Talk:Tek Fog

Fiction?

Now that you all are done patting each other in the back, consider that Tek fog is a work of fiction. https://www.theinterval.co/the-wires-tek-fog-investigation-futile-search-for-evidence/. This journalist is now under investigation for his fraudulent reporting on the Meta story. 2001:569:7D4F:3D00:757A:A0A4:6FC0:4027 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It does look like there's some mucking going on; many of The Wire sources have been pulled because the writer is under investigation. The article might be updated to reflect that ongoing reality. BusterD (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

All the 4 articles this wiki article is based on has now been pulled from public view. Internal review is ongoing. So I added a sentence to mention that (as the whole wiki article depends on these 4 articles).

But my sentence was removed and then I'm called a sock puppet?

The entire article is disputed till The Wire completes its investigation. I'm not sure what I did wrong here. 49.205.251.76 (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You applied a header to the top of the article in bold (none of which is in line with our WP:Manual of Style). On request, I've semi-protected this page against what appears (to the page creator) to be sockpuppetry. I've created this new thread in which you may discuss this investigation of The Wire sources. Nobody has blocked you, just prevented you from reinserting poorly formatted stuff into the live page. Have your say here on talk, which is not protected yet. BusterD (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright.

Check out the links for these references - [5] [10] [11] [12]

It says - "This story has been removed from public view pending the outcome of an internal review by The Wire".

These 4 articles are the main source of information about Tek Fog.

I think anyone who is reading this Wiki article should be informed that the main basis for this article is currently under review.

Could you mention that in the wiki article?

I see that "Disputed Section" tag has also been reverted (fwiw I wasn't the one who put that). Maybe the disputed tag can be added back?

One more thing - this thread title is "Fiction". I'm not claiming that. Just saying that the main references used by this article has been made private and is underreview.

49.205.251.76 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I will not be editing the page at all. I am an uninvolved administrator trying to calm things down. I have called on another editor having some experience with this subject matter to help us sort this out. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. 49.205.251.76 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

And that simple "thank you" makes my morning. The problem with Wikipedia is that smart people often disagree, and we like to start such disagreement with assuming the good faith of other editors. This assumption must extend even to sometimes disruptive contributors and their contributions, folks who haven't made as many mistakes as I have. Yet. I'd rather NOT take sides. So let's show some patience, and in the next few hours someone sharper than I will help us look at this situation (and it is a situation which requires observation, thank YOU for your persistence). Thanks again for engaging. I look forward to reading more. If you have points to make or sources to present, please add them to this talk thread in some organized way so we have something substantive to discuss when the cavalry arrives. Okay? BusterD (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Have any of the aricles cited here been withdrawn by The Wire? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

These references have the message : "This story has been removed from public view pending the outcome of an internal review by The Wire, as one of its authors was part of the technical team involved in our now retracted Meta coverage"

[5] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/1.html

[10] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/2.html

[11] https://thewire.in/tech/explainer-heres-what-the-tek-fog-app-can-do-and-why-you-should-care

[12] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/3.html

From https://m.thewire.in/article/media/the-wire-retracts-meta-stories :

"Given the discrepancies that have come to our attention via our review [of the Meta story] so far, The Wire will also conduct a thorough review of previous reporting done by the technical team involved in our Meta coverage, and remove the stories from public view till that process is complete." 49.205.251.76 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So, they have not been withdrawn. They have been "taken out of the public view", which in itself is not a problem for us, since we can access them on archive.org. I will check to see if anything needs to be toned down in the light of the new doubts regarding the Meta story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Our page is based on two WP:SECONDARY sources, from Bloomberg News and Le Monde (citations 1 and 2 in the current version). Neither of these articles has been retracted or withdrawn. So I don't think there is anything for us to do until The Wire's internal investigation comes back with any further information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Both (and probably all other) sources uncritically cite the Wire's report and are completely based on it. The Bloomberg citation is also an opinion piece, not usable is making substantial claims by itself. ShareChat's denial now seems to make much more sense—the whole thing is likely a work of fiction. An application like that wouldn't be something only known to some reporter from a small "independent" outlet.

The retracted stories are cited at least 14 times in the article. If we remove them from the article, little will remain. If we remove the sources based completely on the retracted stories, nothing will remain. We either wait for a follow-up on this from the Wire which might never arrive doing nothing in the meanwhile, or gut out the article for at least the time being. I would recommend the latter, or at the very least put a note somewhere in the article that the initial reports are now retracted. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I must agree. Le Monde couches every single claim they make as "The Wire reported"; it's not a joint investigation. The entire article uses the conditional mood. Same thing with Libération, which also covered it. They are only a secondary source on what The Wire claimed; they are not secondary sources on the contents of the claims, which they couldn't verify themselves; every source qualifies as primary. Same thing with Bloomberg, which is filled with "reportedly" and "according to". (Keep in mind that Bloomberg was associated with the "Big Hack" journalistic fiasco, which misrepresented sources and made extremely implausible claims, and has to this day not been retracted.)

The story being available on archive sites is completely irrelevant. If The Wire no longer stands behind their sourcing (at least for now), then our article is no longer reliably sourced, period. They were removed from public view for a reason. One of the two authors of Tek Fog story (The Wire's "tech expert") was caught photoshopping emails, lying about sources' claims, and promoting an obviously fraudulent spoof with the Meta story. We should assume this story is dubious too until The Wire stands fully behind it again (and even then, it merits additional scrutiny).

I've added a Disputed tag. I hope their internal investigation will conclude soon. DFlhb (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing access-date

@Kautilya3 on what basis are you Removing access-date, it is not allowed and breaks the bots and disrupts finding relevant archive version. Please revert and restore all access-date. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read the purpose and use of the access-date field at template:citation, and then perhaps rewrite your query in a form that makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

According to what is written there your removals are unjustified. I have asked for opinions on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Kautilya3 is removing access-date from citations Venkat TL (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 It says:

access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations. Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date; see WP:CITEWEB. Access dates are not required for links to published research papers or published books. Note that access-date is the date that the URL was found to be working and to support the text being cited. See "Automatic date formatting" above for details about interaction with and . Can be hidden or styled by registered editors. Alias: accessdate.

That a thing is not required does not mean that wholesale removal is justified. Instead of arguing about how many angels may dance on the head of a pin it would be better to improve the article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3's edit [1] is fine as all but one item were already dated. I've added the article's date [2] for that one. The access date parameter is one that is misused in grand fashion; in other words, a lot. The reason is simple: because editors believe it is required. It is not. Not once has it helped me resolve an issue in the encyclopedia nor has any editor showed me how they did. Sorry to be so matter of fact, but that is my perception at the moment and it probably won't change until an editor provides a flow chart beginning with a problem and ending with the solution incorporating the use of an access date. Dawnseeker2000 02:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

Considering this story has now been reviewed from public view due to an internal investigation, perhaps a review and update of this page is due? https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/1.html https://sharechat.com/news/announcements/our-statement-on-the-wire

Also, how come the page doesn't incorporate Samarth's critique of the reportage? https://www.theinterval.co/the-wires-tek-fog-investigation-futile-search-for-evidence/ 2001:569:7D4F:3D00:DA7:E1F6:67AB:167D (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirecting the page

The intial "report" that is the basis of all sources covering the subject has been retracted and there are now some sources indicating the whole thing was made up by a reporter. The whole saga belongs in a hall of shame paragraph on the Wire's page, not on a standalone page giving any credence to the claims. As such I'll boldly redirect the article to The Wire. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

was a well sourced article, you cannot simply remove its content and close it with redirect. The controversy must be explained with new reference. 122.167.24.197 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 12:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC) 

You are funny. "Well sourced" based on currently debunked and hidden and soon to be retracted reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.214.15.12 (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Editors Guild has also retracted their remarks (which are extensively covered in the article). Time to add that / remove the section as well as add Sharechat's denial? 110.226.181.29 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed , tek fog was just a story created by the wire used as a propaganda against the the ruling Indian government and also the wire is not a reliable source thereafter Het666 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting and Cleanup

I have done a couple passes of copyediting and general cleanup as this diff can show. This was primarily to reduce undue weightage, bring the article more towards NPOV guidelines and otherwise try to consolidate sections and remove duplication of sentences. I am not yet convinced that the article should exist as standalone (and opposed to being a case of recency bias) but I suppose the ongoing merge discussion can resolve that bit.

I did not check for any more external sources on the matter, so the article might still need updating. Also some legitimate and relevant references might have gotten cut during this clean up, so feel free to comb through my diff in case you find any.

Soni (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)