Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-04/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

• "Long-lived hoax article removed: "Pratylenchus dulscus,"". Sigh. I've been saying this for years, but before we call something a hoax, we need to do due diligence. Where is a discussion confirming this is a hoax, i.e. intentional misinformation, and not just some typo or good-faithed mistake? I've been (slowly) providing some analysis for the 'false statements in articles' section of the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia page; I haven't gotten to 'hoax articles' yet, but some are not hoaxes, just errors. Please read the definition of what a hoax is, folks, and don't assume that an error is a hoax. That "Pratylenchus dulscus" may be a hoax, or it may be some sort of a typo. We can't assume bad faith (intentional fabrification) per WP:AGF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't involved in the write-up of this story, but [1] contains further information, to wit:

  • Editor Somanypeople created List of almond diseases in early 2007. On March 16 2007, the list of almond diseases was vandalized by an IP, replacing P. vulnus with P. dulscus (P. vulnus is supported by sources in the list). In the ensuing months, Somanypeople went on to create articles for species listed in the list of almond diseases, including Pratylenchus dulscus (apparently not being aware of the vandal's edit). An article was created for Pratylenchus in August 2007, which included P. dulscus in the list of species, presumably because Wikipedia had an article for it at that point. I'm going to remove the link to this article from the genus article and will restore a link to P. vulnus in the almond disease list.

  So it appears indeed that the article was not created as a hoax. Thanks for mentioning it. Andreas JN466 15:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wrote the comment that is being quoted. I wouldn't call Pratylenchus dulscus a hoax myself. It was a sloppy good-faith creation that was ultimately rooted in vandalism. Meloidogyne gajuscus and Meloidogyne fruglia were two other 17 year "hoaxes" I found a few days later that were created in identical circumstances; Somanypeople created a list of plant diseases, it was vandalized, and Somanypeople then created articles for non-existent species based on the vandalism. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like an odd take to call it a hoax when it's merely a byproduct of vandalism. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited @Plantdrew @Jayen466 A common type of error (i.e. it is sadly common to call a regular error or vandalism a hoax, even if there is no proven intent to mislead). Is there any chance of correcting it in The Signpost, at least? I'll also @TenPoundHammer who added it to the list of hoaxes. We could really use more folks reviewing entries there and separating confirmed hoaxes from plausible or unlikely. Here, there is no reason to assume anon was vandalizing - it could be a typo, accidental page save, or some good faithed if wrong error fixing ("I think it sounds better in Latin this way", whatever). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've rewritten the entry per the discussion above. Look okay? Andreas JN466 07:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Jayen466 May be adjust the article's title as well. It still says hoax on the start of News and Notes Soni (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Above my pay grade as changing the title would affect other pages as well. @JPxG: Could you take a look? Andreas JN466 08:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the hoax would be correct (and we pretty much agree here it wasn't), I found it weird from the beginning that this made it into the heading despite being just a small note at the bottom. A bit too clickbaitish for regular TS style anyway... WP:TROUT should be applied somewhere, perhaps :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't even need vandalism to get something false into WP. A while ago I sent an article called Snake Bight, Florida, which was described as a ghost town, to AfD. "Snake Bight" is a bight on the coast of Florida Bay in Everglades National Park. A prehistoric canal called the "Snake Bight Canal" runs inland from Snake Bight. The National Park Service maintains a hiking trail along the canal called the "Snake Bight Canal Trail". The ruins of a former fish factory can be seen from the trail. That all led to the ruins being labeled the "ghost town of Snake Bight" on a web site listing ghost towns, even though there was never a populated place called "Snake Bight". A source existed, so of course there had to be a WP article. Donald Albury 13:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)