Pranks

[Vigilant]

Don't know if it's true. Too lazy to check. Still funny.

[AL1]

Korma is called azid in some cases, from the Persian. It's a legit thing.

Which is of course why it was removed from the article by an IP six minutes ago, at the time of this writing...

[Zoloft]

Well, another day at the orifice for Wikipedia.

You know there's no article in Wikipedia for Gullible (T-H-L)?

[AL1]

Shit. I look this up now and maybe the kid's got something here.

I based my comment before on a vague recollection of the culinary habits of a mostly blocked-out Iranian ex. I remember they call it something different from "korma", but it's the exact same thing (cf. döner/shawarma/gyro).

Good for him if this is correct, though!

EDIT: This appears to be the origination diff.

[Notvelty]

Well, another day at the orifice for Wikipedia.

You know there's no article in Wikipedia for Gullible (T-H-L)?

It's amazing what people will believe.

[AL1]

Note how the addition starts in the "History" section and is eventually transferred up to the lede and the infobox presumably by someone else.

I'd love to find a diff to see if someone ever used a citation to justify the presence of "azid" as a term.

[AL1]

diff diff

AZIDWATCH 2014: "Azid" remains in the lede of Korma (T-H-L), "helpfully" hotlinked to an extremely worthwile section about the "vandalism incident".

Lord, have mercy.

[HRIP7]

Wonderful. (There is nothing in Google Books on Azid as an alternative name for Korma.)

Of course, there have been lots of cases like this. Some years ago, some school kid changed the inventor of the hair straightener (twice!), and each time, the entire internet believed them.

Wikipedia changed the founder of the Independent newspaper, and a British judge propagated the error in a high-profile report.

Rushed medical writers are not immune: Glucojasinogen!

And, as the New Yorker reported recently, a raccoon became an aardvark, thanks to Wikipedia.

Yet people will still mindlessly repeat that a Nature study proved that Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica ...

Charles Seife published a great book recently on stuff like this, Virtual Unreality: Just because the internet told you, how do you know it's true? Recommended; see review in The New York Times. He calls this viral spread of nonsense "Catching the Stupid Bug".

[HRIP7]

The Reddit thread itself is here.

[HRIP7]

There is a thread discussing a somewhat similar case on Jimmy Wales' talk page at the moment.

== Congratulations for creating new knowledge in reliable sources! ==

[[WP:SYNT]] info (allegedly proposed alternative name not in the source cited) added to the page in 2007 link by someone who ironically would be a reliable source if he published this elsewhere and his proposed alt name took off. Then copied to the lead in 2008 link (obviously without checking the source cited). And appeared in a fairly respectable (??) published book in 2011 link, which thankfully did cite their source as Wikipedia. Next time I'm pissed at how some author named something, I'll probably try to fix it via Wikipedia. It might work! 188.27.81.64 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We do actually have a page on this. Check it out; Woozle effect (T-H-L). Tutelary (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone should drop Jimbo the link to the Reddit thread.

[EricBarbour]

And it attracted constipated little complaints from at least one Wikipedian:

[–]breawycker 10 points 8 hours ago*

link

Thanks to this confession bear there has been a lot of edit warring on the page about if azid is a valid alternate name for Korma and if the information on the vandalism should be kept on the page. See talk page for discussion.

As a Wikipedia editor myself, I ask my fellow redditors to not add misinformation to Wikipedia. It's disruptive and not funny. Thank you.

[Stierlitz]

And it attracted constipated little complaints from at least one Wikipedian:

[–]breawycker 10 points 8 hours ago*

link

Thanks to this confession bear there has been a lot of edit warring on the page about if azid is a valid alternate name for Korma and if the information on the vandalism should be kept on the page. See talk page for discussion.

As a Wikipedia editor myself, I ask my fellow redditors to not add misinformation to Wikipedia. It's disruptive and not funny. Thank you.

After the Bicholim Conflict, Yuri Gadyukin, James and the Pontoons, the John Seigenthaler, Sr. fiasco, and the heavy ripping off of ancient Encyclopedia Britannica articles and bits from the hoary Catholic Encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no fucking leg to stand on.

[mac]

And it attracted constipated little complaints from at least one Wikipedian:

[–]breawycker 10 points 8 hours ago*

link

Thanks to this confession bear there has been a lot of edit warring on the page about if azid is a valid alternate name for Korma and if the information on the vandalism should be kept on the page. See talk page for discussion.

As a Wikipedia editor myself, I ask my fellow redditors to not add misinformation to Wikipedia. It's disruptive and not funny. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize (T-H-L)

Which may as well be a response to https://encyclopediadramatica.es/This_is_a_wiki_so_I_will_vandalize_it,_thanks. (NSFW (and crap), obv)
(edited)

[eagle]

The problem with the page Wikipedia:Go ahead, vandalize (T-H-L) is that it describes consequences that apply whether you vandalize or not:

1.The vandalism will usually be reverted, probably in several minutes, if not seconds.

But it could last for years and become an internet mime. You will be congratulated when you confess on Redit

3.The act of vandalism will always be a part of your user contributions

and will be buried under thousands of other edits over time.

6.Regardless, if you get blocked, other editors, perhaps respected ones, may also get blocked for a while.

Because Wikipedia admins block indiscriminately. You could get blocked even if you don't vandalize.

8.If you use sockpuppets (multiple accounts), you will eventually get caught by a checkuser. You and all of your accounts will be blocked.

Of course, you will get falsely accused of being a sockpuppet if you edit Wikipedia whether you use multiple accounts or not.

On the whole, an excellent parody of a "Please don't vandalize" page

[Textnyymi]

Would this be considered vandalism or art, on Wikipedia?

[Poetlister]

Would this be considered vandalism or art, on Wikipedia?

It depends whether the perpetrator was an admin.