Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion for a hoax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consensus

Support

1. Creator support. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I support, and strongly so. Many hoaxes stay on the wiki for four to five days, during which time someone could very well take the information as true. This would quicken the deletion process. Also, it would be unable to be simply removed by the creator of the article like prod, something that a hoax writer would potentially do. _David^WS _(contribs) 02:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Hey, I was "the main inspiration for this" :) - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
4. WOOHOO! - I support this like my life depends on it :) I've been begging for a db-hoax for ages! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Process creep. In 2 of the 3 example AFDs given, they were speedy/snow deleted within 24 hours of the AFD starting; in one case less than 6 hours. Mr.Z-man 03:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
   • Good point. However, I can definitely find examples of AfDs that dragged on if you wish. A CSD for hoaxes was rejected just a few days ago. Furthermore, a speedy/snow delete just doesn't get the point across about hoaxes like a full-fledged CSD/PROD policy does. Playstation 5 was recreated twice after it was speedily deleted and I would personally add a salting clause to it, but I don't know how well that would go over. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

   • I think better examples would be a good idea; just so that it will clearly show that prod-hoax is a necessary thing. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
   • Playstation 5 never went through AFD, so it wouldn't go through this process either. I don't see how its relevant. I would oppose it even more if a salting clause was added as it would be directly contrary to the protection policy which says titles should only be protected from creation in the case of repeated recreation. The point about the examples was really just a side note. My main issue is that this is adding a ton of extra process and work for minimal benefit. The current process (if it doesn't meet existing speedy criteria) works something like this:

   1. Article goes to AFD
   2. Anyone can do the research to see if its real, like any article on AFD
   3. If it SNOWs, it'll get speedy deleted, else it'll get deleted after 5 days

   • The proposed process is:

   1. Article gets tagged with a special tag
   2. Someone, but only from a select group of people, does the reseach to see if its real, if not, adds another tag
   3. Admin does the research, deletes the page, or it sits for 5 days and gets deleted.

   • There's not a whole lot of difference. The main differences are: it needs a whole new process (maybe 2, depending on how "trusted members of the community" is defined), each potential hoax gets less community review, and since there's no AFD subpage for tracking, it requires either some sort of extra maintenance system, else it relies on people watchlisting the article to make sure no one removes the tag. Its similar to the current process, and almost all the differences are negatives. Mr.Z-man 06:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for taking the time to write that out. Let me try to address your concerns. Either way, loads of research needs to be done on these hoaxes to justify their inclusion. The process that I am trying to suggest is an attempt to cut back on the amount of people who need to cross-check the claim. While an AfD may take less time, it will take far more effort. If each voter in an AfD is doing his or her job properly, they each need to research the article and independently decide that the article is a hoax and needs to be deleted. While it can be argued that most voters just pile on, this should not be the case. I personally really dislike WP:SNOW closures because they gives the false impression that a majority, if it votes quick enough, can override the voice of a single editor. Because of the effects of pile-on and the decreased workload (if each person does independent research), I would be willing to give up more community review if it gave a higher degree of accuracy to the deletion process. Hopefully, those who review pages tagged with my proposed template will be absolutely accurate when it comes to detecting hoaxes, making it more work for those individuals, but less work for the community as a whole. DARTH PANDA^duel 07:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose as Instruction creep. This proposal simply replaces an existing process with a parallel process that takes the same level of effort to do the same job. This proposal could actually increase the workload when an article can not be shown to be a hoax but still violates other deletion worthy problems, such as original research or uncorrectable POV issues, must be forwarded to WP:AFD to be addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 09:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as a new process for something that doesn't occur often enough to warrant it. This is a good example of instruction creep, because it would make it even harder for all of us to remember what to do under what circumstances. Also, per Uncle G below, the proposed way of doing it is actually dangerous. There are reasons why prodding works as it does, and some of these reasons apply for potential hoaxes as well. I believe it's already possible to prod an obvious hoax, and I think it's not even a good idea to encourage editors to make use of that. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Votes are not replacements for discussions

• m:Don't vote on everything
• Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
• Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote#First choice: Don't vote, just discuss

Structuring this discussion as a vote right from the inception was a bad way to proceed, and one of the problems with this proposal. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to project space

• This seems good enough to move to wikipedia-space; I'm doing that now. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this proposal

The second problem with this proposal, in addition to being largely duplicative of AFD as has already been pointed out, is that it relies upon the idea that people do thorough checks. The sad reality is that they don't. One only has to read this talk page and look at this diff, this edit, this edit, and this edit, to see that there are editors Out There who don't read the articles that they are nominating for deletion, who repeatedly nominate articles for deletion, and who will persistently escalate through the deletion processes in robot fashion, sometimes using automated tools for doing so. And it is this reality of editors that don't read, don't check, and blindly and persistently tag, that is one of the reasons that hoaxes go through AFD. And even at AFD there is a problem of sheep voting, which is often the cause of AFD coming to the wrong result.

The third problem with this proposal is closely related. As can be seen from the initial deletion nomination in the series that double burden underwent, people already abuse the {{db-nonsense}} tag, whose application is strictly limited to patent nonsense — i.e. content that is outright incomprehensible, not content that one thinks to be merely wrong. There is no reason to think that this system will not equally be so abused, and every reason, from the widespread abuse of the patent nonsense speedy deletion criterion that has already happened, to expect that it will be. I wrote User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion three years ago, and the problems that it discusses were even then problems of long standing. They still exist today.

The fourth problem with this proposal is the implicit notion that there's a category of obvious hoaxes above and beyond what can be readily identified as simple juvenile vandalism (for which we already have a speedy deletion criterion). The simple truth is twofold.

First, what can be "obviously" a hoax can actually be a valid article. Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) is one example of this. Al (folklore) (AfD discussion) is another. There are many more. In particular, notice that everything in Al (folklore) as it stood at the time of AFD nomination was verifiable. The article was bang on in terms of its informational content. The AFD process involves several days of discussion precisely so that editors have a chance to come to the discussion with the sources that no-one else found. Reducing the number of eyes on a suspected hoax reduces the chances of that, and increases the risk that articles like Al (folklore) will end up being deleted. We don't want fewer slices of Swiss Cheese.

Second, what is "obvious" varies from editor to editor and from culture to culture, and, famously, what is "common knowledge" can also be complete baloney on occasion. One assertion that something is "obviously" a hoax cannot be trusted on its own, and has to be subject to at least the input of other editors with other backgrounds. Again, this is why we allow multiple editors, from around the world, in different timezones, over a reasonably long period, to double-check the conclusion that something is a hoax.

And here we come to the crux of the matter: the idea that it is somehow bad for a suspected hoax to remain on Wikipedia whilst it being discussed. This is not bad. It doesn't tarnish Wikipedia's image to link from an article to an AFD discussion where readers can see that we are having a considered, deliberate, mature, and thoughtful discussion of an article, allowing a reasonable amount of time for all editors to contribute, rather than just rushing about blindly screaming that we must "get rid of obvious hoax immediately!". The latter is what actually looks bad. It makes Wikipedia editors look like screaming, impetuous, unthinking, fools. We aren't that.

Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't have time to participate fully in this debate now, but I agree with what Uncle G has said here. I was notified of this discussion by Uncle G, but that is because I have participated in such discussions previously (there was an ANI thread about some Civil War soldier), so my opinions about this sort of thing are already on the record. I agree in particular about the need for a discussion for such articles and the need to ensure that such discussions are open long enough to cover all time zones. The other side of the coin, though, is that if hoax articles are becoming more widespread, the creators of such articles need to be held to account and blocked for disruptive behaviour, especially if they contribute the article and then disappear without trace, or otherwise fail to explain what sources they used. I would also point out that there is a real danger that by making hoaxes something different to ordinary AfD discussions, that the creation of hoax articles by trolls will increase. See also Category:Suspected hoax articles - that is a process that can be used to weed out possible articles to AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I will be withdrawing my opinions from this proposal. If NuclearWarfare wishes to continue this obviously uphill battle, I wish him the best of luck. After the implication that users like me are screaming, impetuous, unthinking, fools and make Wikipedia look bad, I cannot continue to offer an impartial and respectful response to comments on this page. Thank you all for your time, and best of luck. DARTH PANDA^duel 19:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No use trying without you; I'm not well versed enough with this. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • How do you get from a direct statement, in as many words, that we are not that, to an implication that any of us are? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.