Talk:Factoid

The definition here which implies that 'factoid' no longer means a spurious fact is not backed up by the following sources. My own understanding of the word is also in line with these sources. As a result I have altered the definition.

A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

something resembling a fact; unverified (often invented) information that is given credibility because it appeared in print Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Factoid Killer 17:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Origin

I've actually heard that Andy Warhol was the originator of the term "factoid" and that he defined it as "Something that sounds like a fact,but isn't"

references

..there we go; bunged in a couple of refs anyway.Cas Liber 09:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

other factoids

There will be other factoids about the place on Wikipedia - I've just stcuk a link to the Grt Wall of China factoid. Cas Liber 08:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is subject to them

Don't you think it’s a bit funny that this is defined using a medium so subject to error due to factoids.

"Factoid" is not a factoid

Looking for some non-factoid source for this article. Note that factoids are not necessarily false, and that the word has been in recorded use for over 30 years. See quote from the Oxford English Dictionary below. SmokeyJoe 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Factoid from oed.com

factoid, n. and a.

A. n. Something that becomes accepted as a fact, although it is not (or may not be) true; spec. an assumption or speculation reported and repeated so often that it is popularly considered true; a simulated or imagined fact.

1973 N. MAILER Marilyn i. 18/2 Factoids..that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority. 1977 MCKNIGHT & TOBLER Bob Marley v. 60 On such flimsy evidence, many is the factoid that has been created. 1982 Listener 11 Feb. 34/1 A vicious circle of misinformation and garbled folklore factoids. 1983 Washington Post Mag. 19 June 9/2 They spend their days with ‘factoids’data produced by a computer's simulation of the world as it might be. 1987 I. RUFF Dead Reckoning 59 A record not of the actual truth but a series of semi-fictional factoids.

B. adj. Of or having the character of a factoid, quasi-factual; spec. designating writing (esp. journalism) which contains a mixture of fact and supposition or invention presented as accepted fact.

1976 Daily Tel. 18 Feb. 14/3 The current television trend of ‘factoid’ journalism, reporting events which may have happened. 1977 Even. Standard 20 June 2/3 This..space mystery, presented in factoid form as a news report. 1980 Encounter Oct. 30/2 It is a valuable and entertaining, if partisan and factoid, chapter in the struggle to reveal the intimate secrets of the judiciary to those it exists to serve.

“Something that becomes accepted as a fact, although it is not (or may not be) true” — Then what about something that was accepted (through mass-media) as a fact and only after- and because of that became true? It's still a bit confusing, but I think that's what has happened with this term. DaemonDice (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"Factoid," ironically, IS a factoid

The word, in common usage, has been conflated with "factette." Google the word, and *every* result that is not discussing the true definition of the word is applying it to *true* snippets of information, even citing reputable sources. This usage can most certainly be described as having been "repeated so often that it is popularly considered true." [from oed.com, quoted above] IMHO, the adoption of this usage cheapens the word, and the English language is poorer as a result. Themichaud (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mount Isa factoid

The Mount Isa page itself states that Mount Isa is not even the largest municipality (in terms of area) in Australia. That Mount Isa is the largest city in the world is certainly a factoid, but that it may be the largest in Australia (as this article presently states) may also be one. I'd correct it, but I'm not actually sure which is correct, and don't have a reference to back it up. If there's someone who can, that would be good. Quadparty (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the List of cities by surface area has a *fairly* reliable reference to the size of Mount Isa and City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia, and Mount Isa is really second. --Martaskolda2 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this add to the article?

"In reality no man-made object can be seen with a naked eye from the moon unless you count such things as the changing of Holland's coast or the partial drying out of the Aral Sea."

Not only can you not see the drying out of the Aral Sea or the changing of Holland's coast (you can probably see the results of these changes), but they aren't actually man-made objects. It's confusing and incorrect (and not referenced); but even if it were clear, correct and cited, I don't see how it would add anything to the article. It essentially reads as "you can't see any man-made objects from space, except for those you can." JazzMan 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it reads as "you cannot see any man-made objects from space (unless you use the term broadly and count these things as 'man-made objects')". What does it add to the article? First it adds something to the specific "Chinese wall"-factoid be explaining how large something must be to actually be humanly possible to be descerned from space. Second, the fact that a no more than twenty metres wide object is claimed to be discernable from the moon while, in reality something must be as large as one of the world's largest lakes to be visible, adds to the article in general by provinding the reader with an idea as to how unrealistic, how far from reality, a factoid can be and still be widespread. I believe this an excellent pedagogic example of how a factoid works. Clearly the best (in the sense "most pedagogic") of the examples mentioned in the text. That's why I wrote it.

If you truly believe that there is any risk that someone interprets the current text as "you can discern the chaning of Holland's coast or the drying out of the Aral Lake in real time -you can see it change as while you watch" I will gladly agree to clarify the matter to something like "the result of the changing of Holland's coast". However, I find it somewhat hard to imagine someone making that misunderstanding.

-Sensemaker

Whether or not someone interprets what you originally meant doesn't really matter, since that's not what it says. An encyclopedia should never be ambiguous, even if the correct meaning is obvious.

At any rate, it would seem that these geological features being seen from the moon is itself a factoid, as this document from NASA would seem to suggest. The first picture (34) shows that the Earth is very when viewed from the moon, certainly too small to tell the difference between stages of the Aral Sea. The picture at the bottom (40) was taken somewhere between the earth and the moon (therefore the earth is bigger), and even if there were no clouds I think one would be hard pressed to see these "man made objects". Do you have any references that says you can see these things from the moon? JazzMan 07:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: upon looking at the pictures, I realize there's not much perspective, so it's possible that the Earth is a lot bigger than it seems (though the first picture does show the curvature of the moon) so I might be wrong about this. Either way, I think Wikipedia standards would still dictate a source, less this article become yet another source for factoids. JazzMan 07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just do the math, brother Jazzman. A somewhat thick strand of hair, for a caucasian, is about one tenth of a milimetre wide. Given good contrast (dark hair against white paper), it is not hard for the human eye to see at a metre's distance, you could probably see it from further away. So it is possible to see on object no wider than one ten tousandth of the distance to it. Shortest distance to the moon is about 360 000 km. Hence an object 36 km wide should, given good circumstances, be visible from the moon. The Aral Lake was about 160 km wide in the 1950s unless I am mistaken. Now it is two lakes about 20 km wide. The change should be discernable with some difficulty under good circumstances and if you know where to look.

Concerning ambiguity, how about this choice of words: "No man made object is visible to the naked eye from the moon. Given good circumstances it might be possible to discern the result of some human activity such as the drying of the Aral Lake or the changing of Holland's coast, but even that would not be easy." -Sensemaker

I like that wording a ton better. However, it seems like original research to me. I'm fine with it for now, but it's still going to need a citation. Go ahead and put it in for now. JazzMan 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is good that we reached an agreement. I have implemented the change. -Sensemaker

Surely there are two aspects of the 'seen from the moon' argument that have failed to make it to this page - firstly, if someone were to be able to stand on the moon gazing back at Earth, then there's a fighting chance that there would be a space craft or module close by - that might count as a man-made object viewed from the moon, but obviously it will not be on Earth which I suppose is the original proposition. However, the Earth viewed at night is lit up by a huge number of man-made objects and these will collectively be able to be seen, if not from the moon then certainly from a similar distance from Earth. SouthernFrog (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the text so it reads: "In reality no single, man-made object on Earth can be seen with a naked eye from the Earth's moon." adding "single" and "on Earth" to clarify the points you brought up. I hope you find that more satisfactory. -Sensemaker

Examples of what?

In an article that intrinsically raises questions of truthiness, the section "Examples" is ambiguously couched. Of course these are examples of factoids, and the facts that clarify or debunk them. But (especially in light of the highly amusing way gullible.info handles such debunkings in its forums) this may not be clear to all readers -- what is true? I'm making a suggested change. - fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.200.195 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Gullible.info

Removed the ref to "compendium of factoids"; the site does not bill itself so, and dontcha think anyone reading here knows the score? Wikipedeans will enjoy searching on the gullible.info "factcheck forum" for refs to wikipedia ("run by uninformed amateurs", whenever in contradiction with gullible.info) -fred

I intend to fix this article according to the facts

Multiple dictionaries give both of two contradictory meanings. Both are correct by a proper interpretation of Mailer, whose opinion was that certain facts' appearance in print tended to distort perceptions. I'm going to give this a day or two seeking comment, but Wikipedia is not in the business of redefining words. Factoids are often true things that are trivial, serve mainly to entertain, or are simply tersely stated (without reference to whether they have value).Julzes (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reconsidered. I suspect there could be a lot of work required to win an edit war on this one, but the article does currently over-marginalize the common second definition that 43% of usage experts fully accepted in 2009 according to American Heritage. A web search reveals a large body of evidence in support of both definitions, and the OED in its current version is not freely available for me to ascertain whether the 2nd definition isn't given there. Anybody reading this should bear in mind that usage of 'factoid' is only going to be ambiguous in certain limited contexts. Usually the reader or listener expects that when someone is saying something is a factoid, they know beforehand which meaning is intended. It is definitely an ambiguous word though.Julzes (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)