This one is pretty hilarious though:
"Fictitious claim that the founder of Orange Julius invented auto-cleaning spectacles, an inflatable shrimp trap, and a portable pigeon-bathing unit. Dairy Queen, which now owns Orange Julius, was fooled; the company based an entire ad campaign around the hoax and produced this video about Julius Freed's supposed inventions."
And this one seems to explain the origins of a lot of hoax articles:
"After being repeated tens of times, sometimes by journalists and academics, the hoax was identified by EJ Dickson, one of its authors, turned journalist, who had written it as a joke with a friend while 'stoned'."
I only briefly paged through that page, but in the sommary for almost all of those bands it says that they were credited with some nonexistent hit song, or had released albums, or all died in an airplane accident.
In all those cases there would have been verifiable records if the whole article wasn't a hoax. I.e. those articles were not simply about some obscure bands that didn't look all that notable, but had a long list of made-up "facts" in them.
>While most hoaxes on Wikipedia are short-lived (90% of discovered hoaxes are flagged within one hour of creation and only 1% of hoaxes persist for more than a year), those that make it past this initial screening have an increased probability of continuing to "survive" and remain a part of Wikipedia for much longer (if a hoax survives past its first day, it has an 18% probability of lasting for a year or more).
I presume the internet archive or wayback machine would have them saved?
> Bicholim conflict
> Fictitious war between the Portuguese rulers of Goa and the Maratha Empire which supposedly took place from mid-1640 to early 1641. It was assessed as a good article in September 2007, but failed a featured article nomination the next month as page numbers were not provided for references. ShelfSkewed (talk · contribs) investigated these references in 2012 and found that the main works cited do not actually exist.
One of the longest and most elaborate hoax articles on Wikipedia. Probably the only to have been assessed a good article.
Wikipedia benefits from this kind of metadata. Earlier ages didn't.
The large number of articles, some of them evading detection for many years, makes you wonder about the hoaxes that may have been perpetrated in earlier times, but are now accepted as fact.
It's a fantastic piece on critical thinking and chasing sources to figure out if something is really true or not.
With military events there were attempts to fib by exaggerating military victories, or claiming a defeat was a victory. If it's relatively modern there are usually multiple perspectives, and you can go try to find evidence at the site.
You seem to be using generalities to talk around specifics, what specifically are you referring to, and what evidence do you have?
Turns out, if you dont look... you wont know. So you reasonably asked where to look.
Secrets, often as myths, are the rule, not the exception. I think of the difference in knowledge like any across variable, voltage for example. The larger the difference, the more leverage is available. There's a vid in my profile, one _could_ watch it.
No, it does not since this is not how logic and science work. You just stay with a claim that is missing a support but it does not mean that the claim is false.
>> Therefore it’s reasonable to require people making general arguments to provide at least one specific example.
Alright. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy and let me know what is the main thing you are uncomfortable with (if any). If there is a match, then I will provide another example.
Invalidating an argument does not mean the conclusion is always false. Otherwise you could prove any theorem A by finding a single contradiction invalidating a poof of !A.
PS: Sorry, I can’t help myself... 1 + 1 = 5 therefore P != NP. Wait 1 + 1 = 2 therefore P = NP. Sadly that’s not going to fly.
Oddly enough the "Gadget hoax" once had its own Wikipedia article, but that was deleted long ago, presumably for non-notability.
It was in place for 13 years, 4 months
But the kicker?
> Speedy deleted as "G3: Blatant hoax"
If that's speedy, what's slow!?
Harmless fun, but not really possible to get away with these days..
Damn you Google!
> Despite having no sources, the hoax was included in Theresa Bane's Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures, published by McFarland & Company in 2012.
> Chen Fang
> A Wikipedian noticed in November 2012 that The Harvard Guide to Using Sources said that "an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry." No longer.
The article's author has few contributions, and hasn't been active since 2006 (on the English Wikipedia, at least): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bruges
I wonder how many other hoax articles are out there, having existed for decades without proper verification or review.
I've never tried to right that wrong, believing it would take a lot of my energy.
Don't believe Wikipedia blindly, even for the physical constants.
"1907 IAU definition of the Angstrom: Was it 6438.4696, or was it 6438.46963 (???)
I was wondering why I was coming up with 1553164.117 wavelengths of the cadmium red-line per 10^10 angstroms (the so-called "Cadmium meter", per the 1907 IAU definition given as 6438.46963), while virtually all internet searches were coming up with "1553164.13".
Later, I managed to trace a change in the article from 6438.4696 to 6438.46963 in an unsourced one-character edit by 126.96.36.199, all the way back to 2008.
I suspect that 6438.4696 (which yields 1553164.12459 per 10^10 (1907) angstroms) is correct (based on the printed publications which I have come across), and the error has since propagated to several other websites that have used Wikipedia as a reference. Should this ten-year-old edit be reverted, or not? DWIII (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)"
After reading that, to find some who have since 2008 wrongly used that bogus constant (even in some books), search for:
I get that there's a certain thrill to "getting one over" on a large establishment; but your brother's actions, while ultimately inconsequential, are nothing to be proud of. Part of a good prank is that it does no harm.
Lots of individual controversies seem to tone down to pretty uncontroversial and a few disappear altogether. I don't think there's an easy solution, especially when it may often involve those who can simply throw more people at the problem until it goes away...
It'd be interesting to write a crawler to look for "stubbish" articles then checks if they're widely read, then flags a human if so.
Russia creating a propaganda site provides none of that.
(To make it absolutely explicit: pgcj_poster is not relating a story that actually happened. They're taking on a fictional persona -- and relating a fictional story that happened to this fictional persona -- and making a facetious point as that persona in order to demonstrate that jdavis703's point makes no sense, by making an argument which is analogous but obviously ridiculous.)