No matter the nature of my work day, the breathtaking views along my drive home never fail to refocus and reinvigorate me. This view to the west is of the #TobaccoRoots range of the #RockyMountains as seen from #Montana Hwy 84 between #Bozeman and #Norris.
In 2012, novelist Philip Roth discovered a "serious misstatement" about one of his books on @Wikipedia.
Wikipedia claimed Roth's book "The Human Stain" was inspired by the life of writer Anatole Broyard. Roth said this was "in no way substantiated by fact." He should know: he wrote it.
The "Human Stain" was actually inspired (Roth said) by his friend Melvin Tumin, a Princeton professor who had died not long before.
Roth wrote:
"I’ve never known, spoken to, or, to my knowledge, been in the company of a single member of Broyard’s family. I did not even know whether he had children....
"I never took a meal with Broyard, never went with him to a bar or a ballgame or a dinner party or a restaurant, never saw him at a party I might have attended back in the sixties when I was living in Manhattan and on rare occasions socialized at a party.
"I never watched a movie or played cards with him or showed up at a single literary event with him as either a participant or a spectator. As far as I know, we did not live anywhere in the vicinity of each other during the ten or so years in the late fifties and the sixties when I was living and writing in New York and he was a book reviewer and cultural critic for the New York Times.
"I never ran into him accidentally in the street...We never bothered to have a serious conversation....I never learned from Broyard who were his friends or his enemies, did not know where or when he had been born and raised, knew nothing about his economic status in childhood or as an adult, knew nothing of his politics or his favorite sports teams or if he had any interest in sports at all."
Roth contacted a Wikipedia official, who put him in touch with a site admin, hoping to get it rectified, and Roth wrote a letter to the admin (probably by typewriter). The admin responded that he, Philip Roth, "was not a credible source" on Philip Roth—and told him to find a secondary source!
Unbelievably, the Wikipedia article still today contains the claim about Anatole Broyard:
"In the reviews of the book in both the daily and the Sunday New York Times in 2000, Kakutani and Lorrie Moore suggested that the central character of Coleman Silk might have been inspired by Anatole Broyard, a well-known New York literary editor of the Times."
All this sounds unnervingly like a passage from a Philip Roth novel—with a healthy pinch of Kafka. And yet it so perfectly encapsulates the absurdities that lie at the heart of Wikipedia.
"Secondary sources"—i.e. the New York Times and co—are deemed better arbiters of Roth's fictional reality than Roth himself.
The reason is that on anything political, cultural or social, Wikipedia is a wrapper for the mainstream media. If the media says it's true, it's considered true by Wikipedia. If the media says it's false, it's considered false by Wikipedia.
Do you trust Wikipedia?
(h/t @lsanger for bringing my attention to this insane story.)