Fake Article?

[LynnWysong]

The more I look at it, the more I think Giles Roberts (T-H-L) is a fake article. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look legitimate, but wikipedia is the only place I can find any mention of the guy that cannot be attributed to wp; not even the sources mention him. What thinks the rest of you?

[tarantino]

The more I look at it, the more I think Giles Roberts (T-H-L) is a fake article. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look legitimate, but wikipedia is the only place I can find any mention of the guy that cannot be attributed to wp; not even the sources mention him. What thinks the rest of you?

The photo used to illustrate the article is that of William Lee Golden, one of the Oak Ridge Boys.

Archive of page history http://archive.is/aKxjv
Archive of article http://archive.is/3hEXV

[LynnWysong]

LOL. It lasted almost a year. I probably would have spotted it sooner, but I lost interest in editing about that time.

[LynnWysong]

I initiated an AFD for it. Already getting amusing comments.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

You may be right, in fact I think you are, but I see that your stated reason for deletion is, in its entirety, "This page is a hoax", and the amusing comment is "This page is appallingly disingenuous". Did anyone wish to add any facts to that? You might want to mention that reference [12] in the article, to page 210 of Dolan's book does not mention Giles Roberts, for example.

But why the nomination. Would it not have been more fun to keep it just our little secret? Or is this an experiment in seeing whether you can get an article deleted merely by asserting that it is a hoax with no case stated whatsoever?

[Poetlister]

Falsely claiming that an article like that is a hoax is unlikely to work. There are too many references that could easily be checked and prove the article's validity. Of course, the best hoaxes are half true; put in a few verifiable facts and surround them with your own inventions.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I asked whether it was an attempt to do that, not whether the attempt was likely to work or not. My experience is that articles of questionable validity, like articles of questionable notability, are deleted on grounds more to do with wiki-politics than their intrinsic merit,

[LynnWysong]

You may be right, in fact I think you are, but I see that your stated reason for deletion is, in its entirety, "This page is a hoax", and the amusing comment is "This page is appallingly disingenuous". Did anyone wish to add any facts to that? You might want to mention that reference [12] in the article, to page 210 of Dolan's book does not mention Giles Roberts, for example.

But why the nomination. Would it not have been more fun to keep it just our little secret? Or is this an experiment in seeing whether you can get an article deleted merely by asserting that it is a hoax with no case stated whatsoever?

It's a combination of feeling like I should bring it to someone's attention, but not really caring if it gets removed or not. I actually fully expect to be accused of writing it myself.

[thekohser]

LOL. It lasted almost a year. I probably would have spotted it sooner, but I lost interest in editing about that time.

Over 6,800 page views. Thank you, Wikipedia -- the sum of human knowledge.

[LynnWysong]

LOL. It lasted almost a year. I probably would have spotted it sooner, but I lost interest in editing about that time.

Over 6,800 page views. Thank you, Wikipedia -- the sum of human knowledge.

My congratulations to the author of the article. Very cleverly done.

[Poetlister]

"Comment - Per Lynn's thread at WPO, I am flagging as a hoax. Carrite" How can referring to a site wthat is not RS, and without even a link to the exact discussion, provide useful information?

[AndyTheGrump]

Curious coincidence (I assume) but the Wikipedia article on Robert Giles (T-H-L) was created by Jokestress (T-C-L), the subject of another current WO thread. This article at least seems to be legitimate, per the sole source cited: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... n-curator/

[Poetlister]

Curious coincidence (I assume) but the Wikipedia article on Robert Giles (T-H-L) was created by Jokestress (T-C-L), the subject of another current WO thread. This article at least seems to be legitimate, per the sole source cited: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... n-curator/

Why hasn't the article been flagged as needing more sources? For a start, if there's only one source it doesn't prove notability.

[Zoloft]

Curious coincidence (I assume) but the Wikipedia article on Robert Giles (T-H-L) was created by Jokestress (T-C-L), the subject of another current WO thread. This article at least seems to be legitimate, per the sole source cited: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... n-curator/

Why hasn't the article been flagged as needing more sources? For a start, if there's only one source it doesn't prove notability.

Some interesting links:
His Nieman Watchdog profile
His Harvard International Review Profile
He wrote a damned book

[anythingfront]

It's only fake in that he never existed.

[milowent]

The more I look at it, the more I think Giles Roberts (T-H-L) is a fake article. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look legitimate, but wikipedia is the only place I can find any mention of the guy that cannot be attributed to wp; not even the sources mention him. What thinks the rest of you?

how did you find this article? the creator did link it to one other article (Rocky Mountain Fur Company), which shows some level of competence in hoax-creating, but that wouldn't be a very big source of views.

[LynnWysong]

The more I look at it, the more I think Giles Roberts (T-H-L) is a fake article. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look legitimate, but wikipedia is the only place I can find any mention of the guy that cannot be attributed to wp; not even the sources mention him. What thinks the rest of you?

how did you find this article? the creator did link it to one other article (Rocky Mountain Fur Company), which shows some level of competence in hoax-creating, but that wouldn't be a very big source of views.

Got into a discussion about Hugh Glass, whose article also had a link to Giles Roberts (T-H-L) (wbm1058 (T-C-L) deleted it after I started the afd). I was doing some cleanup of Hugh Glass (T-H-L), then spotted the name, and I've done enough research on the fur trade to be somewhat surprised that Giles Roberts (T-H-L) was one I could not remember coming across before. A bit of googling, and I was pretty sure it was fake.

But hey, expertise isn't essential to WP, is it? As montanabw (T-C-L) loves to say to anyone who challenges her: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (T-H-L).

[thekohser]

But hey, expertise isn't essential to WP, is it?

I hear that not only is it non-essential, it's quite actively shunned. I'm kind of an expert on Comcast Business, but I'm not permitted to write about that subject on Wikipedia.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

The more I look at it, the more I think Giles Roberts (T-H-L) is a fake article. Someone went to a lot of trouble to make it look legitimate, but wikipedia is the only place I can find any mention of the guy that cannot be attributed to wp; not even the sources mention him. What thinks the rest of you?

But – but – how can this be? On Wikipedia, facts matter. Indeed, "years of practice and collaboration have built an effective filter for hoaxes". Even more bizarrely, Digital archivist brings forgotten stories to light on Wikipedia but without providing reliable sources for some of the claims in them. This is actually what the WMF want to sa about Wikipedia?

More seriously, it would be a good idea to have a rebuttal like this ready every time WMF issue a blog or press release about how reliable WP is, how teams of diligent fact-checkers are working night and day, etc. etc. I would do it myself except that my comments on blog posts are mysteriously not getting through any longer and I'm too principled, or lazy, or something, to create an army of sock puppets to post.

[LynnWysong]

But hey, expertise isn't essential to WP, is it?

I hear that not only is it non-essential, it's quite actively shunned. I'm kind of an expert on Comcast Business, but I'm not permitted to write about that subject on Wikipedia.

There's also no reliance on journalistic principles (probably because most editors have none). But a person, even one with a COI, can write objectively on a subject if their goal is the truth of the matter. I'm guessing that most people with a COI who want to edit an article want to correct an unfair slant on the subject and would be capable of greatly improving an article, but because WP policies give opposing editors a plethora of tools to stop him/her, it remains abysmal.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I presume that when you say "journalistic principles (probably because most editors have none)" you mean "editors" in the very special WP sense, fo people otherwise called "contributors". In the context of journalism and journalistic principles, an editor is someone who sets the policy for their publication and is responsible and accountable for its content. It's an important and still somewhat prestigious job, and there is some chance that some editors of the old-fashioned sort still adhere to some old-fashioned principles. WMF loves to imply that WP has thousands of these highly responsible professionals. But it doesn't – it probably has precisely none.

[Poetlister]

I presume that when you say "journalistic principles (probably because most editors have none)" you mean "editors" in the very special WP sense, fo people otherwise called "contributors". In the context of journalism and journalistic principles, an editor is someone who sets the policy for their publication and is responsible and accountable for its content. It's an important and still somewhat prestigious job, and there is some chance that some editors of the old-fashioned sort still adhere to some old-fashioned principles. WMF loves to imply that WP has thousands of these highly responsible professionals. But it doesn't – it probably has precisely none.

Anybody who tried to do that, and went around fiddling with other people's work, would meet a lot of hostility. You'd have to be an Arbcom member or equivalent to have enough people protecting your back.

[eagle]

Slant comes from both the selection of factual details and their placement in the article. For example, Melania Trump (T-H-L). The lede paragraph reads:

Melania Trump (born Melanija Knavs[1] [mɛˈlaːnija ˈknaːu̯s], April 26, 1970; Germanized to Melania Knauss[2]) is a Slovene American former model and the First Lady of the United States. She is married to American businessman and 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

The fact that she is Trump's third wife is burried deep into the article. The fact that her husband is described as "American businessman and 45th President of the United States" after she is described as First Lady is odd. Is the author trying to highlight the conflict-of-interest in Trump continuing to own the Trump Organization while in office? Is this to highlight the mixed "American" and "Slovene" couple? If the same author had to write the lede for Michelle Obama would it be "is a Chicago-born former lawyer and the First Lady of the United States. She is married to Kenyan community organizer and 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama."

The article includes the controversy regarding her business visitor visa and green card. The fact that during Trumps campaign her website was outdated and falsely claimed that she "had a degree in architecture and design from the University of Ljubljana." The article covers the 2016 Republican National Convention speech ("that was nearly identical to a paragraph of Michelle Obama's speech").

However, the article omits that the Daily Mail printed a story alleging that she was a prostitute, and that she sued for millions of dollars. To justify that amount, she claimed that the publication deprived her of the opportunity to financially exploit her role as First Lady.

In contrast, Conservapedia took a much more favorable approach to the facts and then the website's owner added his own gloss on top of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? ... id=1309763

[LynnWysong]

Slant comes from both the selection of factual details and their placement in the article. For example, Melania Trump (T-H-L). The lede paragraph reads:

Melania Trump (born Melanija Knavs[1] [mɛˈlaːnija ˈknaːu̯s], April 26, 1970; Germanized to Melania Knauss[2]) is a Slovene American former model and the First Lady of the United States. She is married to American businessman and 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

The fact that she is Trump's third wife is burried deep into the article. The fact that her husband is described as "American businessman and 45th President of the United States" after she is described as First Lady is odd. Is the author trying to highlight the conflict-of-interest in Trump continuing to own the Trump Organization while in office? Is this to highlight the mixed "American" and "Slovene" couple? If the same author had to write the lede for Michelle Obama would it be "is a Chicago-born former lawyer and the First Lady of the United States. She is married to Kenyan community organizer and 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama."

The article includes the controversy regarding her business visitor visa and green card. The fact that during Trumps campaign her website was outdated and falsely claimed that she "had a degree in architecture and design from the University of Ljubljana." The article covers the 2016 Republican National Convention speech ("that was nearly identical to a paragraph of Michelle Obama's speech").

However, the article omits that the Daily Mail printed a story alleging that she was a prostitute, and that she sued for millions of dollars. To justify that amount, she claimed that the publication deprived her of the opportunity to financially exploit her role as First Lady.

In contrast, Conservapedia took a much more favorable approach to the facts and then the website's owner added his own gloss on top of them: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? ... id=1309763

I think we're diverting here from the subject of expertise: an ability to get the facts straight because an expert has the breadth of knowledge to know when something is just down-right wrong, and how to put the facts in proper context. I did that with Madeleine Pickens (T-H-L), and despite the claims of a feminist "editor" that I had done a "hatchet job" on her, I had simply provided a breadth of fact that demonstrates that Ms. Pickens; who was claiming to be a victim of rogue government entities, claims that were being picked up and repeated by groups in favor of her cause, had in reality brought a lot of problems on to herself by making uninformed decisions. I would have liked to editorialize and bring that even more to light (especially by pointing out where getting her information from WP might have led to her poor decisions), but I save that for my facebook group.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

You're too modest: 80% of the text of that article was written by you. What qualifications would one need to be an expert on this particular subject?

[eagle]

I think we're diverting here from the subject of expertise: an ability to get the facts straight because an expert has the breadth of knowledge to know when something is just down-right wrong, and how to put the facts in proper context. I did that with Madeleine Pickens (T-H-L), and despite the claims of a feminist "editor" that I had done a "hatchet job" on her, I had simply provided a breadth of fact that demonstrates that Ms. Pickens; who was claiming to be a victim of rogue government entities, claims that were being picked up and repeated by groups in favor of her cause, had in reality brought a lot of problems on to herself by making uninformed decisions. I would have liked to editorialize and bring that even more to light (especially by pointing out where getting her information from WP might have led to her poor decisions), but I save that for my facebook group.

Actually, Madeleine Pickens (T-H-L) is a fair article, but I could be biased because she was very nice to me the one time that I met her. The fundamental problem is that so much is framed in feminist--anti-feminist terms, but both men and women edit and apply notability criteria to articles about people of both genders. The results are mixed and probably do not correlate to the gender of the Wikipedia editor.

[Poetlister]

In contrast, Conservapedia took a much more favorable approach to the facts

You mean ... Conservapedia is far more in favour of Trump than Wikipedia is? Who would have believed it?

How many times has Conservapedia ever been compared favourably to Wikipedia on here?

[eagle]

In contrast, Conservapedia took a much more favorable approach to the facts

You mean ... Conservapedia is far more in favour of Trump than Wikipedia is? Who would have believed it?

How many times has Conservapedia ever been compared favourably to Wikipedia on here?

I honestly believe that Conservapedia does a much better job of curating and documenting defects in Wikipedia than does Wikipedia itself. If you look at just the Wikipedia material and forget about relativity, Donald Trump, evolution and the geometric growth in "Conservative words", it is one of the best sources of broad Wikipedia criticism and defects.

[LynnWysong]

You're too modest: 80% of the text of that article was written by you. What qualifications would one need to be an expert on this particular subject?

Knowledge of history, the environment, ranching and grazing in the Great Basin. Had Ms. Pickens asked me about the feasibility of what she wanted to do before she sunk $25,000,000 into her project, I would have told her it wasn't. I would have told her to go buy land in Oklahoma or the Texas panhandle. But, she had bought into the notion that the Great Basin is prime horse habitat, because many sources, including WP says that there used to be 2 million horses here. When I tried to fix that, I was accused of being a sock and blocked. But Pickens plunged ahead, and now that it's all gone to Hell in a Handbasket, she's blaming everyone but herself.

[Bezdomni]

I honestly believe that Conservapedia does a much better job of curating and documenting defects in Wikipedia than does Wikipedia itself. If you look at just the Wikipedia material and forget about relativity, Donald Trump, evolution and the geometric growth in "Conservative words", it is one of the best sources of broad Wikipedia criticism and defects.

testing, testing... Conservapedia - Hait: External Links

Thanks for the tip, eagle, I've found some quite interesting material, very quickly.

[LynnWysong]

I think we're diverting here from the subject of expertise: an ability to get the facts straight because an expert has the breadth of knowledge to know when something is just down-right wrong, and how to put the facts in proper context. I did that with Madeleine Pickens (T-H-L), and despite the claims of a feminist "editor" that I had done a "hatchet job" on her, I had simply provided a breadth of fact that demonstrates that Ms. Pickens; who was claiming to be a victim of rogue government entities, claims that were being picked up and repeated by groups in favor of her cause, had in reality brought a lot of problems on to herself by making uninformed decisions. I would have liked to editorialize and bring that even more to light (especially by pointing out where getting her information from WP might have led to her poor decisions), but I save that for my facebook group.

Actually, Madeleine Pickens (T-H-L) is a fair article, but I could be biased because she was very nice to me the one time that I met her. The fundamental problem is that so much is framed in feminist--anti-feminist terms, but both men and women edit and apply notability criteria to articles about people of both genders. The results are mixed and probably do not correlate to the gender of the Wikipedia editor.

LOL. It must be fair then, because I have rather a negative opinion of her, and like Rogol Domedonfors stated, I wrote 80% of it. I actually think she's probably a pretty nice person, when she doesn't let her attitude of entitlement take over, which causes her to bring a lot of grief upon herself. For instance, I documented that she had blocked a road that had provided access to public lands for years. She pissed a lot of people off by doing that, and the consequences of that is that they are being uncooperative with her, and that is also probably the reason her land was vandalized. I'm sure that she knows that that is the underlying reason for many of her problems, but since she feels entitled to block the road, so she's playing the victim instead of coming to terms with the fact that you just don't do things like that and expect a good outcome.

[eagle]

I honestly believe that Conservapedia does a much better job of curating and documenting defects in Wikipedia than does Wikipedia itself. If you look at just the Wikipedia material and forget about relativity, Donald Trump, evolution and the geometric growth in "Conservative words", it is one of the best sources of broad Wikipedia criticism and defects.

testing, testing... Conservapedia - Hait: External Links

Thanks for the tip, eagle, I've found some quite interesting material, very quickly.

Again, my comments addressed Wikipedia criticism and defects which Conservapedia enumerated in painful detail. Most of the editors have left the project and those that remain are not maintaining the more traditional reference articles.

[Bezdomni]

I wasn't being snide, it is very interesting to see how the articles I know pretty well on WP have been treated on Conservapaedia and by whom. Some of the same things seem to get planted in both simultaneously.

But we're hijacking the thread, which was about a cool discovery of yet more fake (oldies?). (Sorry Lynn.)

[Kingsindian]

I wonder if separating evaluation from writing could help on the question of expertise. Often the people who try to evaluate some points in the article are ideological warriors of one kind or another. And often outside people have little interest in checking the facts either way.

In many problems, it's easier to "verify" than to "prove" (see NP (complexity) (T-H-L)). If we could separate out the "evaluation" part from the people who "write" the article, perhaps it could help?

Wikipedia has a "producerist" bias because the readers don't really enter into the production process much, except at the margins. The way readers can affect the article is to either become contributors themselves, or put pressure on Wikipedia through means like the media. Many articles suffer from the problem that they are written with no audience in mind, or an inconsistent audience. Many articles exist to fulfill the writer's self-indulgence rather than anything else.

[LynnWysong]

Well it was deleted as hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... es_Roberts, but wasn't included on any lists.

[Wonderer]

Please, next time you spot a hoax article, just mention it here so we can see how long it takes for someone else to start the deletion nomination.

[LynnWysong]

I probably should have, but there are eyes here also, so I don't think it makes much difference.

I know this article is dated, but I didn't find where it was ever discussed here.

[Poetlister]

I probably should have, but there are eyes here also, so I don't think it makes much difference.

I know this article is dated, but I didn't find where it was ever discussed here.

Basically, this article seems to be saying that people on Reddit are smarter and less gullible than people on Wikipedia.

[Johnny Au]

I probably should have, but there are eyes here also, so I don't think it makes much difference.

I know this article is dated, but I didn't find where it was ever discussed here.

Basically, this article seems to be saying that people on Reddit are smarter and less gullible than people on Wikipedia.

There's a reason why some subreddits have their own wikis hosted by Reddit.