Talk:Factoid/Archives/2017

Origin
I've actually heard that Andy Warhol was the originator of the term "factoid" and that he defined it as "Something that sounds like a fact,but isn't" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.178.93 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is subject to them
Don't you think it’s a bit funny that this is defined using a medium so subject to error due to factoids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.59.192 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this add to the article?

 * "In reality no man-made object can be seen with a naked eye from the moon unless you count such things as the changing of Holland's coast or the partial drying out of the Aral Sea."

Not only can you not see the drying out of the Aral Sea or the changing of Holland's coast (you can probably see the results of these changes), but they aren't actually man-made objects. It's confusing and incorrect (and not referenced); but even if it were clear, correct and cited, I don't see how it would add anything to the article. It essentially reads as "you can't see any man-made objects from space, except for those you can." JazzMan 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it reads as "you cannot see any man-made objects from space (unless you use the term broadly and count these things as 'man-made objects')". What does it add to the article? First it adds something to the specific "Chinese wall"-factoid be explaining how large something must be to actually be humanly possible to be descerned from space. Second, the fact that a no more than twenty metres wide object is claimed to be discernable from the moon while, in reality something must be as large as one of the world's largest lakes to be visible, adds to the article in general by provinding the reader with an idea as to how unrealistic, how far from reality, a factoid can be and still be widespread. I believe this an excellent pedagogic example of how a factoid works. Clearly the best (in the sense "most pedagogic") of the examples mentioned in the text. That's why I wrote it.


 * If you truly believe that there is any risk that someone interprets the current text as "you can discern the chaning of Holland's coast or the drying out of the Aral Lake in real time -you can see it change as while you watch" I will gladly agree to clarify the matter to something like "the result of the changing of Holland's coast". However, I find it somewhat hard to imagine someone making that misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 12:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not someone interprets what you originally meant doesn't really matter, since that's not what it says. An encyclopedia should never be ambiguous, even if the correct meaning is obvious.


 * At any rate, it would seem that these geological features being seen from the moon is itself a factoid, as this document from NASA would seem to suggest. The first picture (34) shows that the Earth is very when viewed from the moon, certainly too small to tell the difference between stages of the Aral Sea. The picture at the bottom (40) was taken somewhere between the earth and the moon (therefore the earth is bigger), and even if there were no clouds I think one would be hard pressed to see these "man made objects". Do you have any references that says you can see these things from the moon? JazzMan 07:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon looking at the pictures, I realize there's not much perspective, so it's possible that the Earth is a lot bigger than it seems (though the first picture does show the curvature of the moon) so I might be wrong about this. Either way, I think Wikipedia standards would still dictate a source, less this article become yet another source for factoids. JazzMan 07:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just do the math, brother Jazzman. A somewhat thick strand of hair, for a caucasian, is about one tenth of a milimetre wide. Given good contrast (dark hair against white paper), it is not hard for the human eye to see at a metre's distance, you could probably see it from further away. So it is possible to see on object no wider than one ten tousandth of the distance to it. Shortest distance to the moon is about 360 000 km. Hence an object 36 km wide should, given good circumstances, be visible from the moon. The Aral Lake was about 160 km wide in the 1950s unless I am mistaken. Now it is two lakes about 20 km wide. The change should be discernable with some difficulty under good circumstances and if you know where to look.


 * Concerning ambiguity, how about this choice of words: "No man made object is visible to the naked eye from the moon. Given good circumstances it might be possible to discern the result of some human activity such as the drying of the Aral Lake or the changing of Holland's coast, but even that would not be easy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that wording a ton better. However, it seems like original research to me. I'm fine with it for now, but it's still going to need a citation. Go ahead and put it in for now. JazzMan 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is good that we reached an agreement. I have implemented the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely there are two aspects of the 'seen from the moon' argument that have failed to make it to this page - firstly, if someone were to be able to stand on the moon gazing back at Earth, then there's a fighting chance that there would be a space craft or module close by - that might count as a man-made object viewed from the moon, but obviously it will not be on Earth which I suppose is the original proposition. However, the Earth viewed at night is lit up by a huge number of man-made objects and these will collectively be able to be seen, if not from the moon then certainly from a similar distance from Earth. SouthernFrog (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text so it reads: "In reality no single, man-made object on Earth can be seen with a naked eye from the Earth's moon." adding "single" and "on Earth" to clarify the points you brought up. I hope you find that more satisfactory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensemaker (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC )


 * "In reality no man-made object on Earth can be seen with the naked eye from the Earth's moon"


 * The most obvious man-made objects on Earth that one can see from the moon with the naked eye, is at night, when the planet is clearly illuminated by millions of light bulbs. -Warren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.199.254 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Gullible.info
Removed the ref to "compendium of factoids"; the site does not bill itself so, and dontcha think anyone reading here knows the score? Wikipedeans will enjoy searching on the gullible.info "factcheck forum" for refs to wikipedia ("run by uninformed amateurs", whenever in contradiction with gullible.info) -fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.200.195 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)