What false facts on Wikipedia can you refute?

Are there “false facts” ?

Quickly raw, unplanned, carving at thought.
My inner editor and a harsh rector would have to go there.
Fruit, wine and rum not balanced in this fire tong bowl.
Pfeiffer with too many ‘f’ and too little egg of Columbus.


What matters is what is considered a fact in the world model that you call your consciousness.
The NSA’s data vaults also store data whose ontological status of form and metadata is ‘more correct’ than that of its content.
The statement ‘Donald Trump destroys live Dalmatian puppies for breakfast’ may be demonstrably wrong in terms of content.
At least that, presumably, no one will take that away from me.
Even if my cell guide in the Moscow office, codenamed Winnie Pooh swears that it is true !
It just doesn’t fit into the world model under your skull calotte.
But you can’t be sure.

Googling please, I just invented that.
Your search would perhaps increase the reality of this fact to the point where Donnie learns about it and thinks it is a good idea.
And then it would soon be an unappetizing fact in your world model.
But you don’t know about it, because it would probably be hidden.
Just because Donnie would then be blackmailed by the Chinese, who tried to bait him with Dalmatian puppies from Yulin.
The Chinese are breeding the most delicious, everyone knows that.
And we all know that Donnie cannot resist carnal sins.

Or Winnie Pooh becomes bearish, letting this fact be announced by his troll army on Quora in order to trigger a worldwide uprising of the vegan international.

The fact in my world model is that the statement I made on Quora was sent to an unknown number of recipients to illustrate a thought.
One fact is the amount of data that is insinuated.
Also their metadata and the world model that integrates them.
In my world model, there are no false facts at all, because the receipt of data itself is already part of the data that constitutes a fact.
There are only facts, respectively.received data.
The content of data may be declared ‘wrong’ because it contradicts a widespread world model.
In my, however, is that only the expression of a property of, if you like, metafactum.

As a practical application, when data is entered into my world model, I do not assume the clearly identifiable affiliation to one of the two expressions ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but from a Bayesian apriori probability, which is based on subsequent data inputs is modified.
Even the absence of inputs is then a data input and therefore a fact.

Note the duplicity:
All Fake is fact.
All Facts are fake.
Because all the facts enter into your world model as data and modify it.

In short, the fact is who sent to whom what and when and for what.

Nothing is true, everything is allowed.

The rest is silent.

Supplement of 15.02.1019
The decay and thus the relativity of fact has of course already been explored from another perspective, which is best illustrated with the metaphor of the ‘half-value time of knowledge’ by Fritz Machlup.
Other keywords from the surrounding area:
Pessimistic induction
Half-Life of Facts by Arbesman

Thank you very much for a very interesting research topic to the questioner and Mr Penses’s stimulating remark in his reply.

Small bottle mail to which they want to find.
Have you noticed that I have an astonishingly loving affection for an atheist and materialist for the reflections of pastors or their sons.
Bayes, Nietzsche et al.
There is a spark of the Spirit that is missing most of my comrades !
There is a sphinx buried in the desert sand.
You just have to want to find them.
And they ask.

Leave a Reply