Can you provide an example?

whynotmaybe 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Dr Raoult was very vocal in France about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for covid 19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult

It seems today that he was just wrong and used to make "dubious" clinical trials.

> As of 2025, 46 of Raoult's research publications have been retracted, and at least another 218 of his publications have received an expression of concern from their publishers, due to questions related to ethics approval for his studies.

▲

thrance 3 hours ago | parent [-]

In this case, he was actually spreading misinformation. Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time.

	▲	whynotmaybe 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Anyone with two braincells could see it at the time. It seems a captain obvious now but it wasn't so at the time. (Or maybe my.braincells.count() < 2) Many people listened because he wasn't some youtuber doing his research, he was the head of the "Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit" ad the Faculty of Medicine of Marseille. I've watched one of his interviews where he stated that people survived in his unit with hydroxychloroquine and that he had numbers to prove it. When you look at his credentials, and my.braincells.count(), it was hard to identify it as misinformation.

▲

sigmoid10 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They probably mean people like Robert Malone [1], who - despite being well accomplished in a related field - spread verifiably wrong information about vaccines on social media during the pandemic. There are many people like him who showed past accomplishments in a related field, but were totally out of their depth when interviewed about covid on the Joe Rogan podcast or similar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Malone

	▲	nephihaha an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yet in officialdom, that kind of thing was perfectly acceptable. In Scotland we had a dentist running Covid lockdown, which is ironic since public dental services were decimated by it and never recovered.

▲

brigandish 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can simply do a Wikipedia search for "misinformation doctor" and get plenty of results, even with its search system, let alone if you use a search engine to power the search.

I would think that posting any particular person would descend in to a pointless argument over whether those claims are merited. Do you have some better reason to want a particular name?

▲

qudade 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected. Unless you are claiming that all hits for "misinformation doctor" are incorrect, a few examples to verify and correct would be helpful.

▲

nephihaha an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"If there is misinformation on Wikipedia it can be corrected."

It depends on its nature.

▲

hagbard_c 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Some 'misinformation' is hard to correct because the corrections are reversed by those who are intent on spreading the 'misinformation'. This is especially prevalent around contentious and/or politically sensitive subjects like the mentioned SARS2-related cases. This is what makes it hard to trust articles on such subjects on Wikipedia.

	▲	komali2 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If this is quite widespread, it should be fairly straightforward to point to an example of a page that's being defaced with misinformation, which would include an edit history and perhaps a Talk page documenting whatever sides to the debate there is that's preventing consensus. I don't disagree that weird bullshit occasionally happens on Wikipedia, but I have noticed that as soon as light is cast on it, it usually evaporates and a return to factual normality is established.
	▲	breppp 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		worse yet, you might read some topics and won't expect them to be poisoned with misinformation. Like the Holocaust history in Poland https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/history_news_articles/151... https://slate.com/technology/2023/04/how-wikipedia-covers-th...