Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tullimonstrum (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 10 January 2022 (Do not delete.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC: How to clean-up "Hoax statements in articles" section?

This page includes many entries about supposed hoaxes that do not meet the inclusion criteria (quoting from this very article: "For the purpose of this list, a hoax is defined as a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact."). And from WP:HOAX "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". Also, please note this is not a wiki-jargon issue: from Hoax: "a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth", CED [1] "a plan to deceive someone". The key issue is that a hoax needs to be deliberate, but we don't have any proof that this is the case for many entries here, most of which are just various errors - but ones that could've been added in good faith. Calling them hoaxes violates WP:AGF and creates a misleading impression that many errors on Wikipedia are deliberate - a violation of Hanlon's razor, better known as the adage "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Please read below for a more detailed analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is particularly true for the Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Hoax_statements_in_articles section. While arguably an entire entry about an entity that doesn't exist (a hoax article as commonly understood) is more likely to be a deliberate joke, most of the entries in the 'hoax statements in the article' sections are very short. This is related to what User:Tamzin in the discussions above referred to as a "degree of elaborateness", a helpful concept that the longer the problematic piece is, the more likely it is an intentional hoax as the likelihood of it being some other form of error decreases.

Arguably worse is the issue that for the vast majority of entries here we have a total absence of evidence that the person who added it knew this was an error (which violates WP:AGF by assuming they indented some intentional deception; numerous good faithed alternatives for an honest mistake could be considered instead: they could've misread the source, used an unreliable source that is uncited/undigitized, were duped themselves or otherwise believed that the information they are adding is genuine, made a copypaste error such as adding a true fact but to a wrong article, saved an accidental editing experiment, or were not in full control of their faculties - just distracted, drunk, had mental issues, etc.).

Detailed analysis of over a dozen cases, most of which do not seem to meet our inclusion criteria

I looked at over a dozen or so entries in that section, starting from the top. Most are just a case of a sentence or few added with without a reference and removed after some time when no reference has been found: Claim #2 [2], Claim #3 [3], Claim #6 [4], Claim #9 [5], Claim #10 [6], Claim #12 [7]... . Vast majority is uncontroversial but plausible, some more, some less (Claim #10 [8]) but still within the realm of AGF that the editor who added it could be convinced this is true (ex. [9] may sound funny but it is also a perfectly imaginably copypaste or 'brain freeze' error). Claim #1 is an example a fringe/conspiracy theory added before it was declared as such by reliable sources (Warsaw_concentration_camp#Discredited_extermination-camp_story/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media#A fake Nazi death camp in Warsaw), so despite being described as a hoax by some media it is clearly just an error (per discussion above, there is zero evidence that the editor who added it first knew it was not true and arguably it might have been even not possible for them to know that at this point). Claim #4 links to 1924_Democratic_National_Convention#"Klanbake"_meme, a well-referenced section about a meme which doesn't even use the word hoax in our article nor in either of the two sources cited ([10], [11]); while arguably this "seems" like a hoax, there is again zero evidence it was added to Wikipedia in bad faith or that it originated here. So #1 and #4 are good examples of errors that did gain some media attention, but that neither originated on Wikipedia, not are likely to have been added here with the intention to mislead - both spread through various other platforms and did succeed in duping quite a few people in the general public before being debunked as hoaxes, and it is very likely that whoever added it here was mislead by other media into believing those claims (also, for neither there is proof that the original inventor of those ideas was attempting to intentionally mislead anyone anyway - both could be cases of some crappy but well-meaning research). Claim #7 [12] is seemingly based on the assessment by the editor who removed it that "Bandung Recordings" label didn't exist but a quick search suggests that maybe it did (should we have a section for entries added to that list and then identified as actually correct? This claim existed on our list for about three weeks before it was removed).

Many entries here are no different from such as [13] / #Suez triangle above, the difference is that sometimes nobody cares to challenge another editor's claim that a minor error was a "hoax".

Claim #8 is interesting. Per [14] - " The identity of that first Wikipedia user to write about it—with those completely unrelated sources—remains a mystery, but all available evidence suggests that it was a person having a laugh, nothing more." - although that article also stated that "the second Wikipedia editor—who perpetuated the earlier misinformation on Moose Boulder—had been “genuinely duped” rather than [being] a conspirator. " And even then that article has no "smoking gun" that the first editor who added it really was trying to mislead people. Maybe it was someone who heard a local urban legend or was duped into believing it, and then added it to Wikipedia?

The first foolproof hoax in that section seems to be #12 where a confession is linked ([15]). Another is here: [16]. There are few others, including the famous Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, where we have reliable sources coverage of the hoaxter admitting that they added the error deliberately and apologizing. But those are exceptions. Most of the entries here are effectively a "bad faith" assumption that some uncited error was a hoax with no evidence that this was a clear and deliberate attempt to deceptively present false information as fact (the criteria of the list here).

Lastly, there are a few cases in that section where the hoax was lengthy enough to merit consideration of meeting the "degree of elaborateness". For example, Claim #5 [17] is 346 words or pose, that's more than a WP:STUB criteria of 250 words - it's hard to believe someone can make an honest mistake with that many details, all that fail verification. But pretty much all others I've reviewed are just a few sentences, often only one or two at best.

Based on this, I think that we need to consider cleaning this "list of hoaxes" up. We can arguably consider the following entries "safe": those which contain a clear admission of guilt by the editor who inserted the errors, and those where the content labelled as "likely hoax" is longer than then 250 words (in other words, longer than a classic "stub"). Due to "degree of elaborateness", the list of hoax articles is arguably mostly fine but due to much smaller "degree of elaborateness", most of the entries in the "Hoax statements in articles" are much likely to be so. I therefore suggest that we consider one of the courses of actions, listed below, for all entries in that section that do not meet one of the two exceptions above:

Feel free to propose new options for solving this mess. Thank you for reading this :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your analysis seems to me eminently sensible.
The word "hoax" is generally used in one of two senses: that of a joke (April fools), or that of a fraud (Piltdown man).
Either case requires conscious intent. The jokester means to amuse or to evoke some other response.
The perpetrator of a fraud must show "mens rea" (Latin: "a guilty mind"). In this fraud sense of "hoax", if there is no mens rea (guilty mind), then there is no hoax. It's as simple as that.
In the list of options above, I would only modify the verbs' past tenses to imperative mood: thus, "moved" to "move"; "discarded" to "discard"; and "kept" to "keep".
It is indeed time to rectify misnomers. (Another that comes to mind is the use of "nationalist", when "chauvinist" is clearly meant.)
Nihil novi (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihil novi Thank you for your endorsement. Do you have a preference for solutions I listed above as "options"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, you have identified two unequivocal classes of hoaxes – stories acknowledged as such by their originators, and stories elaborated to an extent that clearly indicates premeditated fraud. And, subtracting those two classes, what is left is run-of-the-mill errors.
I see no reason to treat such errors differently than other errors (unless an error has garnered such broad interest that it irresistibly demands preservation in, or as part of, a Wikipedia article or in a list).
So, in general, I think I would vote for choice 2: simply discard the error.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional info that might be useful: The section in question originally didn't exist. Both entire articles and statements in articles were listed in the same table. In June 2019 I decided to make this separation (at the time using my old account) because I believed those short excerpts belonged to a wholly different category.
While I agree that the longer a false statement the more likely it is to be deliberate (and the opposite logic as well), what seems to matter more here is how long those false statements went on unchanged. Some persisted for years on those important, long articles, and the falsehoods were even replicated elsewhere, which is very different from a line of false information staying for one or two days on a recently-created stub. We already have a page for the much more numerable short-lived "hoaxes" (which, I agree, should be renamed to "errors" or something else). Additionally, I agree that the existence of intention (or mens rea) is difficult to assess is some cases.
Finally, I will propose one possible solution (I'm not strongly advocating it; just suggesting): Change everything that says "hoaxes" to "long-standing errors" or something similar to it (that would include, of course, renaming this page). In the lead we may say that the false statements might be hoaxes (thus respecting the "assume the good faith" rule) or even that the articles are likely hoaxes, citing the analysis that a longer and more elaborate falsehood is more likely to be a hoax. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 09:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alumnum How about adding a new table column, something like "evidence of deception", in which we would have the analysis/link of why we think a given entry is a hoax (such as 'admission' or 'degree of elaborateness'? All other entries could be moved or removed (per User:Alsee). Also, what do with entries like 'warsaw' or 'Boulder Island', where outside sources used the word 'Wikipedia hoax' but without actually providing any evidence that the initial error was added as a deliberate and intentional attempt to mislead? In the discussions above from last month or two, several editors thought that existence of an outside source that calls something a hoax is significant, even if no evidence of this really being a hoax exists. At the same time, I find this logic hard to follow, and it also reminds me of Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS problem (we make an error, an outside source repeats it, the error can now be 'reliably referenced'). In those two cases it seems to be 'we have an erroneous statement in the article, an outside but generally reliable source assumes bad faith on the part of the editor who added it but without obtaining their confession, calls it a hoax, then the entry is "referenced" in our list to that outside, reliable source). Maybe we should have a third category here in addition to "admission" and "degree of elaborateness"? Something like "called a hoax by outside, reliable source, but without concrete proof"? We could color code this to be 'red', something like color coding in the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, perhaps? (Also ping User:Nihil novi, I think that's everyone who participated in this thread so far?) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem a pretty comprehensive solution to the problems discussed to this point. Perhaps implement it, then see whether further refinements may be needed?
Nihil novi (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete any dubious/useless items. They may simply be discarded - anyone who does see reason to copy anything to anywhere is free to do so. (At first I thought this was an article page and wrote an extended proposal regarding WP:LISTCRITERIA etc etc etc.) Alsee (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead and delete any dubious/useless items to start. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: We have also page List of Wikipedia controversies in main... Dawid2009 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawid2009 That's a bit different beast, although may need fact checking too. Not all controversies are hoaxes (and vice versa). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 5: While I agree with the reasoning that “hoax” is tough to show and entries here are often flawed, my conclusion is that this means clean-up is not really needed as such a list just cannot get to cleaned-up. If anything, I would suggest adding a disclaimer of being imperfect in the first few lines. While I would like WP to show more restraint with WP:LABEL such as “hoax”, short of deleting the article or a disclaimer, I don’t think anything is needed. Do cases if you wish - but no change really needed.. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, or, failing that, Option 1, with Option 3 as a distant third. Strenuously oppose options 4 or 5 in strongest possible terms - categorizing something as a hoax absolutely requires deliberate intent; without that, listing something on this page has no meaning. Remember, this is an internal page intended to help us track patterns and find deliberate hoaxes by Wikipedia editors. It isn't an article; it is not informational in any other way and is not intended to serve as a general list of things people outside Wikipedia have described as hoaxes. Any entry that isn't a clear hoax by a Wikipedia user dilutes the list and weakens its already-tenuous purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 then Option 1 - per Aquillion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 then Option 1 an error is hardly a hoax, unless a malicious intent is clearly demonstrated.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed then Option 5, broadly per the reasoning of Markbassett, above. Also per "NOT BROKEN". The question is neither concise nor necessarily neutral. Explicitly reject the reasoning in the "preamble"; we do not need separate, independent, proof positive of an intention to deceive. - Ryk72 talk 23:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I am starting a new column for entries, tentatively called "Error type", see Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Extant_for_8–9_years_2, which is short and seems to have four different errors, one fitting each of the four proposed type of errors I propose to use. I'll try to categorize entries (errors) into: 1) Type 1: Admitted hoax (no room for doubt) 2) Type 2: Obvious hoaxes (because of a, elaborateness or b, pattern of vandalism by the account added), 3) Type 3: Possible hoax but with room for doubt and 4) Type 4: False or unreferenced and dubious statement that may or may not be a hoax as it could arguably have been added as a mistake or in good faith. Please let me know what you think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MFD it is. But it seems unlikely to succeed. And perhaps it would be fine to keep as a project-related folklore, but this seem to be recently exploited and led to enormous waste of time by a number of participants. Still, this page looks to me as a self-attack page produced by WP. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's at least worth a try. It's hard to articulate what useful purpose this page serves. Its stated reason for existence is to help us identify future hoaxes; but as far as I can tell it has never assisted in identifying a single one. And as an internal page it has no standards for sourcing or reliability, so it isn't a useful information resource to anyone - worse, there is some evidence external sources are treating it as meeting our editorial, sourcing, reliability standards even though it doesn't, since they presumably assume all pages on Wikipedia are equally reliable - an absolutely massive red flag to me that this page's purpose has drifted into something that goes against our purpose as an encyclopedia, serving as a sort of "loophole article" that is being used to post WP:OR / WP:SYNTH outside of our usual standards by slipping content that ought to be an article, and which external readers are treating as an article, into Wikipedia namespace. That alone would be bad enough, but it's also become a seemingly endless font of drama and wasted energy, turning it into a pure net negative with no useful purpose or upsides. Lots of people are tired of the useless drama this page has generated; it is possible that if these arguments are presented to a larger audience it can finally be condemned to its well-deserved grave. If people think it's really essential to document hoaxes on Wikipedia articles, the place to do it is in article space, where we can at least apply proper editorial, sourcing, and WP:DUE standards. --Aquillion (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. My very best wishes (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page is vital, otherwise citogenesis of old hoaxes might not be recognised. Also it provides a useful reminder that WP can be a very unreliable source. No harm in that.Tullimonstrum (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Objection to erasure of sourced material by WP:COI users

This is unacceptable. Find a consensus first. Let nonpartisan editors opine.--Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek[reply]

You’re in violation of the 500/30 restriction account with name that translates as “Poland is greatest” . Volunteer Marek 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Let nonpartisan editors opine." But they did. There was an RfC and majority of participants concurred that problematic entries (the Warsaw one is just one of many) can be removed (although I still prefer saving them, preferably by splitting them into a list of long standing errors or such). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I recall an RfC. Link? - Ryk72 talk 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryk72: I think they're referring to this one. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer@Ryk72 I don't think that was an RfC. I meant #How to clean-up "Hoax statements in articles" section? above, which was listed at RfC for several weeks (notice removal by bot). Note that the Warsaw case is just one of numerous problematic entries in the current article (as in, errors that are not meeting our definition of what constitues a hoax, i.e. "deliberate attempt to mislead"). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... that is indeed an RfC. It is disappointing that it was not better attended by editors uninvolved. "Nonpartisan" is, charitably, a stretch. - Ryk72 talk 23:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I consider the accusations of COI to be absurd to begin with... as a reminder, WP:COI only applies to article space anyway (read WP:COIEDIT and WP:ARTICLE.) It doesn't apply on an internal Wikipedia page like this one in any case. Piotrus and VM could literally be getting paid by the government of Warsaw (or somesuch) to edit Wikipedia and they would still be allowed to edit this page, since it's not in article space. --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax wave

In the table for 10+ year hoaxes, sorting on the 'Deletion date' column, by count:

  • 2021: 20
  • 2020: 11
  • 2019: 7
  • 2018: 3
  • 2017: 1
  • 2016: 2
  • 2015: 1

Any ideas why it's so asymmetrical when long-term hoaxes were discovered? -- GreenC 06:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be on the site more than 10 years in 2015, the article would have to be created in 2005 or earlier, when there were far fewer total articles. Since the total number of articles has continuously increased, as has the public profile of Wikipedia in general, it doesn't seem surprising that the number of hoax articles would also increase over time. If the percentage of hoaxes that are unidentified is constant and the total increases, then the number surviving each year would increase. --RL0919 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd about 40% of the long-term hoaxes were discovered in a single year, 2021. It's lumpy. When the hoaxes were created is more homogeneous. -- GreenC 06:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chloroorganic carrier

Chloroorganic carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was recently deleted with a PROD rationale implying that it was an apparent hoax. Does it qualify as a hoax, and what year was the page created? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version was made 21 December 2014 by a sockpuppet named Flamthonas FIrearrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia&oldid=1064803605"