New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesBeware Wikipedia
On another name board a couple of days ago someone posted that Andrea had a Hebrew derivation, and that she got that information from Wikipedia. I looked that up, saw the incorrect derivation was indeed there, and joined Wikipedia and removed it. Since then I have checked several other articles that are categorized as "Given names" in Wikipedia. The most amazing error I found was the following paragraph in the article on Ashley:
The origins of the name come from an ancient Anglo-Saxon legend wherein a lovely young woman was kidnapped by an ogre and imprisoned in an ash tree. Over the years, the tree took on the form of the woman. Her name long since forgotten, she is now only remembered as "Ashley". The fabled tree is located in Devonshire, UK.
I almost admire the creative fiction writing skills of whoever wrote the above paragraph, but it is of course complete nonsense. I have removed that paragraph and said why in the "Talk" page about Ashley on Wikipedia.
Many people claim that vandalisms and mistakes like this on Wikipedia are of little consequence because they will be quickly caught and fixed by the regulars on Wikipedia. Well, unfortunately, the geeks who frequent Wikipedia don't know much about names, because the above false legend was originally added to the page about Ashley last October 1, so has been on the site for three and a half months before it was removed.
I know a lot of people on this board say baby name sites "make up" some of their false derivations, when I think that most of them are only lazily repeating past bad guesses as to etymologies. But the above paragraph obviously is something that was invented out of whole cloth, even if we can't be sure the person who posted it was the original creator of the tale. I bet there are people with warped senses of humor out there who are posting such nonsense on Wikipedia all the time, seeing how long it will take for someone to catch it and remove it. This is really scary, because there seems to be a huge segment of the general public out there that goes to Wikipedia first for their information on almost everything these days. As a college professor, I have to constantly tell my students that they can't use Wikipedia as a sole source when they write term papers.
Anyway, let this be a lesson to us all. Never accept what Wikipedia says about the origin of a name unless they have a link to a confirmation from a reputable source!
The origins of the name come from an ancient Anglo-Saxon legend wherein a lovely young woman was kidnapped by an ogre and imprisoned in an ash tree. Over the years, the tree took on the form of the woman. Her name long since forgotten, she is now only remembered as "Ashley". The fabled tree is located in Devonshire, UK.
I almost admire the creative fiction writing skills of whoever wrote the above paragraph, but it is of course complete nonsense. I have removed that paragraph and said why in the "Talk" page about Ashley on Wikipedia.
Many people claim that vandalisms and mistakes like this on Wikipedia are of little consequence because they will be quickly caught and fixed by the regulars on Wikipedia. Well, unfortunately, the geeks who frequent Wikipedia don't know much about names, because the above false legend was originally added to the page about Ashley last October 1, so has been on the site for three and a half months before it was removed.
I know a lot of people on this board say baby name sites "make up" some of their false derivations, when I think that most of them are only lazily repeating past bad guesses as to etymologies. But the above paragraph obviously is something that was invented out of whole cloth, even if we can't be sure the person who posted it was the original creator of the tale. I bet there are people with warped senses of humor out there who are posting such nonsense on Wikipedia all the time, seeing how long it will take for someone to catch it and remove it. This is really scary, because there seems to be a huge segment of the general public out there that goes to Wikipedia first for their information on almost everything these days. As a college professor, I have to constantly tell my students that they can't use Wikipedia as a sole source when they write term papers.
Anyway, let this be a lesson to us all. Never accept what Wikipedia says about the origin of a name unless they have a link to a confirmation from a reputable source!
This message was edited 1/19/2007, 9:29 AM
1
Replies
LOL
I always check Wikipedia's sources...but that is hilarious!
I always check Wikipedia's sources...but that is hilarious!
1
OT:
Hey Cleveland,
I had a question I thought you might have the answer to. Has research been done on the effect of movies on naming babies? I'd like to know how influential something like movies is on the names babies get and which movies are considered most influential. So do you know of research like that?
Thanks!
Mar
Hey Cleveland,
I had a question I thought you might have the answer to. Has research been done on the effect of movies on naming babies? I'd like to know how influential something like movies is on the names babies get and which movies are considered most influential. So do you know of research like that?
Thanks!
Mar
1
I gave two presentations on the topic of the effects of popular culture on American given names at the American Name Society meeting a couple of weeks ago. This dealt not only with movies but with television, popular music, athletes, and other factors.
The short answer to "which movies are most influential" is "those which have characters whose names fit in with the 'different but not too different' sort of names young parents are looking for." A film character cannot cause a big jump in a name which was very common in the generation of young parents or their own parents. Such names are not "new" to them. So a film tomorrow that had lead characters named Michael and Jessica would not have any big effect on the number of Michaels and Jessicas being born. But a film which introduces a name to a wide public which fits in with fashionable sounds and seems "new" can have a major impact. Ayla, for example, boomed in popularity because of the 1986 film Clan of the Cave Bear, and Tristan soared in use in the USA after 1994 because of the character Brad Pitt played in Legends of the Fall.
The short answer to "which movies are most influential" is "those which have characters whose names fit in with the 'different but not too different' sort of names young parents are looking for." A film character cannot cause a big jump in a name which was very common in the generation of young parents or their own parents. Such names are not "new" to them. So a film tomorrow that had lead characters named Michael and Jessica would not have any big effect on the number of Michaels and Jessicas being born. But a film which introduces a name to a wide public which fits in with fashionable sounds and seems "new" can have a major impact. Ayla, for example, boomed in popularity because of the 1986 film Clan of the Cave Bear, and Tristan soared in use in the USA after 1994 because of the character Brad Pitt played in Legends of the Fall.
This message was edited 1/19/2007, 11:57 AM
1
Similarly, if you look at the popularity rankings in England and Wales, many names are either new characters in popular soaps like Eastenders (e.g. Demi, Ruby, Alfie) or they are the name of football (soccar) players (e.g. Freddie).
Also, my lecturers threatened to fail us on our dissertation if we use Wikipedia as a source ;) .
Also, my lecturers threatened to fail us on our dissertation if we use Wikipedia as a source ;) .
This message was edited 1/21/2007, 4:38 PM
1
Obviously I'm no expert, but I've definitely noticed that name around a lot more since those films came out!
We're always being told not to use Wikipedia by lecturers, because although a lot of the info on there is reliable, there's also a lot of rubbish out there!
We're always being told not to use Wikipedia by lecturers, because although a lot of the info on there is reliable, there's also a lot of rubbish out there!
1