I am pretty sure that a good number of LG members have been members of the Facebook lighting group “Lamp Life: The Duration of Light and its Followers”. In my experience throughout this group, I have been seeing plenty of other members on that group presenting false information as absolute correct fact. It does bother me that some people on this forum are refusing to do thorough research into lighting and claim that thoroughly researched information is wrong. If any of you are members of that Facebook group, have you also been bothered by the false information shared there?

This oddly named Facebook group does see some interesting posts but also suffers from plenty of crap postings and subsequent dumb replies as it is unfortunately a public rather than private group which lacks quality control. However Cedric, it is somewhat ironic that you cite other members on there presenting false information when you have also done the same here yourself on LG on a number of occasions. Should you wish to criticise others, it is essential that you are beyond criticism yourself.

I do not fully understand what you mean by going beyond criticism. I would love to learn more in detail. I always appreciate your beautiful collection though. On LG, I prefer to be addressed by my username rather than my real name just so you know.

I am pretty sure that a good number of LG members have been members of the Facebook lighting group “Lamp Life: The Duration of Light and its Followers”. In my experience throughout this group, I have been seeing plenty of other members on that group presenting false information as absolute correct fact. It does bother me that some people on this forum are refusing to do thorough research into lighting and claim that thoroughly researched information is wrong. If any of you are members of that Facebook group, have you also been bothered by the false information shared there?

Considering modern day internet, acting like an expert is pretty common and coming of the AI isn't helping this at all. Actually, even outside the internet it isn't that rare. And if there are people who aren't native english speakers the tone of their output might sound a bit different than what they had intended.

I have thesame experience not only on that specific FB group, but all FB groups.  It is one of the problems of giving free and unrestricted speech to everyone.  Those groups attract not only real lighting enthusiasts but also many casual visitors.  Unfortunately in all aspects of life many people seem to think that what they believe is correct, and they speak with confidence as though their views are accurate.  The AI tools are even worse : almost never will you see a reply that something might or could be true or to propose multiple different theories.  Instead they usually speak with absolute concrete authority.  But I find that in almost anything to do with technical history these responses are dangerously misleading and inaccurate.  History is really being re-written by the rapidly repeated opinions of growing majorities of people that are simply not correct, fuelled by inaccurate AI data, and now with such rapidly escalating quantity that they outnumber the small number of real experts.  The way many online platforms are built, priority is automatically given to the most frequent rather than the most accurate information and that propagates the publication of false history.

As such I occasionally browse those online sites for the rare pieces of interesting info that do occasionally crop up, but almost never participate in the discussions.  It is either an endless battle of correcting the uneducated, or facing an overload of poorly informed responses that contest real factual information.  The quality is vastly superior on dedicated websites like LG whose membership has a much higher proportion of really skilled and experienced contributors.