That's a very weird way to spin it. The Wikipedia article misrepresents the situation (e.g. reporting that she "had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first-hand" (which is irrelevant) and omitting the fact that some of the stories she told were true of the daughter but not of her, such as being walked to school by the maid).

She was almost certainly a fraud, but the Wikipedia mob doesn't want her debunked.

▲

joe_the_user a day ago | parent [-]

Citations? Wikipedia is full of them

	▲	MarkusQ 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, they're what I was using. If you want to believe she was who she said she was and lived to be 122, there's evidence in there to support it--providing you're willing to ignore all the evidence pointing to identity theft and pension fraud. My objection to the Wikipedia article is the way the a priori most likely interpretation (identity theft and pension fraud are currently many orders of magnitude more common than living past 120) is treated as a debunked conspiracy theory and the improbable/sensational interpretation is treated as established fact.