http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive, even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a German TV producer.
Mathias
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive, even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a German TV producer.
Mathias
Our policy apparently requires an investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hoax#Dealing_with_hoaxes
Unless it is obvious. So it will be deleted immediately only if at least one administrator finds it "obvious" and is willing to take the heat.
Fred
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KPVK-TV&action=history
I am amazed about the speed in which an hoax article is kept alive, even after someone has properly identified this to be a hoax from a German TV producer.
Mathias
Our policy apparently requires an investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hoax#Dealing_with_hoaxes
Unless it is obvious. So it will be deleted immediately only if at least one administrator finds it "obvious" and is willing to take the heat.
The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion discussion for the person who knows where to look for the obscure source to confirm something, to turn up (a week in the case of AfD).
This applies more to articles where people are guessing something must be a hoax (and not finding anything confirming it is true), rather than articles where a reliable sources confirms it is a hoax. Essentially, absence of proof of being a hoax is not the same as presence of proof that it is a hoax, and if you only have the former, you need the time for people to find sources that may exist.
Search for Uncle G and swiss cheese if you want more on this.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth schreef:
The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion discussion for the person who knows where to look for the obscure source to confirm something, to turn up (a week in the case of AfD).
This applies more to articles where people are guessing something must be a hoax (and not finding anything confirming it is true), rather than articles where a reliable sources confirms it is a hoax.
On the other hand, if there are reliable sources that confirm it's a hoax, there is a chance that the hoax itself is notable. In which case, the article could also be kept (and state that it is a hoax, of course).
This too is best discussed at a 7-day AfD.
Eugene
I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do.
If contrary evidence shows up it's easy enough to rewrite or resurrect, whereas presence of an article in Wikipedia may have a disproportionate effect on how the hoax fares.
On 9/11/09, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Carcharoth schreef:
The reason for this is that a seven-day discussion is more likely to get the "right" answer in the case of seemingly "obvious" hoaxes that are in fact true, but with reliable sources that it takes time to look up. Also, it takes time for enough eyes to read a deletion discussion for the person who knows where to look for the obscure source to confirm something, to turn up (a week in the case of AfD).
This applies more to articles where people are guessing something must be a hoax (and not finding anything confirming it is true), rather than articles where a reliable sources confirms it is a hoax.
On the other hand, if there are reliable sources that confirm it's a hoax, there is a chance that the hoax itself is notable. In which case, the article could also be kept (and state that it is a hoax, of course).
This too is best discussed at a 7-day AfD.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I have found that in practice obvious hoaxes will die via a snowball close, and sometimes an experienced admin will simply ignore all rules kill it out of hand. I think that's the right thing to do.
If contrary evidence shows up it's easy enough to rewrite or resurrect, whereas presence of an article in Wikipedia may have a disproportionate effect on how the hoax fares.
Contrary evidence sometimes only shows up if it gets the eyeballs at AfD (a venue with people who are experienced at sniffing out the truth of a matter in the sources), rather than at ANI (a venue with a different reputation).
And an article being up for 7 days with a big AfD notice on it shouldn't affect how it fares in the real world. Most articles are in the Google cache before they get to AfD, and sometimes even before they are speedied.
Carcharoth
Sure there are articles that can be discussed for five days or so (is it really seven now?) The administrators' noticeboard should not be involved, and those who go there with evidence to support a non-hoax should be firmly pointed at the admin's talk page or, if the admin disputes the evidence, deletion review.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Sure there are articles that can be discussed for five days or so (is it really seven now?) The administrators' noticeboard should not be involved, and those who go there with evidence to support a non-hoax should be firmly pointed at the admin's talk page or, if the admin disputes the evidence, deletion review.
I meant people turning up at the admin noticeboards to ask for a WP:SNOW closure. Those people too should be firmly pointed back to AfD and told to be patient. Lack of evidence is not proof.
This discussion is not about a hoax article, but makes my point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive...
DYK is one area to be strict about possible hoaxes (i.e. remove them from DYK):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
Ah! Found it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Ame...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
That discussion has all the Swiss cheese stuff as well.
Carcharoth