16Nov/1177
Citogenesis
by Jeff
Image text: I just read a pop-science book by a respected author. One chapter, and much of the thesis, was based around wildly inaccurate data which traced back to ... Wikipedia. To encourage people to be on their toes, I'm not going to say what book or author.
This comic title is a combination of Citation and Genesis to come up with the new word "Citogenesis", which means the genesis of a citation in Wikipedia. As you can see, in the graph in Step 4, this can create a lot of misinformation, even outside of Wikipedia.
I have no idea what book is being referred to in the image text, does anyone have any ideas? Guesses?
November 16th, 2011
In this context, consider the word “Factoid”.
[[Many folks surely already know this, but I love pointing this out.]]
“Factoid” is typically used to mean something like “a small fact”.
However, the suffix “-oid” doesn’t mean “small”; rather it means “resembling” or “has the form of” (e.g. “asteroid” which means “something that kinda looks like a star, but isn’t really”.)
In particular this word (”Factoid”) was created by the writer Norman Mailer (in his biography of Marilyn Monroe) to describe exactly this situation; i.e. a statement created to look like a fact but which isn’t actually true. Or to quote his original definition “facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper”.
November 16th, 2011
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid
1: an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print
2: a briefly stated and usually trivial fact
Back in the day, when there was no Internet, the media could invent factoids and control circular citations.
Nowadays, with Internet and Wikipedia et. al., we can make our own citations… and media must keep up
November 16th, 2011
I believe that is the actual origin of the word factoid. I read it in Wikipedia.
November 16th, 2011
We had a famous case of this phenomenon in Germany:
Someone changed the wiki page of politician Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg to contain the additional forename “Wilhelm”.
Noone noticed and it was wrongly copied by many large newspapers and political magizines, which then were used as a source for the name.
It also started a nice debate about doing proper research for articles.
http://translate.google.com/#de|en|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bildblog.de%2F5704%2Fwie-ich-freiherr-von-guttenberg-zu-wilhelm-machte%2F
November 16th, 2011
Hats off to Peter Noone for noticing it!
November 16th, 2011
I second that. Mr. Noone was clearly an intelligent and observant man.
November 17th, 2011
I believe that was Wilhelm-Pieter Noone.
November 16th, 2011
I had to think about exactly the same case.
IIRC the “Wilhelm” was deleted soon out of doubts, but reappeared after print media were given as a source.
And today I just checked: the “Wilhelm” appeard in the initial english article on the same subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg&dir=prev&action=history
One writer back then was quoted as basically saying “Hard times, now that you cannot even trust Wikipedia any more.”
November 16th, 2011
For some reason this reminded me of the great German Baroque composer Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
November 16th, 2011
Two thumbs up for Monty Python reference. ;P
November 16th, 2011
Actually, now that I read your name, that’s two Monty Python references.
November 16th, 2011
The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih?
http://www.amazon.com/Wikipedia-Revolution-Nobodies-Greatest-Encyclopedia/dp/1401303714
November 16th, 2011
Though I have nothing to add for the actual point of this strip:
“Citogenesis” is a pun on “cytogenesis” which, according to wiktionary (heh, could not help it), is: “The formation, development and variation of cells”.
So what we’re seeing here is the formation, development and variation of quotes.
November 16th, 2011
Noticed it and I think it was on purpose.
November 16th, 2011
English is not my first language. I thought this comic was going to be about cells.
November 17th, 2011
Malamanteau, anybody? (http://xkcd.com/739/)
It’s So Meta! Even This Acronym!
Ok, I’m finished now.
November 16th, 2011
This _is_ begging the question
November 16th, 2011
I recently read a book of employment law in which nearly every single sentence was cited to Wikipedia alone. Because this was on audiobook, every URL was read aloud (spelled out with painstaking slowness) as if it were part of the body text.
November 16th, 2011
You read an audio book?
November 16th, 2011
I believe it’s the case that he listened to the audio book which was read by someone (or something) else (and recorded into audio form). I’d assume computer-read, given how the URLs were read out, but I could believe a person might do that too.
November 17th, 2011
Is listening to a book like holding it up to your ear so you can hear the ocean?
November 18th, 2011
What does the shell hear I wonder.
In some cases I’m sure it too hears the ocean.
November 16th, 2011
anyone noticed the “was was” in the first image?
probably a mistake
November 16th, 2011
I would guess this to be intentional. It seems to be a jab at wikipedia articles that they are often poorly written and proofed in addition to being poorly cited. http://gladysa8.tripod.com/entretenimiento/id13.html the first image in the blue triangle shows this trick of repeating words and not catching it because we “see what we want to see”
November 16th, 2011
No, probably deliberate. Overlooking word duplication in that format (small word at end of line duplicated at start of next line) is a common writing & editing error which amuses some of us. It’s a subtle way of further mocking the citogenesis process.
November 16th, 2011
“was was”seems to me a common error, specially when separated by a linebreak
November 16th, 2011
the “was was” is probably more of an additional commentary of the quality of work on Wikipedia than a mistake in the comic. After all, I’m sure xkcd *never* makes mistakes…
November 16th, 2011
Could well be intentional on Randal’s part, but a mistake on the part of the guy in the comic.
November 16th, 2011
I’ll take a stab at the pop-science book that incorrectly links back to a shallow research effort. “A Whole New Mind” by Daniel H. Pink? It perpetuates the myth of right-brained vs. left-brained activity (when in fact both hemispheres are working rather industriously regardless if you are engaging in creative or analytical endeavors), but argues that only the creative will be in demand in the future globalized world. His list of references is shockingly unsophisticated from a scientific perspective, and not a single scientific research journal is cited. He instead relies on secondhand information, referencing Newsweek, The New York Times, Washington Post, The Economist, etc. Information that is already in a digest is then redigested for Pink’s “landmark” book.
And hey, if I’m wrong, at least I got to bash an insultingly simplistic (yet widely touted as revolutionary) book.
November 16th, 2011
I suspect several (if not most) pop-science books would fit Randall’s description.
November 16th, 2011
Legitimate journalists and authors should NEVER use Wikipedia as a source (despite it frequently occurring these days; I see a lot of wiki-sourced images used in news articles as well.
I have seen many an example of this circular citation occurring. Someone inaccurately makes changes to Wikipedia, a legitimate source prints the inaccurate fact based on Wikipedia, and then at some point the source becomes a reference for the inaccurate fact on Wikipedia. This is called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting
I feel like I’ve read an actual Wikipedia policy article that has a warning of this occurring, but I can’t quickly find it now.
I have certainly noticed this occurring even before Wikipedia, and I perhaps have been guilty of it at times. You read something online (even in an email forward) and then perpetuate it by mentioning it to someone. They tell other people, (eg: in the family) and someone else eventually tells you they’ve heard that, reinforcing your own belief in the fact. I have on occasion reviewed things I thought were “facts” online and found no reference to them, and wondered if I had been propagating fallacies.
This also reminds me of an anecdote once recounted by members of the band Barenaked Ladies. They once heard reports that Prince thought their album ‘Stunt’ was the best album of 1998, and were extremely flattered. It was only later that they realized that the origin of the “reports” was that the band itself had jokingly said in an interview that “Prince loves Stunt. The Artirst formerly known as Prince hates it, but Prince loves the album.” This ultimately got reported around as fact.
November 16th, 2011
You read something online (even in an email forward) and then perpetuate it by mentioning it to someone. They tell other people, (eg: in the family) and someone else eventually tells you they’ve heard that, reinforcing your own belief in the fact. I have on occasion reviewed things I thought were “facts” online and found no reference to them, and wondered if I had been propagating fallacies.
The Daily Show has pointed out Fox News’ intentional use of this several times.
– make up a report that “people” are talking about something
– people start talking about what they saw on Fox
– Fox reports that people are talking about it
November 17th, 2011
To be fair, The Daily Show is hardly an unbiased source. Name me one news network that hasn’t done this?
November 17th, 2011
To be fair, I didn’t say other networks haven’t done it. I was just pointing out that the Daily Show pointed out Fox has does it.
As for unbiased, the Daily Show pokes fun at politicians from across the political spectrum. They are far less biased than, say, Fox.
November 27th, 2011
[citation needed]
This is stated as fact. I would love to see a study that proves that the Daily Show is less biased than Fox.
Not that I don’t believe it might be possible. But I have watched both, and would not accept this as an obvious fact.
December 1st, 2011
Is this Bill O’Reilly?
November 16th, 2011
In my neighbour’s diploma in engineering textbooks, released by the state board of education (In India, the education system greatly differs from the US. Textbooks for undergraduate technical programmes are ratified by technical education departments of the government) for first year students, I found quite a few typos and mistakes. This being a board ratified book, I was not surprised – given that they employ vernacular editors who think in their mother tongues and then translate thoughts into english, hence bringing in many mistakes in the process.
What I was horrified to see was that not only for sources, but also for ‘Furthur Reading’, they listed Wikipedia entries. Every chapter had atleast 4-5 reference links from within Wikipedia, and another 6-7 for furthur reading. The fact that a state certified textbook was based on Wikipedia – blatantly linking the pages from where the content had been assidiously pasted into a word file – that was a dangerous thought, leading me to ponder where my younger engineering brethren are headed, if they have to face questions in their papers based on such books.
November 16th, 2011
I don’t see the objection to listing Wikipedia articles for ‘Furthur Reading’ on a subject. Caveat lector, of course.
November 17th, 2011
which state board book are you following?
November 16th, 2011
My favorite Wikipedia “mistake” ever was when somebody changed the page explaining the latin phrase Q.E.D. (”thus it is demonstrated/proven”) so that the translation was instead:
“Bitch, please”
November 16th, 2011
My favorite was when someone changed the entry for Alabama to read that the “State Nut” was Roy Moore, instead of the pecan. Unfortunately, an editor changed it very quickly as well. Apparently they check for changes.
November 18th, 2011
I’ll add mine: Every so often the WP entry for “Electrolyte” is changed to “What plants crave.”
November 18th, 2011
I once saw there that Thomas Edison holds 1,000,000,000 patents. Currently, the English version says he holds 1093 patents, which is right, according to another unreliable source I checked, while the Portuguese version says he holds 2332. Oh well, maybe we should settle for 1337 and call it a day.
December 16th, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Edison_patents
According to this, the disparity between the 1093 figure and the 2332 figure is his US vs. his worldwide patents. Still not confirming the figures, just that they should be different.
November 16th, 2011
i’ll take a stab at the book… An Inconvenient Truth.
November 16th, 2011
umm… I thought an implicit convention of this site was no mindless political drivel.
November 18th, 2011
first off, the cartoon has political references (frame2). in frame2 one could easily replace ENERGY SECRETARY STEVEN CHU with VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE, and UBIQUOUTUS SCROLL LOCK KEY with INTERNET. don’t forget about “Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills”. the question is… if you are so closed-minded about a comment on a cartoon are you truly capable of making an unbiased decision on global warming?
November 21st, 2011
If you have to re-write the cartoon to make your point, then you don’t have a point.
Please re-read the post you’re replying to.
November 17th, 2011
-40 has to be the lowest score I have ever seen. Ouch.
November 18th, 2011
-44 currently. I’d say that’s punched through the bottom of the barrel.
November 18th, 2011
cuurently -49… which is import data for my venn diagram… people who follow xkcd, people who own two copies of “An Inconvenient Truth”, and people who follow xkcd and own two copies of “An Inconvenient Truth”.
November 19th, 2011
Crap I accidentally upvoted that first comment as I’m on my Android & now I can’t change it. Assume it’s an even -50 now.
December 28th, 2011
haha i dont want to vote this down….. i would like it to stay at -69
November 16th, 2011
Did circular citations never happen before wikipedia?
I think they have, the problem has just been compounded by the ease at which a “User” now only has to make an internet entry rather than go through the formal process of getting their work “published”.
November 17th, 2011
Users have been able to self-publish easily quite a while before Wikipedia. You’ll have Gutenberg, WWW’s first home pages, blogs, etc., all democratizing “knowledge” creation. Of course, each iteration makes the process even easier, but there’s hardly a revolution here; more of an evolution instead.
Wikipedia, however, would be just another Blogspot (in the amount of trust people put in it) if it wasn’t correct so often. The truth is, the error rate is low enough to let most people get away with sourcing facts from it. But of course, you never know when you’ll run into some made-up factoid… it’s a game of odds, really, but again, the the only reason Wikipedia became so popular is that chances of winning this game (as in, citing stuff and getting it right) are greatly in our favor.
It is nevertheless important to keep in mind that you can’t mindlessly trust it, and your care should be proportional to the impact your work will have (think winning a bet at a bar versus publishing a news article in a widely read publication).
November 16th, 2011
I’m going to assume it’s referring to The Botany of Desire: A Plant’s-Eye View of the World by Michael Pollan. In the marijuana chapter he suggests without any evidence that the concept of the witch’s broom comes from witches putting hallucinogenic compounds on a broom and then using it vaginally.
November 16th, 2011
Except The Botany of Desire was first published (according to http://www.indiebound.org/book/9780375501296 ) in January 2001, and Wikipedia was founded in January 2001. (Although that last piece of information is from Wikipedia, so who knows…)
November 23rd, 2011
He probably got that from Wade, The Serpent and the Rainbow, page 38.
November 16th, 2011
I think that the alt text was meant to be a joke in a way – he’s stating a “fact” about a book he read without citing the book itself. Further, if he did say who the author or the book was, many people would jump to wikipedia to read the article about said author. This could, in turn, have someone updating the wiki page based on what he wrote, and contributing to the problem hes talking about in the comic.
November 16th, 2011
I say Wikipedia continues to be a good thing because it offers a format where poorly referenced articles can easily be distinguished from well supported ones. A book which references Wikipedia is not necessarily wrong, it’s lazily produced. It wouldn’t have taken much effort to reference the sources that were referenced on Wiki.
Further, I don’t think this cartoon is about lazy journalists at all; I think it’s about credulous readers.
November 16th, 2011
Might be worth mentioning that Wikipedia is always encouraging (harassing?) article writers to add citations to every statement. Note the ever-present [citation needed] phrase that decorates lots of articles. Thus the comic: http://xkcd.com/285/
November 16th, 2011
Just thought I’d note that Steven Chu’s wikipedia page has been edited 9 times today, alternating between someone adding that he invented the scroll lock key(complete with citation), and someone else removing it. I wonder who will win this battle of wills.
November 18th, 2011
Brilliant. If you haven’t yet, go check Stephen Chu’s wikipedia page… That box – hilarious!
November 17th, 2011
The book has to be Steven Johnson’s “Where Good Ideas Come From” The clue is in the title.
November 17th, 2011
I am from Bulgaria and I had few friends that made a fake wiki page about the supposed inventor of the quad-rail traffic barrier (in bulgarian – “mantinela”). The wiki page about the person (named Auguste Mantinelle cont de Cvilen) was detailing parts of his life, his work with Alexandre Gustave Eiffel and Pierre de Guillotine and was cited numerous times in national newspapers in the rubrics “What happened on this day..?” citing his birthday, death and so on. The article stayed up on wiki for more than a year, until on unfortunate real-life party someone mentioned the prank in the presence of an editor from the bulgarian-wiki board.
November 17th, 2011
This site would be worthless was it not for the comments section.
Jeffs entry is just useless this time.
November 17th, 2011
Glad you contributed to the great comment section.
But, seriously, yes, the commenters are awesome. Their collective knowledge > my knowledge.
November 17th, 2011
Also glad you put in “this time”. I’m good some other times apparently though! Ha.
November 17th, 2011
I believe the Wikipedia model for sourcing knowledge is undoubtedly flawed, but necessary: On one hand the circular referencing problem arises, as the comic depicts, and on the other hand we miss lots of knowledge that haven’t been published into written sources (think oral knowledge from many third world civilizations).
This is akin to the democratic process, which has been said to be, according to Churchill, “the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Indeed, Wikipedia wouldn’t have worked otherwise, as vandals would have “won the war” long ago (of course other characteristics of the platform also helped this outcome). We simply cannot rely on pure human goodwill; some control mechanism has to be put in place. I’d love to see other models tried out, though.
November 17th, 2011
The thing is, there isn’t any what you could fix this problem and still be unbiased in your representation of the facts. It is up to researchers to track down original sources and to use multiple citations for every fact.
November 17th, 2011
First of all: thanks for pointing out the Guttenberg case. That was when I realized, I had read about this unhealthy paradox of false self-reference. I don’t know if anyone thought of this, but I think it’s worth mentioning: In his novel 1984, George Orwell created the Ministry of Truth, an organ of a totalitarian regime whose task it is to make the “Party” look as good as possible. Whenever a prediction made by the Party turns out to be false, all the newspaper articles from the past covering this incident are changed. When a person who once was a war hero committs treason, he is eradicated from the archive or his story is changed.
November 18th, 2011
I don’t have a specific book/chapter or argument in mind, but I’d guess anything by Malcolm Gladwell. Or any popular journalist whose writings profiles some scientific rebel rebel out on the fringes whose research reveals that everything we think we know about a thing is wrong. Which is sometimes true, but for every H. pylori there’s a cold fusion.
Keeping in mind, of course, that the alt-text could well be a little joke on its own, with our speculation providing the punchline.
November 18th, 2011
My guess is “Outliers” by Gladwell.
November 19th, 2011
You know what? No. No, this is bull. “Explain XKCD?” I’m sorry, Jeff, I ahve been an avid reader for sometime now, but you’re explanations have fallen in the toilet. This one did not explain the actual joke AT ALL. Your site is called “Explain XKCD,” not “Explain XKCD by scrolling through the comments section on my blog because I’m too lazy to post an actual explanation.”
Remember the good ol’ days when you went panel by panel, explained every line, every joke, everything important? Remember even back when he did 7+ comics in one, and you explained *every single one of them?* And now, let’s look at this explanation and the one below. You didn’t go into a single thing about the maps. Not a single explanation. This one, you didn’t even explain the joke. (Which is that when someone uses a comment on Wikipedia in their paper, that paper becomes the reference for the Wikipedia comment. A paradox, if you will.)
Come on, Jeff. You’re better than this. EXPLAIN xkcd.
November 21st, 2011
Another case is of Timothy Leary inventing the color “gendale”. This started at the factoid site Gullible.Info (http://gullible.info/), went to Wikipedia, showed up in _The Guardian_, got deleted from Wikipedia due to lack of source, and then was added back into Wikipedia with the source being _The Guardian_. (It’s no longer that way, though.)
November 24th, 2011
There’s also a clever structural play on the biological process of cytogenis, which in real life has four stages, just like the citogenesis cartoon.
November 26th, 2011
It’s remarkable to see that there are only 4 books at Amazon that seem to reference the word “cytogenesis”. At least, 4 books appear when you type in that word. Maybe the book is somewhere hidden on this website: popsciencebooks.com