On the other hand, some of the best is when a hoax written by a monk in the north of England some time around 1300 is debunked by late 20th century scholarship, and eventually someone makes Wikipedia no longer re-hash a propagandist revision of the Battle of Stirling Bridge re-set in Wales that stood unchallenged for almost 7 centuries.

* https://youtube.com/v/mLdB5s7-h0w

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

If you spot it in Wikipedia, point it out, it does get removed. Leaving a comment on the talk page <!-- or in the article --> gets editors on-board to patrol for accidental attempts to add the incorrect information back in. Wikipedia does not like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citogenesis

Circular references. This methodology has been called out by several researchers. NYT, WaPo are key users of this technique.

Off the top of my head: https://citationintegrity.org/

Wikipedia features prominently as a defaulter.

I don't know that some dude's blog is an accurate judge of the listed entities

Citogenesis, a well-known hazard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...

or:

1: the media has a vested interest in only reporting a certain slant, because it involves criticizing the media

2: because the media is the only source deemed reliable, that slant becomes the truth

>There is incorrect information on wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an article titled “Yahweh.” Now, as I am a Christian,[8] "Yahweh" is the name of my God.[0]

This is one of Sanger's proposed changes and this is not an undisputed fact, more like a dispute among theologicans [1] and with the confidence he wants this change implemented, I am highly sceptical, that misinformation will decrease.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Nine_Theses#....

[1] https://christianeducatorsacademy.com/is-yahweh-the-christia...