+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: News (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-25.html)
+--- Thread: [Article] New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs (/thread-2083.html)
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - MarcoP - 11-09-2017
(10-09-2017, 07:07 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.And one of the few writers who made an effort to verify or deny the information in Gibbs's article...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you for pointing this out.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - BrianCham1994 - 11-09-2017
Ars Technica has You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. of their original article, though not an actual retraction per se. There is only some debunking of the theory with no admission of responsibility on their part for the sensationalism and lack of research in the original article, not to mention the decision to even publish it in the first place, knowing full well that the solution had not been published and there was no independent verification.
I am especially concerned with the oft-repeated headline - "Mystery Solved: The mysterious Voynich manuscript has finally been decoded". In my experience, this is utterly unprecedented. Many times I have seen theories with big publicity, some more plausible than others, but all have been treated treated as one theory out of many rather than the solution, and covered with reserved words like "may", "might" or "maybe", or worded as questions ("has this professor finally cracked the world's most mysterious manuscript?"). At best, they were treated as a significant breakthrough or good progress. But this was different. It somehow merited the status as the be-all-and-end-all of Voynich Manuscript theories. This time, this is it. It's done. Confirmed by the powers that be. There is no question. It is considered as solved as the Enigma cipher, Fermat's Last Theorem, the location of the Titanic and the contents of Al Capone's vault. Yale will update their website with the translation. Wikipedia will close their article for any future edits now.
Yet it turned out to be one theory out of many, and not even a good one at that, which the author would have realised if she had performed basic research, exercised an appropriate level of caution or reached out to anybody with knowledge in this area.
I feel like this oversight was not just inaccurate, but could have had significant consequences on the field that many value and find exciting and intriguing. The absolute certainty expressed in the article's headline and tone spread well beyond its initial readership in a frighteningly frenzied proliferation. Ars Technica has a strong reputation and millions-strong readership and many will trust it on specialist issues without question, so they had a great responsibility and they failed it. Judging by the myriad times it had been positively linked, commented on and covered in other publications (with equally significant reader bases and expressed levels of certainty), and based on the reactions of the people around me and in all online spaces I frequent, it had led far too many to believe that the Voynich Manuscript had been conclusively figured out. This has an impact beyond that of just posting a flawed theory. If everybody believes that it is a closed case, then further study and exploration of the manuscript is prematurely dead. With no mystery, why would anyone ever read a book or website about it again? With nothing left unexplained, why would any researcher even consider looking at its beautiful imagery or text for new insights? With no avenue left to explore, why would any journal accept a new article on the subject? With dead public interest, why should its owners fund or bother with any more special efforts like the online digital scanning of 2004 or the carbon dating of 2009? It is the public's renewed awe and interest that keeps the manuscript alive - without it, it would have collected dust on a shelf for the past hundred years; it would have never been preserved, documented, discussed, digitised or even named or opened a second time; it would have been the same object but without the collective sense of mystery and speculation that makes it what it truly is. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario; every single person who falsely believes this conclusiveness has had their continued interest shut off, and this is a blow to the intrigue, exploration and journey that fuels the field.
Sure, there was the possibility for published rebuttals like we see here, but how many people will even notice or spread a dry, analytical "maybe not" article in one source over the initial excited "absolutely solved!" viral spread that exploded everywhere? What if the rebuttal had not happened in time? Sure, if the public incorrectly believed it to be solved then the core enthusiasts would still be able to carry on, but how healthy would the pursuit be if the community's efforts were taken less seriously, and if every potential newcomer who could have made a real breakthrough had instead never been interested or had never even heard of it? And if everybody had been convinced, then who would bother to cover the real developments, or listen to the real solution once it had been found? I think we really dodged a bullet there.
When it comes to the general public, we absolutely know that media reporting (especially when they seem to collectively form a consensus) has the power to shape mass opinion far more than individual Voynich Manuscript enthuasiasts and experts. As journalists, they have the responsibility to report sourced, balanced and well researched information, and I am glad that they have exercised this in posting the rebuttal of the original article, but I am disappointed that they have not acknowledged their own failure. Citing the responses of experts and other Voynich enthusiasts in the rebuttal simply raises the question of why nobody was consulted in the first place, which is standard journalistic practice for specialist topics such as this, and would have prevented the whole disaster. The rebuttal mainly blames Briggs for a flawed theory but it was Ars Technica themselves who covered it without proper research or confirmation, gave it a damaging conclusive headline and publicised it so far and wide to begin with, and they need to acknowledge their responsibility in this failure. Misleading the public into thinking the manuscript has been well and truly solved has irreversible consequences that go far beyond the usual claims that somebody has made a breakthrough or found a promising new path. If this publication is genuinely passionate about the scientific and technical topics that it covers, they ought not take such careless risks in potentially undermining the very studies they espouse, just for the sake of clicks (not to mention risking its own reputation; I have lost any respect I once had for Ars Technica and will not read it again). I fear that there has already been damage done because of the inevitably large number of people who will have seen the original article (or just the headline) in its viral heyday but not the rebuttal (just a band-aid at this point), who will never look at or be interested in the Voynich Manuscript again.
Most importantly, there may be a "next time" where we are not so lucky. After this fiasco, I realise that it is well within the media's power to decide if and when this small topic of study ends. As I do not have that power, the best I can do is hope that they will make the right decision.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - VViews - 11-09-2017
I am also rather concerned about several aspects of this.
I am having a hard time getting any factual information about the author, beyond the claims he makes in his TLS article.
Who is Nicholas Gibbs and what are his actual credentials?
I am also concerned about the TLS themselves. How could they let something so flimsy get through? I can only imagine a scenario where the author has friends in the right places at the TLS, who let him publish whatever he wanted, unchecked. This is of course, seriously damaging to the credibility of the TLS's editorial process.
At the risk of sounding trite, I think the way this went viral really highlights the mediocrity and laziness of a lot of the media, who simply parrot what has been said elsewhere in the most sensationalist way possible, without any kind of fact-checking or concern for anything other than immediate clickbait value.
I will be extremely curious to see whether or not we hear more from Mr. Gibbs again (something tells me we won't).
If it is possible to locate a contact email for him, I certainly would like to ask him quite a few questions, some of which he may not find pleasant.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - Emma May Smith - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 01:32 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am also concerned about the TLS themselves. How could they let something so flimsy get through? I can only imagine a scenario where the author has friends in the right places at the TLS, who let him publish whatever he wanted, unchecked. This is of course, seriously damaging to the credibility of the TLS's editorial process.
Sadly, many news media in the UK are not trustworthy due to poor practices. I think your proposed scenario is quite likely.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - BrianCham1994 - 11-09-2017
(11-09-2017, 01:32 PM)VViews Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am also concerned about the TLS themselves. How could they let something so flimsy get through? I can only imagine a scenario where the author has friends in the right places at the TLS, who let him publish whatever he wanted, unchecked. This is of course, seriously damaging to the credibility of the TLS's editorial process.
At the risk of sounding trite, I think the way this went viral really highlights the mediocrity and laziness of a lot of the media, who simply parrot what has been said elsewhere in the most sensationalist way possible, without any kind of fact-checking or concern for anything other than immediate clickbait value.
It's a well-treaded point but one that is still very true. What if any other field was treated only as quick click fodder in the same way? Imagine if the field of archaeology were covered by only posting individuals' Ancient Aliens type theories and never consulting actual archaeologists (implying that serious ones don't exist), and this became the new normal. Every sensationalist claim cumulatively erodes the credibility of Voynich Manuscript research, much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - Anton - 12-09-2017
I guess TLS is not a peer-reviewed scientific edition; as for mass-media, any other field - from economics or history to flight accidents - is treated there much in the same way.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - BrianCham1994 - 12-09-2017
(12-09-2017, 12:48 AM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I guess TLS is not a peer-reviewed scientific edition; as for mass-media, any other field - from economics or history to flight accidents - is treated there much in the same way.
No doubt this type of sensationalism is found in other fields too, but I feel that it's even worse when it comes to the Voynich Manuscript, as there seems to be almost no other type of coverage. It's especially disappointing coming from publications which specialise in these sort of topics and usually have a higher standard of expertise and research.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - Anton - 12-09-2017
Today they finally got to the Russian media with this Gibbs, however the tone is already critical (because it's too late
), they quote Lisa Davis and Rene Zandbergen.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - ReneZ - 12-09-2017
I can't remember now, if I posted this link before, but this is one of five solutions I learned about in the course of this year.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I like it 20 times better than the object of the recent media hype, so it's worth (re-)posting here.
It is an impressive piece of work.
Unfortunately, I can't read a word of it, but the artwork is worth a visit by itself.
(In a way like the MS itself).
And no, I don't think that this is the right solution either.
RE: New solution announced by Nicholas Gibbs - davidjackson - 12-09-2017
I'd point out that the TLS is not a scientific journal - it's a literary magazine. It's an ancient and respected institution, but one that normally limits itself to criticising poetry, drama and publications. Why Gibbs chose to publish there is anybody's guess. And why the world went mad over it, I have no idea.
From the TLS publication guidelines:
What are the guidelines for publication in the TLS?
We do not have any guidelines as such, but please be aware that the TLS is mostly made up of book reviews commissioned by our editors. The best guide is to read the paper itself. We occasionally publish features on writers or matters of literary interest, but we never run interviews.