform to relax her muscles and free the hapless coachman.
As it turns out, there was no such person as Egerton Y. Davis. The name was a pseudonym for Sir William Osler, who served on the editorial board for the Philadelphia Medical News. Generally speaking, Osler was a staunch believer in scientific research, which ironically led him to submit the fallacious case study. The article on vaginismus that had been published the previous week was written anonymously by fellow board member Theophilius Parvin. Osler felt that Parvin had inserted too much editorial commentary and neglected medical facts when writing the article. Therefore, he devised a little prank to play on his colleague. Osler wrote the letter from Davis, forged an accompanying letter from the editor of The Canada Medical and Surgical Journal, and had a friend mail both documents from Montreal in order to obtain a legitimate Canadian postmark. Osler figured that, after the false case study was published, surely someone would recognize it for what it was, greatly embarrassing Parvin (as he was the one who decided to publish the letter as a followup to his own article) and eliciting a hearty round of laughter from the rest of the journal's staff. Much to Osler's chagrin, the medical community bought into the idea of penis captivus hook, line and sinker. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 | 06:53 AM
Yes, Charybdis, that makes sense. Cool. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 | 07:27 AM
Excuse me Wayne, Can you repeat what you just said????? |
von sloneker
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 | 09:24 AM
Hey, folks, thanks for all the great responses. My initial inquiry was spurred on precisely by wondering about Wikipedia and how long it would take for fake entries to appear. I guess they already have. Anyone want to point me toward some allegedly fake Wikipedia entries? |
Robert Beck
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 | 05:47 AM
In the 1970s, I was working as a typesetter. One of the jobs was to set the type for a well-established medical dictionary. Several bogus entries [marked as such by the editors] were created and then set along with the legitimate entries. These bogus entries were complete with phonics, entomologies and definitions. This was done, or so I was told, to make it easier to prosecute a competitor who would "borrow" their words/definitions for another medical dictionary. I have often wondered just how effective the ruse was. |
Bill W.
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 | 10:27 PM
A few years back a dictionary of fake words was published, or was it one of those "word a day" executive desk callenders?.
Does anyone know where to find one? |
Wikipedia
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 | 11:11 AM
Well if you want to see a completely fake encyclopedia check out:
http://wiqipedia.org |
Wikipedia George Bush
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 | 11:12 AM
http://www.wiqipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
Completely fake bush article. |
censure
|
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 | 03:55 PM
This historic fact is not allowed on the main pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/
Usta |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
