Welcome to the top 10 strangest roundup of Wikipedia edit wars – those hidden skirmishes that pop up when passionate volunteers clash over the tiniest details. From arguments about whether a puppy is “cute” to debates over centuries‑old dating conventions, these battles prove that even the world’s biggest encyclopedia can get a little… theatrical.

Why These Are the Top 10 Strangest Edit Wars

Every day, countless editors click, type, and save, but only a handful of disputes capture the imagination. Below, we count down the most bizarre, the most heated, and the most surprisingly meticulous showdowns ever to echo through Wikipedia’s history.

10 Cuteness

What exactly makes something “cute”? Scientists argue that cuteness is a survival signal, a biologically‑engineered charm that nudges others to protect the young. Dogs, for instance, have been selectively bred over millennia to maximize that irresistible appeal, turning adorable faces into a genetic advantage.

Yet a vocal contingent of editors insists that cuteness is purely subjective, a matter of personal taste rather than evolutionary design. This philosophical tug‑of‑war has sparked roughly 22,000 edits on the Cuteness page, as contributors add and delete language about whether cuteness serves a practical purpose or simply delights the eye.

Whether you side with the evolutionary biologists or the lovers of pure aesthetic, the sheer volume of changes shows just how passionately the Wikipedia community defends its definition of adorable.

9 Chicken, Alaska

At first glance, a remote Alaskan hamlet with a name that sounds like a barnyard joke seems unlikely fodder for a heated debate. Still, the Chicken, Alaska article has attracted about 9,000 edits, primarily over the 2000 census figure that listed just 17 residents – eight of whom were whimsically labeled “children (or chickens)” by a particularly colorful editor.

One contributor erupted, demanding that the count be respected, exclaiming, “There are SEVENTEEN PEOPLE IN THE VILLAGE, for f—k’s sake!” while another countered that clinging to outdated statistics amounted to vandalism. By 2018, a tentative truce emerged: the 2010 census recorded seven permanent inhabitants, but mining activity often swells the population back to 17 throughout the year.

Though the numbers may seem trivial, the dedication of these editors underscores a deeper commitment to keeping even the tiniest corners of Wikipedia accurate and up‑to‑date.

8 Star Trek Into Darkness?

When the blockbuster Star Trek Into Darkness hit theaters, fans expected fierce debates over its plot and box‑office numbers. Instead, the Wikipedia battlefield fixated on a far more minute detail: the capitalization of the word “into” in the film’s title.

Official marketing materials consistently rendered the title as Star Trek Into Darkness, prompting a faction of editors to argue for a capital “I” while another camp insisted on a lowercase “into” to follow Wikipedia’s style guidelines. The dispute generated roughly 3,000 edits, with both sides alternating between “Into” and “into” until a temporary compromise introduced the hybrid “InTo” – a solution that ultimately fell apart, leaving the current article title in its standard capitalized form.

This seemingly petty quibble highlights how even the most high‑profile pop‑culture entries can become arenas for meticulous textual battles.

7 Cat

Cats have long reigned as internet royalty, but Wikipedia editors can’t agree on the nature of the human‑cat relationship. Some argue that owners wield authority, while others claim felines dominate the dynamic, relegating humans to the role of caretakers.

A third, more harmonious viewpoint suggests a partnership of equals, where both species benefit from companionship. This three‑way debate has produced about 11,000 edits, a staggering number for an article about a single domestic animal.

Whether you see yourself as a benevolent guardian, a humbled servant, or a co‑equal companion, the ongoing edits demonstrate how deeply people care about getting the cat‑human story just right.

6 Iron Maiden

The legendary heavy‑metal troupe Iron Maiden has sold over 100 million records worldwide, yet its Wikipedia entry is embroiled in a clash with a medieval‑sounding counterpart: the iron maiden torture device. Some editors contend that the term should primarily point to the gruesome apparatus, while others argue the band’s cultural impact eclipses the historical device.

Complicating matters, conspiracy‑theorists have even suggested the band dabbles in satanic rituals, citing cryptic lyrics as “backward‑spoken chants.” Regardless of the sensational claims, the dispute has driven roughly 9,000 edits, as the article’s link toggles between the musical group and the alleged execution instrument.

This tug‑of‑war showcases how pop‑culture and historical myth can collide on a single Wikipedia page, leaving readers to wonder which “Iron Maiden” they’ll encounter.

5 Mathematics

Ever tried clicking the first link on a Wikipedia page? Most roads eventually lead to Philosophy, a quirky game that fails on a few outliers – notably Mathematics. The first four links on the Mathematics article point to Quantity, Change, Structure, and Space, and editors have debated their order for years to ensure the page eventually routes to Philosophy via “Space.”

One camp argues that manually rearranging links to force a philosophical destination undermines the integrity of the article, while the opposite side restores the original sequence to preserve academic authenticity. This back‑and‑forth has produced countless edits over many years, illustrating how even abstract concepts become battlegrounds.

Whether you favor a tidy philosophical loop or a pure mathematical presentation, the Mathematics edit war proves that even numbers can be contentious.

4 Cow Tipping

Cow tipping – the alleged pastime of nudging a sleeping bovine onto its side – is widely regarded as a rural legend, requiring roughly 1,360 newtons of force (the output of four to five people). Yet the Wikipedia dispute isn’t about the physics; it’s about the image caption that accompanies the article’s photo.

One faction insists the caption should label the animal as “an unsuspecting potential victim,” arguing that the cow lacks awareness of any tipping attempts. In 2006, editor Psychonaut3000 defended this wording, noting the cow’s innocence. Opponents counter that the caption is sensationalist, sparking over 2,000 edits as the two sides trade barbs.

While the debate may seem frivolous, it highlights how even a single descriptive line can ignite passionate disagreement among Wikipedians.

3 Arachnophobia

Arachnophobia, the fear of spiders, ranks as the third‑most common phobia in the United States, affecting roughly 30.5 % of the population. The Wikipedia edit war surrounding this topic centers on whether a large tarantula photograph should remain visible on the page.

One camp argues that displaying a frightening image on a page frequented by arachnophobes is insensitive and could trigger panic. The opposing side maintains that the image preserves the article’s completeness, suggesting that users simply disable images in their browsers if they prefer to avoid the visual.

With around 1,600 edits, this dispute underscores the tension between editorial thoroughness and user comfort.

2 Jesus

Regardless of religious affiliation, most people recognize that Jesus’s birth is traditionally dated to 4 BC. The enduring Wikipedia tussle over his article concerns the notation of dates: should the page employ the classic BC/AD system or the more secular BCE/CE format?

Approximately 20,000 edits have been logged as editors vote, argue, and sometimes revert each other’s choices. As of the latest count, the consensus leans toward BC/AD, though the debate persists, reflecting broader cultural conversations about historical labeling.

This high‑profile controversy illustrates how even universally known figures can become flashpoints for scholarly precision.

1 Tiger Or Lion?

Which big cat reigns supreme: the tiger or the lion? While playground chatter might settle the question, Wikipedia editors have turned it into a full‑blown edit war on the Tiger article.

One vocal contributor, JBoyler, urged fellow editors to let the tiger’s deeds speak for themselves, chastising opponents for “childish tantrums and quibbling.” Meanwhile, another faction expands the discussion by noting tigers have also bested brown bears in some documented encounters, further inflaming the debate.

Despite the seemingly light‑hearted premise, the dispute showcases how passionate community members can become when defending the majesty of their favorite feline.

Welcome to the top 10 notorious roundup of Wikipedia hoaxes that managed to fool millions before being busted. While the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia fuels its brilliance, it also opens the door for mischievous edits that can spiral into full-blown misinformation. Below you’ll find a playful yet factual tour through the most eye‑catching fabrications ever to appear on the site.

Top 10 Notorious Wikipedia Hoaxes Overview

10 Sinbad’s Death

Famed stand‑up comedian Sinbad is very much alive—but back in March 2007, a prankster edited his Wikipedia page to claim he had died of a heart attack. Sinbad first learned of the inaccurate information via a phone call from his daughter and initially brushed it off. However, over the next few days hundreds of concerned fans reached out, assuming the worst. He later remarked the incident wasn’t “that strange,” noting that many celebrities—ranging from Ted Kennedy to Miley Cyrus—have suffered premature obituary hoaxes thanks to Wikipedia vandalism.

9 Wrightbus

This case illustrates how a “prank” edit can spark panic in a tense environment. In November 2015 a vandal added a false claim to the Wrightbus article, stating that FirstGroup, a Scottish transport firm, had purchased the Northern‑Irish bus manufacturer. The rumor quickly spread by word‑of‑mouth, unsettling the company’s 1,500‑plus employees. The timing was especially volatile because two major businesses—a tire maker and a tobacco firm—had recently announced exits from Ballymena, threatening over 1,700 jobs. Although local news debunked the hoax swiftly, the damage to employee morale lingered.

8 Jar’Edo Wens

This example shows just how easy it is to craft a faux article that slips through the cracks for years. In May 2005 a user created a page for a fabricated deity named Jar’Edo Wens—likely a clever twist on the name Jared Owens. The creator made only three edits: establishing the page, and adding Jar’Edo and another invented deity, Yohrmum, to a list of Australian Aboriginal deities. The entire process took eleven minutes, yet despite being flagged in 2009 for lacking sources, the page persisted for nearly a decade. During that span, Jar’Edo even appeared in a scholarly book criticizing theism, cited as a god who had “fallen out of favor.” When finally exposed in March 2015, it was recognized as the longest‑running hoax on Wikipedia at that time.

7 Maurice Jarre

Our next entry proves that Wikipedia isn’t always the villain. After Academy‑Award‑winning composer Maurice Jarre died in March 2009, several obituaries—including one in The Guardian—quoted him saying, “life itself has been one long soundtrack,” and “when I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head that only I can hear.” In reality, Jarre never uttered those lines. Dublin student Shane Fitzgerald seized the moment to test how quickly the media would cite Wikipedia. He fabricated the quote and added it to Jarre’s page, assuming newspapers wouldn’t use it because it lacked a source. The quote spread nonetheless, prompting Fitzgerald to confess his “crime” out of concern the false words would become permanently attached to the composer. He blamed fast‑moving journalists rather than Wikipedia, noting moderators removed the fabricated quote within hours.

6 Bicholim Conflict

This entry showcases perhaps the most elaborate Wikipedia hoax ever attempted. A group of editors authored a 4,500‑word article about a 17th‑century war between Portugal and India—a conflict that never existed. The piece was convincing enough to earn “good article” status, an honor bestowed on less than 1 % of all Wikipedia entries. The perpetrators even nominated it for “featured article” status, though the selection committee noted the sources were weak and ultimately rejected it. Unbeknownst to them, virtually every citation referenced a nonexistent book, and the only online mentions of the “Bicholim Conflict” linked back to the Wikipedia page itself. The hoax remained hidden until amateur wiki‑detective “ShelfSkewed” double‑checked the references, exposing the elaborate deception.

5 Orange Julius

Some hoaxes are simply too absurd to be believed. In June 2005 a Wikipedia article sprang up about Julius Freed, supposedly the creator of the Orange Julius drink. The entry portrayed Freed as a short biography, detailing his early life and the invention of the iconic beverage, and even claimed he devised inventions like an inflatable shrimp trap and a portable pigeon‑bathing unit. The fabrication went unchecked until “Jeopardy!” champion Ken Jennings discovered it. He set out to debunk the falsehood and posted his findings on his personal blog. Though no one was harmed, the hoax was so outlandish that Orange Julius briefly ran an advertisement promoting Freed’s fictitious accomplishments before Wikipedia finally removed the article.

4 Coati

In July 2008, 17‑year‑old Dylan Breves, a student from New York City, edited the Wikipedia page for the coati—a tropical American mammal—by adding “Brazilian Aardvark” to its list of nicknames. The motivation? While touring Brazil’s Iguazu Falls, Breves and his brother mistakenly identified coatis as aardvarks. He told The New Yorker he disliked “being wrong about things,” so he inserted the false nickname “as a joke.” Expecting Wikipedia to delete the entry for lacking sources, he was surprised when The Telegraph used Wikipedia as its source, and Wikipedia later cited that same Telegraph article, creating a circular reference. Consequently, the incorrect nickname spread to several major newspapers and even appeared in a University of Chicago‑published book.

3 Edward Owens

Don’t confuse him with Jar’Edo Wens! Edward Owens was a fictional pirate conjured by George Mason University students for a 2008 “Lying about the Past” course taught by Professor T. Miles Kelly. The class created a website, videos, and a fake Wikipedia page claiming Owens was an oyster fisherman turned pirate during “The Long Depression” of the late 1800s. Several blogs—including one linked to USA Today—reported the hoax as factual, but the perpetrators later admitted the deceit. Kelly revisited the concept in 2012, this time fabricating “Lisa Quinn,” a woman who believed her uncle was a serial killer based on strange items found in his trunk. The students produced authentic‑looking Wikipedia articles for four women murdered in New York between 1895‑1897. The ruse unraveled when the hoax was posted to Reddit; within 26 minutes users flagged it as viral marketing, noting the newly created articles and artificially aged documents.

2 John Seigenthaler

In May 2005 an anonymous editor—identified only by an IP address—added a Wikipedia article claiming journalist John Seigenthaler was a suspect in the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. In reality, Seigenthaler was a close friend of Robert Kennedy and even served as a pallbearer at his funeral. The false article remained live until November 2005 when a friend of Seigenthaler spotted it and alerted him. He described the incident in USA Today as “internet character assassination,” labeling the perpetrator’s mind as “sick” and “twisted.” The controversy sparked national debate about the reliability of user‑generated content. In December, deliveryman Brian Chase revealed he authored the hoax, admitting he thought Wikipedia was a “gag encyclopedia.”

1 Chris Benoit

In June 2007 Canadian WWE wrestler Chris Benoit murdered his wife, his son, and then himself in a tragic double‑murder‑suicide. Remarkably, about fourteen hours before police uncovered the crime, a Wikipedia editor from Stamford, Connecticut—just three miles from WWE headquarters—edited Benoit’s page to suggest he missed a WWE event because of “the death of his wife Nancy.” The 19‑year‑old editor, a known wrestling‑fan vandal, later posted a lengthy apology on a Wikinews forum, calling the edit an “incredible coincidence” based on rumors and speculation, insisting the comment wasn’t a prank. Police interviewed him and examined his computer. The episode serves as a stark reminder: regardless of motive, vandalizing Wikipedia can have unforeseen, serious consequences.

About the Author: Izak Bulten is an animator and amateur film historian who loves writing about conspiracy theories, pop culture, and “crazy‑but‑true” stories. He’s created logic puzzles for World Sudoku Champion Thomas Synder’s blog, “The Art of Puzzles,” and authored the e‑book “The Puzzlemaster’s Workshop.” Recently, he’s been covering animation news on his blog “The Magic Lantern Show.”

Welcome to our deep dive into the top 10 serious problems that lurk beneath Wikipedia’s glossy surface. From hidden biases to outright fabrications, we’ll explore each flaw with a blend of wit and rigor.

10 Blatant Bias

Let’s start with the most obvious flaw. The fact that Wikipedia is edited and maintained by the general public means that anyone’s personal biases can easily leak in. A 2012 study looked at over 28,000 Wiki articles on US politics, searching for key phrases used by either Democrats or Republicans. They found that, over time, articles tend to go from being left-leaning to more neutral, which sounds good. But this is a result of editors and contributors waging edit wars, not because they become fairer over time. In fact, a follow up study from 2016 found that editors are more likely to edit pages that present the opposing viewpoint to theirs, highlighting the fact that most people have an agenda of some sort.

In 2018, the same researchers compared 4,000 Wiki articles on US politics to Encyclopaedia Britannica. They found that 73% of articles on Wikipedia were biased, compared to just 34% of those in Encyclopedia Britannica.

Unfortunately, the bias doesn’t just apply on a personal level, but also on a macro scale. For example, 84% of editors are male, there are more articles written by Europeans than the rest of the world combined, just 16% of Sub-Saharan African topics are covered by people from Sub-Saharan Africa, and articles covering the same topic vary wildly depending on what language they are written in.

9 Equal Weight to Unequal Voices

One of Wikipedia’s biggest advantages is that by allowing anyone to edit, it can attract some of the brightest minds on the planet without paying a penny. This is the fundamental principle that drives their success, as it enables them to provide detailed information on some of the most niche topics imaginable. But while this one-size-fits-all approach allowed them to grow from nothing, it did so at the expense of quality.

William Connolley is a software engineer who specialises in climate modelling. In addition to running a number of climatology websites, he was the Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project until 2007. Despite all this, his edits are treated as the exact same as yours, mine, or anyone’s would be.

As you may have guessed, Connolley eventually found himself on the front lines of an edit war over the page on Climate Change. He accused his rival of watering down science, and the rival accused him of silencing opposing views. Wikipedia sided with the other person, and limited Connolly to one edit per day. His case is frequently cited by those in the scientific community as an example of how problematic Wikipedia’s policies can be.

8 Inconsistent Fact‑checking

Whenever issues surrounding the accuracy of information on Wikipedia arise, the defence is usually that these problems are fixed over time, often quite quickly. Logically, you might assume this is particularly true for bigger pages, as more people reading it would increase the likelihood of an error being identified. This is not the case.

Lots of silly misinformation has been whipped back almost instantly, such as the page of Alan Mcilwraith, who wrote an elaborate entry about his decorated military past. But the page was composed entirely of lies, as Mcilwraith had never been in the army. While he was able to use his stolen valor to worm his way onto charity boards and steal identities by “recruiting” people, he somehow wasn’t able to fool Wikipedia.

Then you have the likes of Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous, divisive public figures in the world. Surely her page, which receives millions of views a day, would suffer from both positive and negative bias, but benefit from incessant fact‑checking. Nope. She was listed as the Valedictorian speaker at her graduation for 20 months, even though she wasn’t. Not a lie worth telling to win support. Not a scandal worth framing her for. Just wrong. And while that may seem like a minor issue, it highlights the fact that even basic, easily verifiable facts can remain on the site for extended periods of time.

7 Falsehood Spiral

But does it really matter if something on Wikipedia is wrong? If you’re doing real research, you should be checking multiple sources. The issue now is that so many of those sources are using Wikipedia. Take the case of John Seigenthaler, an American journalist whose Wikipedia page was edited to (totally falsely) state that he is a suspected assassin who lived in the Soviet Union. It is worth noting that no government will ever plant a spy among journalists (Project Mockingbird not withstanding), clergy, and charity workers, as those 3 groups are seen as too vulnerable and often the only source of aid for people in need. This means that a journalist being accused of spying is a lot more serious than most other professions.

Other sites, such as Answers.com and Reference.com started pulling these claims and posting them on their own sites. The misinformation was only discovered when a curious colleague searched his friend’s name, and immediately phoned up. After a lot of legal fighting and arbitration, Seigenthaler got the lies taken down, but was not given the identity of the editor. An internet sleuth intervened, identifying the person who made the edits. That person was fired, and wrote an apology letter claiming to have thought Wikipedia was a joke website. In response, Seigenthaler successfully campaigned to reverse the firing.

Another incident in 2008 saw a number of teens add “Azid” as a synonym for “Korma”, which a Redditor later claimed was a term used to bully an Arabic classmate. The entry remained up until 2014, by which time “azid” had found its way onto thousands of sites as a genuine term. In fact, the prank was so successful that some people even claim azid has always been a synonym for korma, which just goes to show how powerful revisions can be.

6 Background Actors

So considering the fact that biased people can post whatever they like without much fear of reprisal, you have to wonder who these people actually are. As already mentioned, one of the site’s saving graces is its diversity of thought, but it turns out it’s not as diverse as it could be.

One study, analyzing 250 million edits over a ten year period, found that 77% of the content comes from just 1% of the editors. With roughly 132,000 active editors, that means about 1,300 people are responsible for shaping over three quarters of one of the most used sources of information in the world.

These figures can be even more startling for the non‑English language versions of the site. There is a famous example of one man, Sverker Johansson, and his bot, Lsjbot, who are responsible for creating 80‑99% of articles on the Swedish, Cebuano, and Waray language versions of the site. Although their content mostly deals with geography, they were instrumental in shaping how bots are used to contribute. Even this is an issue, as the tasks bots execute are shaped by their creators biases, such as which topics to address, and how. And with so few, unaccountable people making decisions without proper consideration, the results will inevitably suffer.

5 Spy Vs Spy

As you would expect, pretty much all major corporations and institutions pay people to ensure that Wikipedia makes them look good. There has been no shortage of unflattering content being removed or inserted, only to be traced back to someone with a motive. Political parties such as the DNC and GOP edited their pages, and those of their rivals. In Britain, Chuka Umunna’s staff were accused of referring to him as the “British Barack Obama”, while a mysterious editor chose to use 75% of their time flattering Grant Shapps, and 25% besmirching his rivals.

Meanwhile, the CIA and FBI weighed in on such topics as Guantanamo Bay, and the war in Iraq. British Intelligence, Australian Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, and even Swedish Intelligence have also been caught in what is known as “conflict of interest” bias on Wikipedia, employing people to make flattering edits full time.

Similar tactics have been confirmed in the private sector as well, with the likes of Microsoft, BP, the Koch brothers, and the Church of Scientology all using paid employees to edit Wikipedia. Maybe you feel this is something we should have already known, but with so many people being paid to edit, how many of the 1,300 top editors are genuine?

4 Fundraising

Once a year, every year, Wikipedia users will see a banner, asking them to donate in order to keep the site up and running for free. This is reasonable enough, as nobody is obliged to pay, and the site is famous for refusing to run ads. Even the fact that they have about $100 million in reserves shouldn’t raise any eyebrows, as they have to plan for unforeseen circumstances.

If you glance at the Wikimedia Fundraising Report, it looks alright. Major Donations only make up 12% of the total, which seems to suggest that big money isn’t a major issue. But it is strange that a major charity that regularly receives donations of $1 million would define “major” as over $1,000. This makes it impossible to get an accurate picture of large donations, as the average is dramatically pulled down. Only 2 major donors, Google and the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, are identified as giving over $1 million. Removing just these two makes the average donation size drop 14%. Furthermore, even though a major gift is defined as one over $1,000, smaller donations are also included, distorting the average even more.

When you look at the other information, it doesn’t get much clearer. 8% of donations come through chapters, meaning they are classed as chapter donations, even if they are large. Recurring donations have long been used as a way for companies to make donations anonymously by staying just below the threshold, and they represent another 8%. And 7% comes from the always useful category, “Other”.

3 Contextual Revision

Last week, the Wuhan virus (Covid‑19) had infected just one‑fifth the amount of people as Spanish flu. This week, that figure has jumped to over 100%. Not because the number of coronavirus cases has suddenly skyrocketed, but because the number of people affected by Spanish flu over 100 years ago has apparently seen a very sudden and dramatic fall.

The Wikipedia entry for Spanish flu originally read “an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died”. After coronavirus hit the news, it was then changed to “2‑3% of those infected died”. This number does in fact come from a WHO report, but not one dedicated to Spanish flu, and it doesn’t quote a reference. Most likely, it was an error that has been seized upon, as it is the lowest “estimate” by far, meaning the coronavirus will match it sooner. This makes it possible to say that Covid‑19 has killed as many people as Spanish flu in less time, and multiple news agencies now stating this as fact. This is very helpful to those who are benefiting in some way (I’m looking at you mainstream media) from Chinese flu hysteria.

The article still included other, unchanged claims, such that 50‑100 million people died. Or that one third of the world was infected at one point. If you combine these conflicting figures and work backwards, you’ll realise that there were as many as 4 billion cases of Spanish flu, more than double the population of the Earth at the time.

2 Subtle Redirection

In the same way people argue that you shouldn’t believe a Tweet, people say you can’t trust Wikipedia. The issue is, people do anyway. And unfortunately, it’s not as simple as writing it off as “their problem”. In the same way that falsehoods on Wikipedia can end up on other websites, in cookbooks, or on the news, they have a huge impact on what scientific papers are written, and the information they examine.

A huge amount of scientific papers have students working on them. One of the first things a student will do when given an assignment is go to Wikipedia, get an overview, and then go from there to find better references. So the information that has been included or omitted from Wikipedia has a direct influence on scientific research before it has even begun.

This isn’t just speculation or extrapolation. A study conducted by students in MIT found that if Wikipedia covers a topic, it can influence up to 250 scientific papers on that subject. There is a direct correlation between whether something is on Wikipedia, and whether it will appear in a scientific paper. Even scientists aware of this effect can’t escape it, as it’s perfectly possible that seeking alternative sources would simply take you to one that had already been influenced.

1 Outright Lies

While a lot of the misinformation on Wikipedia probably comes from genuine error, different perspectives, and a desire to paint oneself in a flattering light, some of it is deliberately false. Take the case of Moose Boulder for example. You may have already heard of it being referred to as “the largest island in the largest lake on the largest island in the largest lake on the largest island in the largest lake in the world.” It took two people to not only trek to the site of the alleged island, but also trace the origin of its only known photo before anyone realised it isn’t real. How or why it was made up remains a mystery.

But these fabrications can be far more insidious than creating imaginary islands. For example, Wikipedia listed KL Warschau as a major Nazi extermination camp. In reality, it was a minor concentration camp used for forced labor. The article also claimed that 200,000 non‑Jewish Poles were gassed there, bringing the total number of Poles killed to 400,000—the same amount, and method, as the Jews that perished in Poland. With this lie, it became possible to argue that the holocaust is overblown, and its really the Jews who are to blame for distorting history. The page has also been repeatedly edited to remove statistics relating to Jewish victims.

To be fair to Wikipedia, they removed the misinformation as soon as it was brought to their attention. It’s just a pity that took 15 years.