Talk:Tek Fog

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tek Fog article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Speedy keep, 13 April 2022, see discussion.
keep, 11 January 2022, see discussion.

Apps B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status
Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Politics B‑class Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from Tek Fog appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to The Wire, the web application Tek Fog was used to "amplify right-wing propaganda" among Indians?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog.

Wikipedia

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tek Fog is a work of fiction

See This: https://www.theinterval.co/the-wires-tek-fog-investigation-futile-search-for-evidence/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7D4F:3D00:757A:A0A4:6FC0:4027 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for y'all!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Awarded severally to evrik, Sammi Brie, Storye book, and Narutolovehinata5 for the tune-up this got to appear at DYK. Shepherding this across the finish line took lots of effort, from uninvolved editors who could have easily chosen not to get sucked into an article I might've deemed a lost cause. For holding up the spirit of the wiki through dedicated improvement (and, more importantly, real collaboration), I think a barnstar is in order for all of you. Nicely done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, theleekycauldron! Storye book (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction?

Now that you all are done patting each other in the back, consider that Tek fog is a work of fiction. https://www.theinterval.co/the-wires-tek-fog-investigation-futile-search-for-evidence/. This journalist is now under investigation for his fraudulent reporting on the Meta story. 2001:569:7D4F:3D00:757A:A0A4:6FC0:4027 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like there's some mucking going on; many of The Wire sources have been pulled because the writer is under investigation. The article might be updated to reflect that ongoing reality. BusterD (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the 4 articles this wiki article is based on has now been pulled from public view. Internal review is ongoing. So I added a sentence to mention that (as the whole wiki article depends on these 4 articles).

But my sentence was removed and then I'm called a sock puppet?

The entire article is disputed till The Wire completes its investigation. I'm not sure what I did wrong here. 49.205.251.76 (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You applied a header to the top of the article in bold (none of which is in line with our WP:Manual of Style). On request, I've semi-protected this page against what appears (to the page creator) to be sockpuppetry. I've created this new thread in which you may discuss this investigation of The Wire sources. Nobody has blocked you, just prevented you from reinserting poorly formatted stuff into the live page. Have your say here on talk, which is not protected yet. BusterD (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.

Check out the links for these references - [5] [10] [11] [12]

It says - "This story has been removed from public view pending the outcome of an internal review by The Wire".

These 4 articles are the main source of information about Tek Fog.

I think anyone who is reading this Wiki article should be informed that the main basis for this article is currently under review.

Could you mention that in the wiki article?

I see that "Disputed Section" tag has also been reverted (fwiw I wasn't the one who put that). Maybe the disputed tag can be added back?

One more thing - this thread title is "Fiction". I'm not claiming that. Just saying that the main references used by this article has been made private and is underreview.

49.205.251.76 (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be editing the page at all. I am an uninvolved administrator trying to calm things down. I have called on another editor having some experience with this subject matter to help us sort this out. BusterD (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. 49.205.251.76 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that simple "thank you" makes my morning. The problem with Wikipedia is that smart people often disagree, and we like to start such disagreement with assuming the good faith of other editors. This assumption must extend even to sometimes disruptive contributors and their contributions, folks who haven't made as many mistakes as I have. Yet. I'd rather NOT take sides. So let's show some patience, and in the next few hours someone sharper than I will help us look at this situation (and it is a situation which requires observation, thank YOU for your persistence). Thanks again for engaging. I look forward to reading more. If you have points to make or sources to present, please add them to this talk thread in some organized way so we have something substantive to discuss when the cavalry arrives. Okay? BusterD (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the aricles cited here been withdrawn by The Wire? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These references have the message : "This story has been removed from public view pending the outcome of an internal review by The Wire, as one of its authors was part of the technical team involved in our now retracted Meta coverage"

[5] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/1.html

[10] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/2.html

[11] https://thewire.in/tech/explainer-heres-what-the-tek-fog-app-can-do-and-why-you-should-care

[12] https://thewire.in/tekfog/en/3.html

From https://m.thewire.in/article/media/the-wire-retracts-meta-stories :

"Given the discrepancies that have come to our attention via our review [of the Meta story] so far, The Wire will also conduct a thorough review of previous reporting done by the technical team involved in our Meta coverage, and remove the stories from public view till that process is complete." 49.205.251.76 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, they have not been withdrawn. They have been "taken out of the public view", which in itself is not a problem for us, since we can access them on archive.org. I will check to see if anything needs to be toned down in the light of the new doubts regarding the Meta story. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our page is based on two WP:SECONDARY sources, from Bloomberg News and Le Monde (citations 1 and 2 in the current version). Neither of these articles has been retracted or withdrawn. So I don't think there is anything for us to do until The Wire's internal investigation comes back with any further information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taken Out Of Public View

Lmao wtf, so The Wire's taken down all the stories from public view and are reviewing this. The fact that they're no longer available to read publicly should be information on the page right? Or am I missing something. Ketlag (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I missed the convo above. My bad. Ketlag (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing access-date

@Kautilya3 on what basis are you Removing access-date, it is not allowed and breaks the bots and disrupts finding relevant archive version. Please revert and restore all access-date. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the purpose and use of the access-date field at template:citation, and then perhaps rewrite your query in a form that makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]