'A Poem Entirely Made Up of Fact Tables at SXSW' and 4 More Stories You Should Read

Here's what you missed when you spent the week recovering from SXSW hangovers…

Chosen by Dillon Baker, editorial collaborator

One of the promises of the Internet is that it will make knowledge available to anyone. In other words, the Internet will make truth easily attainable. That's Wikipedia's promise, that's Google's promise, and that's the promise of fact-checking sites like Politifact. We take advantage of that promise almost every day: if you want to end an argument, all you have to say is “Google it.”

But in fact, as anyone has, “Googled it” can attest, the Internet confuses the truth as often as it claims to. This book review, by Jill Lepore, looks at the current presidential election to suggest that the accuracy of the knowledge we get from the Internet is actually lower than ever.

Chosen by Jordan Teicher, senior editor

Wesley Morris writes about Rob Gronkowski, Bernie Sanders, Jersey Shore Judd Apatow, and Entourage . Looks like Grantland is still alive. Almost.

In this article, Morris, who is now a major critic for Times , trying to learn our readers in such a way that the word “bro” has infected our language. The fact that he sometimes struggles to put all of his analysis together – particularly the part about “Berniebros” and gender politics – shows how confusing the word amorphous is. Some people use "bro" as a sign of affection; Others threw it around as an insult. It's great and at the same time nothing out of the ordinary.

I've never said "dude" sincerely, and I don't mean to say it anytime soon. But it would be nice if there was a word that conveyed the same definition without getting such a bad reputation. That way I can go back to with and only -out.

PS: Pay attention to the great little summary near the end of the section on the difference between brother, brother, brother, and braggart.

Chosen by Brian Maehl, Talent Development Manager

If you've ever taken a high school or college course that required semester exams, you know you can't cite Wikipedia. Why? Aside from perhaps making research a bit too easy, anyone can edit any paper, regardless of their intentions and expertise. Even more worrisome is how much control rogue editors can have over rapidly-evolving figures of public importance — like the recent Court nominee Supreme Merrick Garland.

Last week, the official Wikipedia editors struggled to keep Garland's history and ideology factual after a number of unwarranted edits. Story from Wired discuss how this is a recurring problem for characters who suddenly become famous, and given how often Wikipedia appears at the top of Google search results, can Incorrectly spoil the first impression .

However, if Wikipedia somehow restricts the public's ability to edit the site, wouldn't this go against what it stands for? Garland's nomination highlights this double-edged sword in the sharpest way.

Chosen by Carly Miller, editorial intern

For journalist Jacob Silverman, writing sponsored content feels like walking around with a cute baby in your arms at first: Suddenly, everyone wants to be your friend. But Silverman's relationship with a branded content project for The Atlantic quickly becomes like the moment when a baby wakes up screaming in the middle of the night, and despite frantic efforts, you can't figure out what the hell is going on.

Silverman adds to this languishing conversation (the dissolving firewall between advertising and editorial) with intriguing anecdotes, like the time Casper sent a lot of free mattresses to Maxim in the hopes of being discreetly covered so get good PR. And despite the perks of advertising, namely “the most [money] I once received for an article”, Silverman concludes that, for journalists, sponsored content can cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Chosen by Joe Lazauskas, editor-in-chief

We are all monsters.