jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (27 posts)

Misinformation in hubs

  1. shashigai profile image60
    shashigaiposted 7 years ago

    I'm not sure what can be done about this, but today I saw a couple of hubs stating marijuana is a narcotic. Looking further I saw another article saying that Ambien was a narcotic. I saw yet another puporting to report on racism that was full of stereotypes. I guess its not dangerous to call marijuana a narcotic, but I think it lowers the quality of hubpages to have such misinformation included with hubs by people who know their material

    I wondered what anyone else thought.

    1. indy cindy profile image77
      indy cindyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Addressing just the 'narcotic' factor ... per dictionary.com ... the second definition reads:

      2. anything that exercises a soothing or numbing effect or influence: Television is a narcotic for many people. 

      Marijuana qualifies, as does Ambien.

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Every hub stands alone, if a hub is full on inaccuracies that looks bad on the author. Commenting and giving the true facts might help others to avoid believing it but there is no way of knowing if the author would let it stay.

  3. Whitney05 profile image68
    Whitney05posted 7 years ago

    Just leave a comment with the true facts, and hope that the info in the comment isn't deleted so that readers will hopefully see the truths.

    Or just write a hub with the truths.

    1. shashigai profile image60
      shashigaiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      that just raises even more questions (for me) about accountability. my hubs don't contain misinformation, but i worry and worry that they don't contain enough information. i go back and edit whenever i learn something new.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You can add a disclaimer to your hubs like I do on my cholesterol hubs.

      2. Teresa McGurk profile image81
        Teresa McGurkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        shashigai's query is a legitimate one, guys.  Although we can not police Hubpages, nor should we try, we can flag hubs that consistently contain misinformation, and respond to the page in the comments section so that the overall standards of HubPages are maintained -- for all of us. 

        While there is what would appear to the uninitiated to be hair-splitting going on here about marijuana and ambien not being narcotics per se, but nonetheless producing narcotic effects, Shashigai's concern is for the facts of the information and for the credibility of Hubs in general.

        No, we shouldn't believe everything we read.  But we can encourage fellow hubbers to research and validate findings.

        1. shashigai profile image60
          shashigaiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks. This is my true concern, as I have seen scams (one of which inspired me to write a hub on satellite tv scams) and other really bad misinformation here. Sometimes it happens because people are using PLR and don't bother to check the facts; other times it happens because people are reporting on personal experience and don't differentiate enough for that to be understood. Its concerning because I am seeing more and more teachers accept web references as legitimate. I guess it couldn't hurt for people to think of marijuana as a narcotic, unfortunately I think it still wouldn't reach the right audience.
          It also raises a interesting social question: who decides the meaning of a word? The FDA? Dictionary.com? Hubpages? Or me, since I am now a god, courtesy of Ryan?

      3. Lifebydesign profile image79
        Lifebydesignposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If you have the information, know what you're talking about you, and you keep it up to date, people start acknowledging you for the corrects facts and advice. I'd recommend building your credibility so that your hub becomes the obvious choice.
        And what Terese said.

  4. relache profile image88
    relacheposted 7 years ago

    Based on how they medically function and the technical definition of the world, both marijuana and Ambien are narcotics.

  5. shashigai profile image60
    shashigaiposted 7 years ago

    I'd have to disagree with that, relache. Narcotics attach to different receptors in the brain than cannabis and ambien. the technical definitions of both cannabis and ambien, as developed by the "powers that be" which would be the FDA, DEA, etc, classify those two as non-narcotic.
    They might have narcotic effects, but neither causes the kind of physical dependence that narcotics cause. Cannabis causes mainly psychological dependence, though if you are wired differently than most humans, I guess it could engender some sort of physiological dependence. there aren't enough recorded cases of that to prove it, though. The same with ambien. This is why you can go to the hospital and get medical assistance with heroin, morphine or oxycodone addiction, but you can't go for marijuana, ambien or cocaine addiction. They just don't operate the same way.

    I know this both from the research and my 15 years working with drug addicts in crisis.

    1. darkside profile image84
      darksideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Enough said.

  6. 0
    AngryITChickposted 7 years ago

    You can't believe everything you read.  And if there's anyone that does...well I'm amazed they made it this far.

  7. Ryan Hupfer profile image80
    Ryan Hupferposted 7 years ago

    I pretty much assume that everything on the Internet is true.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You need to send me $50,000 and I will make your wishes come true............ smile

      1. 0
        AngryITChickposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Damn, you stole my idea sad

    2. ajcor profile image60
      ajcorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Like in the newspapers...doncha know!

    3. shashigai profile image60
      shashigaiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i am a god. worship me and send me mark's money.

    4. WHoArtNow profile image84
      WHoArtNowposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ROFL, best comment ever Ryan!

  8. LondonGirl profile image91
    LondonGirlposted 7 years ago

    I've just got really annoyed about a hub that is alarmist and unscientific. I've posted the below, but no doubt the ignorant writer will delete it:

    "If one of the parent is Rh+ and the other is Rh - , the chances for child being a victim of Rh incompatibility becomes high. This may lead to a condition called Erythrobalstosis foetalis."

    "Recent scientific developments and improvements in health care methods and extensive research have lead to development of methods to overcome this disease. However the mortality rate is still high. It is estimated to be about 15% according to a recent statistics."

    Actually, I don't think it's a useful article at all. I think it's just pretty wrong in many significant ways.

    Firstly, it doesn't matter if the mother is Rh+ and the father RH-. It only matters if the mother is neg and the father positive. We each have two Rh factors, one from each parent. Neg is recessive, postive is dominent.

    So, for example, my father's blood group is A+. My mother's is O-. We children are O+. O+, O-, and A-.

    As O is also recessive, that means my father has AO +/- blood, my mother OO -- blood, etc.

    If a positive mother has a negative baby, nothing happens.

    If a negative mother, like mine, has a positive baby, like me and my siser, there used to be a big problem.

    In relation to the alarmist statement that there is a 15% mortality rate for babies with this condition, the writer COMPLETELY misses the point. No-one in the West gets it. Rho(D) Immune Globulin is given to pregnant Rh- women. Problem solved. Has been for decades.

    My explanation above is relatively simplistic. But it is not alarmist and utterly wrong, like this hub is.

  9. bgamall profile image87
    bgamallposted 7 years ago

    Marijuana is not a narcotic. And ask a paranoid smoker of the stuff if he is soothed, lol. While Mary Jo gets you into your head more, it doesn't put you into lala land (and I don't mean Los Angeles, well maybe I do) like morphine or a real narcotic. It is inaccurate to portray MJ as a narcotic and the penalties for possession are totally different.

    But I wouldn't have a cow over it because one poster is right, don't believe everything you read but filter it through your own knowledge. (As he takes a bow).

  10. SweetiePie profile image83
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Keep in mind that anyone from anywhere can write online, so take what your read online with a grain of salt.  If you have doubts do more research when reading any webpage, and hopefully anyone seeking any type of advice online will go offline and do more research with scholarly books and journals.

    1. Dorsi profile image92
      Dorsiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly. reader beware!
      You shouldn't believe everything you read, and if the author is in doubt you definitely should do your research, and read up alot on the subject if you aren't sure about the information.

  11. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    To me, it is fairly obvious when an author doesn't know what they are talking about.  "Caveat emptor," always, always.

    Incidentally, big tip offs (and you have to put this in context, too), are sometimes that the surrounding text will also have grave errors in style, grammar, and even in the graphic 'look' of the text and layout. Good authors back up their sources, quote experts, and provide links or even bibliographies if the subject is somewhat controversial. 

    There is also a measure of knowing when to trust an author/speaker. Things like respective education (though this definitely is not always so), considering if the source has an agenda, length of narration, diction, etc.  I always get a good sense of the person through the way they write.

  12. darkside profile image84
    darksideposted 7 years ago

    I wrote a hub on tattooing, and while I don't have any ink on my skin (or should that be 'ink IN my skin') I have family members who have tattoos. But that's not the reason why I wrote the hub.

    I figured seeing that all my newly published hubs were getting Adsense ads about tattoos on them, I might as well publish something that was relevant to the ads, rather than wait for ads that were relevant to my content.

    As it turns out there are some inaccuracies in my hub. But rather than fix them I've left them as is so they have been corrected by people who gave feedback.

    I learned that I shouldn't say that the ink is "injected by an electric needle" that it should be "the ink is inserted using a capillary action via a grouping of between 3 and in excess of 20 needles, which are powered by a machine head, consisting of 2 electro magnetic coils"

  13. William F. Torpey profile image85
    William F. Torpeyposted 7 years ago

    Some people are critical of newspapers, but I believe they have the right idea. Writers who are objective, which is both desirable and possible, provide attribution when stating controversial issues. If you're expressing opinions, that's one thing, but if you are stating facts it's important to let your readers know what your source is. In that way, readers can evaluate your source to decide whether you are stating facts or fallacies. If you tell me that George W. Bush was a great president because Dick Cheney said so, then it's easy for me to determine whether you are right or wrong.

    1. EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image92
      EYEAM4ANARCHYposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely, that's writing 101.