The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 77    Average: 3.9/5]
67 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 27441
Rating: 3.9
Category: Tech
Date: 02/03/11 02:01 PM

67 Responses to Wiki: List Of Common Misconceptions

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33124 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    Link: Wiki: List Of Common Misconceptions - Every human alive NEEDS to read this!
  2. Profile photo of Angelmassb
    Angelmassb Male 18-29
    15511 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys, chimpanzees or any other modern-day primates. Instead, humans and monkeys share a common ancestor that lived about 40 million years ago."
  3. Profile photo of FromPortugal
    FromPortugal Male 18-29
    304 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    bla bla bla
  4. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm
    It`s a real shame every single college professor I`ve ever had is going to discount everything on that list, simply because it`s Wikipedia.
  5. Profile photo of morbay32
    morbay32 Male 40-49
    66 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?
  6. Profile photo of Toider
    Toider Male 18-29
    452 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
    This should be a required high school course.
  7. Profile photo of hatface
    hatface Male 18-29
    605 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:28 pm
    Thanks to the awesome TV series QI, I knew almost all of these.
  8. Profile photo of zlatan
    zlatan Male 18-29
    292 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm
    just spent like 45 min reading all of those
  9. Profile photo of onewhosinz
    onewhosinz Female 30-39
    47 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    @ msieg007: It`s a real shame that you`re too lazy to look anywhere but Wikipedia for information.
    Professors don`t discount anything JUST because it`s on Wikipedia, it is discounted because you can never tell how the information was received. If it`s true, you can find it elsewhere.
  10. Profile photo of GasMaskKid
    GasMaskKid Male 18-29
    694 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:43 pm
    A little late to the party, Wikipedia.


  11. Profile photo of msieg007
    msieg007 Male 18-29
    2035 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 2:44 pm
    @onewhosinz: It`s a real shame that you`re making baseless assumptions about my work ethic.
  12. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 3:26 pm
    One of these is technically wrong. The one saying that "the seasons are not regulated by the distance from the sun". While the misconception it is debunking is certainly untrue, the claim that it is solely the Earth`s tilt isn`t exactly right either. Perihelion and aphelion are out of sync with solstice and equinox and when they align certain ways, they create abnormally mild or extreme summers and winters. There`s even a specific synchronicity (that hasn`t happened in hundreds of thousands of years) that causes "summers" to be colder than "winters", though both are relatively mild.
  13. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    "On the question of whether .999...=1, 72% of the control group and 83% of the experimental group expressed their view that .999... is not equal to 1."


    um...? It`s not equal to 1 is it? 0.9999 is less than 1 .... isn`t it?



    math is hard
  14. Profile photo of Sh0rtEe
    Sh0rtEe Male 13-17
    47 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm
    haha look at the discussion page on this (button at the very top). I didn`t know people spent so much time arguing over this page.
  15. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 4:16 pm
    @Gerry1of1
    .999... < 1 by an infinitely small amount. for practical purposes, it equals 1. Especially since in the real world, the Planck constant exists that sets a limit on how small something can be.
  16. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33124 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    Enjoy IAB! I found these very interesting, and like @onewhosinz suggests, if you think they`re not true, go look it up elsewhere! Wiki is just a starting point, eh?
    @Volsunga: the distance is a comparatively tiny factor, eh?
  17. Profile photo of TR-Wolf
    TR-Wolf Male 18-29
    1557 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    It`s like a page of QI episode facts.


  18. Profile photo of Creabhain
    Creabhain Male 40-49
    440 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm
    Those people who are upset by the idea of humans having evolved from monkeys would be just as upset if it were apes or a common ancestor. There is no point in correcting them.
  19. Profile photo of shishkabob
    shishkabob Male 13-17
    180 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:42 pm
    one of the first things was false, the one about iron maidens not being used for torture and that it was made up for 18th century exhibitions. the english did in fact invent and use it for torture, after that i skimmed it quickly, and i couldnt decide whether to agree with it or not, especially considering many don`t have an explanation just oretty much says nope its a miconception, not true lol
  20. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm
    It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?

    Stuff on Wikipedia is not *necessarily* wrong. Some of it is wrong, some of it is right. The problem is that you can`t know in advance which is which. That`s why Wikipedia is dismissed as a source.

    As far as I know, this list is right. I don`t know about the USA-specific ones and I don`t know about the movement of air past a wing, but all the rest is in line with what I already knew.

    Hmm...not quite. Swann invented a light bulb before Edison, not after. The problem Swann had was that when he first worked on bulbs, in the 1860s, was he didn`t have equipment to reliably make a good vacuum. His 1860s bulbs worked, but he couldn`t make them good enough and he moved on to other ideas until, years later, he got the kit to make a good vacuum and returned to bulbs - that second go at it is the 1881 bulbs mentioned in this list.
  21. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
    um...? It`s not equal to 1 is it? 0.9999 is less than 1 .... isn`t it?

    0.9999 is less than 1.

    0.9 recurring = 1. There must be an infinite number of 9`s.
  22. Profile photo of Spider_sol
    Spider_sol Male 18-29
    1452 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    Volsunga, did you even read this?
    .9 repeating is EXACTLY equal to 1.

    Think of this this way, .3 repeating is exactly equal to 1/3

    Multiply both by 3.
  23. Profile photo of SPARTAKITTY
    SPARTAKITTY Female 18-29
    2120 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    The one about JFK and the jam doughnut made me snort loudly.
  24. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm
    one of the first things was false, the one about iron maidens not being used for torture and that it was made up for 18th century exhibitions. the english did in fact invent and use it for torture,

    Can you provide references to support that? I have a bit of an interest in English history and I`ve never seen an old reference to it. All sorts of torture devices were used in medieval times and written about quite widely at the time, but I`ve never seen a medieval reference to an iron maiden. I`m not an expert, just an interested amateur, so there`s plenty I don`t know...but I`m suspicious when I haven`t seen a single old reference to it, ever.

    There was a definite tendency in later times to make up stuff about medieval times. Chastity belts are a famous example.
  25. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 6:12 pm
    "It`s Wikipedia... isn`t this redundant? An article of misconceptions on a site of misconceptions?"

    That`s the funny thing about Wikipedia; I don`t know why it is so often singled out for being "unreliable". It is not more or less unreliable than anything else on the internet. It is up to the reader to crosscheck/crossreference everything to make sure they are getting credible and relaible information. Only the fools who take everything they read as fact and who do not bother to do the research themselves fall victim to this.

  26. Profile photo of Volsunga
    Volsunga Male 18-29
    1548 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm
    @spider_sol
    no, .333... is an approximation of 1/3 because that fraction doesn`t work in base 10. The actual argument in favor if it has to do with limits, which it is arguable whether the infinite limit of an equation is the same as the equation itself.
  27. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm
    This was excellent. Want a fun challenge? Disprove these purported misconceptions.
  28. Profile photo of unicornsrus
    unicornsrus Female 13-17
    44 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm
    ...weird.
  29. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm
    There is no such thing as 1/3 in a system that uses decimals and base ten logic. But I can cut a pie into three pieces.
  30. Profile photo of Boredered
    Boredered Male 18-29
    2506 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:47 pm
    Okay I`ve never tl;dr`d this hard in my life
  31. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    "I don`t know why it is so often singled out for being "unreliable"."

    I do. Its called "idiots." Its people who don`t understand the power of collective knowledge. I can say that something is "false," but 9 people can come in and tell everyone that it is "true."

    Its old people who make this argument. "Anyone can edit wikipedia, so I can`t trust it." They fail to see the power in COLLECTIVE CORRECTION.

    Yes, any jackass can plant false info on wikipedia. But the MASSES do not let it stand - people who KNOW correct it.

    This is the reason we have idiots in America who deny manmade global warming based on the FACT that the vast majority (+95%) of trained, PhD scientists say it is a fact.

    If a team of doctors diagnoses me, AND 9 of 10 TELL ME I HAVE CANCER, I believe the 9 of 10.

    Republicans believe the 9 scientists in 10 are in some sort of LIBERAL conspiracy....
  32. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    That ONE scientist who disagrees knows the secret.

    Seriously, anti man-made climate change believers are like the people who don`t believe the 90% of doctors telling them they have lung cancer. WHAT DO THEY KNOW??? WHAT WITH THEIR STUDIES, AND TEST-TUBES, TELLING ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE????

    If 90% if doctors tell me to quit smoking, its because they are probably right about cancer. Republicans say, don`t trust those guys, the 10% of doctors who say smoking doesn`t cause cancer are the people who REALLY can be trusted.....
  33. Profile photo of MildCorma
    MildCorma Male 18-29
    496 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 8:08 pm
    I have to agree with everyones points on wikipedia regarding its "reliability". It is reliable, but academics scoff at it`s use because (in the words of my professor) "it can be edited by anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and you can`t hold it in your hand. You can`t research from it because you can`t quote "wikiedia" as a general reference."

    I of course gave him the counter argument but when these things are passed down from on high and made a requirement to pass your course then so be it. A hack is I use wikipedia for my references and quotes but quote the original reference listed at the bottom. Really frustrates me that our educational leaders can be this thick towards a collective knowledge base, which is truly a benefit to anyone that uses it. Want information on something? Used to have to go to the library, now you google and -everything- you want to know is available.
  34. Profile photo of handys003
    handys003 Male 50-59
    2402 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    Ah wikipedeia where every small fry user can sign up an put their 2 cents of reliable information.
  35. Profile photo of entwife
    entwife Female 18-29
    536 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 8:51 pm
    soooooo glad to see the vaccine thing on here
  36. Profile photo of Adi_Noor
    Adi_Noor Male 18-29
    191 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 9:28 pm
    Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb. He did, however, develop the first practical light bulb in 1880.


    WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
  37. Profile photo of Renaud-
    Renaud- Male 18-29
    423 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 9:37 pm
    Bow down before the almighty and omnipotent Wikipedia,puny humans!
  38. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 10:12 pm
    You should never need to use Wikipedia as a reference - Wikipedia cites its sources. Just click the little number next to the thing you wanted to cite, and use that as your source instead of Wikipedia. Keeps your professors happy and saves you a lot of work.
  39. Profile photo of SPrinkZ
    SPrinkZ Male 18-29
    2282 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 10:21 pm
    Wikipedia is frequently as reliable, or slightly less reliable than the Brittanica. Why people have such a big issue with it has to stem from the fact it`s open-source, but look at Linux--open source, and it thrives, and performs better than any of the other OS.

    Open source doesn`t mean it is stupid. People can edit it, but it has to get scrutinized over and over and over again, and there are admins and moderators.
  40. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 10:39 pm
    The worlds most common misconception: People who blog are writing something intelligent or worthwhile.
  41. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8306 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 10:58 pm
    "such as the ballc.ock mechanism used to fill toilet tanks"

    Depends whether ur filling it with No 1 or No 2! But at least we know that some inventor somewhere had a sense of humor!
  42. Profile photo of SpookyDoom76
    SpookyDoom76 Male 18-29
    6 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 11:00 pm
    this link is a death trap for stoners
  43. Profile photo of SvampeBob
    SvampeBob Male 18-29
    3076 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 11:17 pm
    @SpookyDoom76 why?
    TLDR
  44. Profile photo of CoyoteKing
    CoyoteKing Male 18-29
    2988 posts
    February 3, 2011 at 11:33 pm
    tl;dr

    i`ll have to come back to this when its not 1:30am
  45. Profile photo of cluffy
    cluffy Male 40-49
    63 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 12:00 am
    I`m pretty stoned at 3 am and I only made it to the Obama not being Muslim one before I realised it was bullpoo.
  46. Profile photo of Hansbo
    Hansbo Male 18-29
    901 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 1:16 am
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

    Proven in many different ways. They are not just "almost exactly the same", they are the same. Just two different ways of writing the same number.
  47. Profile photo of Selfluminous
    Selfluminous Male 18-29
    86 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 3:11 am
    should we be happy or sad that there`s only 1 misconception in mathematics lol
  48. Profile photo of nilam
    nilam Female 18-29
    12 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 3:48 am
    Think about this !!!
  49. Profile photo of flexus
    flexus Male 30-39
    50 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 6:18 am
    was it me or has most of that stuff been on QI
  50. Profile photo of Lorah
    Lorah Female 18-29
    1784 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 7:39 am
    I remember being taught about the toung has differnt sides for differnt tastes. I remember when I was little thinking it didn`t make any sence. Its crazy what I learned from school turned out to be wrong. makes you think what else you learn was wrong
  51. Profile photo of jtrebowski
    jtrebowski Male 40-49
    3359 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 7:42 am
    @cluffy: Look at the bright side. At least you learned the Earth isn`t flat.
  52. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36842 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 7:43 am
    about .999etc = 1

    Oh, well if you are gonna round up to the nearest whole number then DUH, of course!

    Nobody said anything about rounding up.

    Stupid mathmaticians. I`m gonna go kick some math geek ass now.
  53. Profile photo of meepmaker
    meepmaker Male 30-39
    6694 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 7:48 am
    Common Misconception. Im a push over.
    Common Misconception. I wont kick your a$$.
    Common Misconception. Im not cool.
  54. Profile photo of MrHyde
    MrHyde Male 18-29
    494 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 8:43 am
    @Gerry

    In Calculus and Physics, we use the limit part of a function and the significant digits for this reason.
    In actual practice, there is that no equipment will measure to infinite precision, so significant digits and the limit function are the best we can do.

    There are two ways of looking at the .9999~ thing:

    1.
    1/9 = .111111111111111111111~
    8/9 = .888888888888888888888~
    1/9+8/9 = 9/9 = 1

    When you consider it, it makes sense.
    .9999999999999 does NOT equal one.
    However, .9999999999999~ is just another way of writing 1.

    Again, in practice, you will never ever have to worry about whether or not .99999999999~ is equal to 1. But it technically is.
  55. Profile photo of MrHyde
    MrHyde Male 18-29
    494 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 8:44 am
    Also, that`s why 10/3 is .3333333333333333333~
  56. Profile photo of Jackson13W
    Jackson13W Male 30-39
    155 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 10:28 am
    this while 0.(9) discussion reminds me of the the Dichotomy Paradox (second one down)
  57. Profile photo of creatorofall
    creatorofall Male 18-29
    20 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
    For the .9~ thing, its kind of ridiculous because if something infinitely approaches 1 then it will always be less than 1. Theoretically it isn`t 1 then so I would agree with the people that wrote that it isn`t 1 on the test. However, because things are finite, seeing as mathematics has to do with reality, any number that is infinitely close to approaching a number is impossible since there isn`t even such thing as something infinitely divided so it would have to realistically be the number it is approaching.
  58. Profile photo of gametank
    gametank Male 70 & Over
    12 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 3:27 pm
    Consider this:

    0.999° x 10 = 9.999°
    9.999° - 0.999° = 9

    Leaving 9/10 of 9.999°

    9 / 9 = 1

    Taking it back to 1/10 that was 0.999° at the start
  59. Profile photo of tincel1372
    tincel1372 Female 18-29
    423 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 4:24 pm
    Of course the mythbusters had to be mentionned as having busted one of those common misconceptions :)
  60. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    Wikipedia is frequently as reliable, or slightly less reliable than the Brittanica.

    Which is another misconception.

    You`re (maybe unknowingly) quoting a false conclusion from a deeply flawed study.

    Firstly, even the content-free media release showed a significant difference.

    Secondly, the study counted errors in spelling as being equal to errors in content.

    Thirdly, the study repeatedly counted spelling errors in Britannica when in fact Britannica had the correct spelling and the people doing the study had an incorrect spelling or an accepted alternative spelling.

    Fourthly, the study counted unchecked and unsubstantiate opinions as fact, i.e. if they thought Britannica was wrong they counted it as being wrong. Even if it wasn`t.
  61. Profile photo of K3vin
    K3vin Male 18-29
    487 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm
    my entire world has been rocked... I effectively know nothing today. drat you jimmy whales.
  62. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 7:22 pm
    ewwww
  63. Profile photo of evski1975
    evski1975 Male 30-39
    59 posts
    February 4, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    This would be good if it weren`t for the fact that several are incorrect. Take gyroscopic stability, for example. Even the references state it is an important factor in balancing a bicycle. Whether it is "required" would depend on a variety of factors, such as the weight and skill of the rider. i.e. Yes, a skilled rider can perform a "track stand", but gyroscopic forces sure make riding a flop-load easier!
  64. Profile photo of LightShaded
    LightShaded Male 18-29
    423 posts
    February 5, 2011 at 1:42 am
    258 references... <3
  65. Profile photo of MrHouse
    MrHouse Male 18-29
    11 posts
    February 5, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    "Evolution does not claim humans evolved from monkeys...This common ancestor diverged into separate lineages" oddly enough, my priest taught me that
  66. Profile photo of Jammacan
    Jammacan Female 13-17
    155 posts
    February 6, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    I never knew anything until today. :-O
  67. Profile photo of Snow_Crash
    Snow_Crash Female 18-29
    211 posts
    March 12, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    The extent of my own education boggles me sometimes.

Leave a Reply