False information

[Spectral Dragon]

Earlier on the forum, I've found lots of threads about weird, useful or not, bits of info, facts and the like. But not all of these were true.
The reason I'm posting is because I didn't find any similar topics.

What urban legends have you encountered surfing the internet, that a lot of people still believe? If someone requests, try to find a source that supports you.

I'll go first: You don't swallow ANY amount of spiders a year during sleep. Unless you're unlucky. The rumor was created to see how outrageous things you can get people to believe. Seriously, don't think there's anything stupid enough to actively crawl in to something moving, sounding loud and smelling bad. At least not that and surviving as a species.

 

[FalloutJack]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

 

[StBishop]

Caffine content of tea.

If you eat the tea you get more caffeine than the equivalent quantity of coffee, but brewing the leaves in water and then removing them from the drink yields much less caffeine than coffee.

Obviously there can be more or less caffeine in the tea based on the type (green vs black, Ceylon vs north Indian types) so I can't give definite values, but I argued with my brother about this and was shown a peer reviewed article on the topic. So yeah, not true.

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Funny story there, when I was 13 I literally copy pasted the Wikipedia page on green tree frogs for a science assignment and got a B-.

 

[Actual]

The thing about spiders was a rumour started to test a theory, that does not automatically mean you don't swallow any spiders. That's illogical, it just means we don't know how many spiders are swallowed on average because how the hell would you measure that!?

My urban legend is that the Daddy long Legs is highly poisonous but it's bite can't pierce human flesh so we're safe.

This is confusing because there is more than one creature called a daddy long legs.

This is the crane fly or daddy long legs in England: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRE1VZp7_9d91gU-pg4H_J3TIdPOmrvIXklO_WIq2BY6ahO4Its

They are annoying, nothing else, will not bite humans and has no venom, poison, toxin, or whatever you want to call it.

There are also two spiders which share the same nick-name, the harvestman spider and the cellar spider. Only the cellar spider is poisonous but it's poison will only cause minor irritation to humans.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Well there is a reason they give citations so you can look at the actual information and not a diluted summary.

You only use 10% of your brain. This is untrue and a ridiculous concept that keeps being brought up in movies. You know who you are.

 

[Sougo]

Planking and Owling are 'activities'.

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Yes, and that reason is because anybody can modify wikipedia articles as they see fit, and there is a chance that info is not rectified by moderators or whatever. However, if there is a referenced source available for any sentence/para then that can be used.

In short, go ahead and use Wikipedia, but never tell anyone you did.

 

[varulfic]

There's an old hoax that you can get high smoking bananas. The hoax dates back to the '60s, and the joke is still kicking today. If you search the web you can find some pretty elaborate guides on how to prepare the fruit for best effect.

 

[FalloutJack]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Well there is a reason they give citations so you can look at the actual information and not a diluted summary.

Oh, I know that, of course. I was just pointing out that a site trying to focus its content through the lens of mass opinion over true fact is the epitome of false information.

Planking and Owling are 'activities'.

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Yes, and that reason is because anybody can modify wikipedia articles as they see fit, and there is a chance that info is not rectified by moderators or whatever. However, if there is a referenced source available for any sentence/para then that can be used.

In short, go ahead and use Wikipedia, but never tell anyone you did.

Oh, and add to this "The mods themselves are far from unbiased".

 

[0986875533423]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Mainly because it is an encyclopaedia and therefore is not supposed to be used as a source of information.

For all other purposes, Wikipedia is accurate enough.

You only use 10% of your brain. This is untrue and a ridiculous concept that keeps being brought up in movies. You know who you are.

Wasn't that made up by people who were looking at brain activity data and didn't understand what they were seeing? Because I'd like to point out that were you to use 100% of your brain in that sense, not only would you not be able to think anything, you would also come down with a bad case of dead.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Mainly because it is an encyclopaedia and therefore is not supposed to be used as a source of information.

For all other purposes, Wikipedia is accurate enough. Deal with it.

You only use 10% of your brain. This is untrue and a ridiculous concept that keeps being brought up in movies. You know who you are.

Wasn't that made up by people who were looking at brain activity data and didn't understand what they were seeing? Because I'd like to point out that were you to use 100% of your brain in that sense, not only would you not be able to think anything, you would also come down with a bad case of dead.

To be honest to my knowledge I have no idea where the myth comes from nor do I think people even know where it comes from. There are ideas but I don't think people really know where the myth comes from. Of course we don't use all of our brain on say typing as there are parts that are dedicated to other things.

 

[Jordi]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Here, have a Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I'd actually say that the myth is that it is really that unreliable. It's just that the quality control is not guaranteed in the case that someone puts incorrect information on Wikipedia. But in practice this doesn't appear to be that big a problem.

There are other reasons why citing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with correctness, especially in works that aim to be persistent. These problems are that there is nobody responsible for what is on a page, and the fact that what is on the page today may not be there tomorrow. We generally don't accept the word of some random dude (Wikipedia contributor) unless evidence is provided, in which case you can just cite the evidence. And it should be obvious why persistence is an issue (although on Wikipedia I think you could technically go through the archives if the reference includes a date). These problems are not unique to Wikipedia, but actually apply to a lot of websites that may contain information.

 

[FalloutJack]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Here, have a Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I'd actually say that the myth is that it is really that unreliable. It's just that the quality control is not guaranteed in the case that someone puts incorrect information on Wikipedia. But in practice this doesn't appear to be that big a problem.

There are other reasons why citing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with correctness, especially in works that aim to be persistent. These problems are that there is nobody responsible for what is on a page, and the fact that what is on the page today may not be there tomorrow. We generally don't accept the word of some random dude (Wikipedia contributor) unless evidence is provided, in which case you can just cite the evidence. And it should be obvious why persistence is an issue (although on Wikipedia I think you could technically go through the archives if the reference includes a date). These problems are not unique to Wikipedia, but actually apply to a lot of websites that may contain information.

I'm sorry, but if this is going meta on us and Wiki is trying to pan it off as being ironic, it doesn't work. I'm not going into a discussion revolving around the myth of a myth of a myth. It's a dodge.

Here's mine:

Did you know that 70% of statistics are made up on the spot?

I heard it was 80%.

 

[StBishop]

Many still believe Wikipedia, but there is a reason that college professors won't take it as a source of information.

Here, have a Wikipedia article about the reliability of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

I'd actually say that the myth is that it is really that unreliable. It's just that the quality control is not guaranteed in the case that someone puts incorrect information on Wikipedia. But in practice this doesn't appear to be that big a problem.

There are other reasons why citing Wikipedia that have nothing to do with correctness, especially in works that aim to be persistent. These problems are that there is nobody responsible for what is on a page, and the fact that what is on the page today may not be there tomorrow. We generally don't accept the word of some random dude (Wikipedia contributor) unless evidence is provided, in which case you can just cite the evidence. And it should be obvious why persistence is an issue (although on Wikipedia I think you could technically go through the archives if the reference includes a date). These problems are not unique to Wikipedia, but actually apply to a lot of websites that may contain information.

I'm sorry, but if this is going meta on us and Wiki is trying to pan it off as being ironic, it doesn't work. I'm not going into a discussion revolving around the myth of a myth of a myth. It's a dodge.

Here's mine:

Did you know that 70% of statistics are made up on the spot?

I heard it was 80%.

I heard 90%

In regards to Wikipedia, I don't know of a single lecturer who will allow the use of websites as references at all, even government ones.

It's just silly to use a website for the reasons that Jordi mentioned.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Micronized-

Well, I suppose it depends upon where you went to college. I had professors that allowed it and some of them (irritatingly) required it. (Not Wiki, obviously.) Not all educators are created equal, given your C/P routine at age 13.

 

[StBishop]

-Micronized-

Well, I suppose it depends upon where you went to college. I had professors that allowed it and some of them (irritatingly) required it. (Not Wiki, obviously.) Not all educators are created equal, given your C/P routine at age 13.

Care to elaborate?
Google leads me to believe it's a weight training routine. I don't see how it's relevant to what you said.

I know what you mean. I've never heard of an assessment requiring websites as references. I'm pretty sure we just fail our referencing if we use websites, it's probably a university or school (Various Schools within the University; school of biomedical science, school of aeronautics etc.) policy.

 

[Scarim Coral]

The one that spring into my mind is being able to capture Mew without the event and trade in Pokemon Red and Blue (the one where you need a traded Pokemon with Cut from someone else). I think it was in Gametrailers that they prove this video to be false.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Micronized-

Well, I suppose it depends upon where you went to college. I had professors that allowed it and some of them (irritatingly) required it. (Not Wiki, obviously.) Not all educators are created equal, given your C/P routine at age 13.

Care to elaborate?
Google leads me to believe it's a weight training routine. I don't see how it's relevant to what you said.

I know what you mean. I've never heard of an assessment requiring websites as references. I'm pretty sure we just fail our referencing if we use websites, it's probably a university or school (Various Schools within the University; school of biomedical science, school of aeronautics etc.) policy.

It's down to what the professor wants, and that pretty much boils down to his teaching method and subject and just what he'll accept. Maybe you can't FIND a hard copy of what you need anymore. Maybe the class revolves around the internet. Perhaps a site has actually done better research THAN the books, having done independent studies to combine their efforts WITH those books, but they're not published. It can happen.

In the end, the point is that in the hall sites you CAN use for direct referencing, Wikipedia isn't it. And if a professor DOES allow that, he should be fired.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

You only use 10% of your brain. This is untrue and a ridiculous concept that keeps being brought up in movies. You know who you are.

i think (may be wrong) that you only use 10% at any one time, because each area controls so many different, tiny processes that using it all at once would use up too much energy and your body couldnt work.
people believe god exists. that might count...

 

[StBishop]

-Micronized-

Well, I suppose it depends upon where you went to college. I had professors that allowed it and some of them (irritatingly) required it. (Not Wiki, obviously.) Not all educators are created equal, given your C/P routine at age 13.

Care to elaborate?
Google leads me to believe it's a weight training routine. I don't see how it's relevant to what you said.

I know what you mean. I've never heard of an assessment requiring websites as references. I'm pretty sure we just fail our referencing if we use websites, it's probably a university or school (Various Schools within the University; school of biomedical science, school of aeronautics etc.) policy.

It's down to what the professor wants, and that pretty much boils down to his teaching method and subject and just what he'll accept. Maybe you can't FIND a hard copy of what you need anymore. Maybe the class revolves around the internet. Perhaps a site has actually done better research THAN the books, having done independent studies to combine their efforts WITH those books, but they're not published. It can happen.

In the end, the point is that in the hall sites you CAN use for direct referencing, Wikipedia isn't it. And if a professor DOES allow that, he should be fired.

Sorry, I was vague in my wording. I got all of that, I was looking for clarification on the phrase

[...]given your C/P routine at age 13.

.

 

[Palademon]

The only thing springing to mind, would be stuff from QI.
I'm not sure whether I should be arguing to prove Earth has more than one moon or that it definately only has one.