Using the Internet as a Food History Source

[MaxH]

But conventional (print) food history is full of purloined misinformation as well.

Yes, strictly speaking; extending my earlier stark metaphor, you can probably even find published quotations books that distort well-established classic lines. But you find vastly, overwhelmingly more such misinformation online.

As for Wikipedia ... I find it's not usually that hard to recognise the nonsense history apart from credible history...

I wonder if you'd say that about the examples I've found. I happen to have in-depth documentation (many hundreds of books and articles) on many food and drink subjects, including very common, first-recourse reference books. On several food and drink topics, I've seen gross misinformation, eccentricity, or parochialism in Wikipedia entries, not because this was self-evident -- they often looked authoritative and well-researched -- but because I know the subject and have better sources. What I find obnoxious is when excuses of obscurity or ambiguity don't apply: where better information has long been in print in obvious places. Thus it's wrong for Wikipedia to carry misinformation on French cooking history that's easily corrected by a glance at Larousse Gastronomique, or the seemingly immortal misconception that the 4th Earl of Sandwich "invented" (not just gave his name to) sandwiches, when ancient antecedents are often cited in related writings. (The last topic, by the way, has vastly improved on Wiki since I first read it.)

Parochial perspective is another problem. Wikipedia, like the Internet, is good at expressing its authors' perceptions, including perceptions from a narrow or fad angle, which then becomes Wikipedia's perspective -- but you only spot this if you already know the subject better, and don't need Wikipedia. I've considered editing several, including popular, entries but as discussed upthread, the task's magnitude -- even without the possible obstacle of misinformation's defenders -- is formidable.

[Blether]

... On several food and drink topics, I've seen gross misinformation, eccentricity, or parochialism in Wikipedia entries, not because this was self-evident -- they often looked authoritative and well-researched -- but because I know the subject and have better sources...

Can you at least give one or two examples ? You're right that someone has taken the trouble over 'sandwich'.

I've considered editing several, including popular, entries but as discussed upthread, the task's magnitude -- even without the possible obstacle of misinformation's defenders -- is formidable.

Hmm. I run the risk of pissing you off, but why is it so easy to find time to talk about how bad it is, and so difficult to find time to actually do something to make it better ? You don't have to take ownership of the whole project, a whole subject or even a whole entry. One phrase or sentence makes a difference. You don't even need to register.

[MaxH]

Can you at least give one or two examples ?

Expanding beyond the two I already gave in Post #2 above are more illustrations below (again, "Sandwich" has much improved -- I still wonder how anyone thoughtful could ever attribute the invention of sandwiches to recent centuries, implying that billions of people in previous millenia when bread was made somehow didn't think to put anything on it).

Regarding fixing this, of course you have a point. (I don't know if you're aware I've spent much more time lighting candles on the 'net, for nearly 30 years -- foodrelated 1987, 1992 examples -- than cursing darkness, but as I wrote once, there's occasional benefit to doing that too.) What Old Foodie and I commiserated over, early in this thread, is the sheer size of the problem visible if you peruse Wiki food subjects that you actually know something about. Given how these problems systematically arise -- my focus here -- the question of whether to try incremental corrections has seen much private discussion. A little more illustration:

(I've noticed one promising trend: more and more of these cases lately show "Question flags" at the top that raise editorial issues, like reliance on unsupported assertions.)

Liqueur. Article presupposes a specific, probably most common or strict meaning of the term, but leaves me wishing author(s) had read more widely. Some years ago in its discussion pages, some author was resolute about defining liqueurs as sweetened. Presumably he was unaware of (therefore untroubled by clashing with) broader usage for many years in general food and drink and reference writing, which I'd fully illustrate, obviously, if addressing it on Wikipedia. Readers familiar with the broader usage already know what I mean. (Illustrates a Wikipedia syndrome I alluded to earlier: restrictively "defining" multifaceted words per author's sense of how they should be used, rather than be most helpful to readers.)

Macaron ("The French macaron differs from macaroons in that it is filled with cream or butter like a sandwich") and Macaroon. Two overlapping articles that (1) badly need reconciliation, (2) are each separately internally inconsistent; (3) "Macaron" is also considerably misleading. (Opening entence I quoted is a typical Wikipedia characterization, again "defining" the term per authors' evident assumptions. The sentence may look either perfectly reasonable or misleading, depending how much you know about "macarons.") Similarly with Beignet. These examples illustrate parochialisms, and contradict widespread authoritative writing enough to leave many readers scratching their heads. On a positive note, the macaron/macaroon entries no longer mislead by centuries about the cookies' origin -- someone eventually checked common French-cooking reference books.