Andy Mabbett, 05/03/2013 21:08:
On 5 March 2013 17:21, Nathan wrote:
I can't see the deleted article, but I bet it was basically orphaned
What were its page view stats? (I'm mobile. So can't easily check)
I only checked a random month, but something like 150-200 per month it
seems.
Nemo
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> >> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> >> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness
> of
> >> Wikipedia.
> >
> > Our historical coverage is patchy, but I don't think it's our
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) >
> wrote:
>
>> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
>> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
>> Wikipedia.
>
> Our historical cove
On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) >
wrote:
> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
> Wikipedia.
Our historical coverage is patchy, but I don't think it's our biggest
weakness - ar
On 5 March 2013 17:21, Nathan wrote:
> I can't see the deleted article, but I bet it was basically orphaned
What were its page view stats? (I'm mobile. So can't easily check)
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l m
On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
> Wikipedia.
Err thats not a popular belief.
--
geni
I can't see the deleted article, but I bet it was basically orphaned.
Make up a fake name and don't link to it from anywhere or in it to
anywhere, and if it escapes NPP it'll stick around a long time. So I
guess there are two categories (at least) for things "ripe for hoaxes"
- technical or esoteri
Nathan, 05/03/2013 18:00:
Anything that is obscure is going to take a long time to discover. I
don't think history is special in that regard; problem is one of
having it come to the attention of someone sufficiently expert enough
to know for sure it's fake. If it seems technical and esoteric, mos
Anything that is obscure is going to take a long time to discover. I
don't think history is special in that regard; problem is one of
having it come to the attention of someone sufficiently expert enough
to know for sure it's fake. If it seems technical and esoteric, most
people will assume its tru
Yaroslav M. Blanter, 05/03/2013 17:07:
8 years is the record, apparently, on enwiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
Thanks Andrew, did not know about this page, very interesting.
It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
matches the popu
On 05.03.2013 15:38, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 5 March 2013 14:34, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article
written
in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were
there
others that surviv
On 5 March 2013 14:34, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article written
> in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
>
> Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were there
> others that survived longer?
8 years is the record, ap
I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article
written in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were
there others that survived longer?
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
Wikimedia-l mail
13 matches
Mail list logo
