Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia

RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as Keep.

By sheer numbers, the editors giving their opinions are nearly evenly split, I count 15 for various flavors of Keep, 13 for Remove, and about three for something different (of which InedibleHulk's "Compromise I don't know how" advice was ... particularly notable). So that would normally be a "no consensus". However the arguments on each side are not equivalent. On the Keep side, the editors point out that the event got widespread coverage in nontrivial articles by respected reliable sources in at least four countries, and that the story is inherently important to the article subject, as such a long standing and notable error. On the Remove side, the editors argue that the coverage comes from a tainted source, being a banned Wikipedia editor, and that the description as a hoax is not accurate, since it was not a malicious deception by an editor. The widespread indepth coverage by reliable sources is the most important here, that's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) which is among our most important policies (WP:TRIFECTA, WP:5PILLARS), and defines itself as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's pretty much what the Keep editors are saying: these are significant views, by reliable sources, and on this topic. It also says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" which does tend to put a restriction on how much we could get here even if we found consensus to remove. The Remove side is citing Wikipedia:Deny recognition, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, Wikipedia:Harassment, for their first point about this coming from a banned editor. However those are all essays and policies and Arbcom decisions about how Wikipedians should behave towards each other. They're not policies about how the world should behave towards Wikipedia, and they're not policies about what should be in our articles. The "not a hoax" point is debatable: even if it wasn't a hoax by the Wikipedia editor, that could just mean Wikipedia fell for a hoax in the real world; honestly, a detailed theory about the murder of 200,000 people is hard to imagine as a combination of innocent errors. In any case, this is an article about Reliability of Wikipedia, not Hoaxes in Wikipedia, so the correctness of that one word is not really a sufficient argument to exclude the whole event.

Now there are alternatives that were mentioned in the discussion that can still be discussed. Aquilion and Rhododendrites argued that this whole section should be deleted; that's the "proportionately" part of WP:NPOV. We are not paper, but yet we can decide the length and focus of our articles. This is certainly a long article, if we were to shorten it drastically we could decide what to keep and what to leave out. Others argued that this information should be moved instead to List of Wikipedia controversies, which can also be discussed, though the fact that GizzyCatBella also deleted it from there is not comforting. Then there are also a few who support keeping keep the main content as long as we delete the word hoax, as above. All those could be considered separately, but I am not ruling on them as they were not really the main focus of this discussion. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the below text, present in the article Reliability of Wikipedia since October 2019 [1], be removed or kept? The section it is in are Notable incidents, then Other false information. starship.paint (exalt) 08:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Warsaw...

• Keep - (1) the content is relevant - this article covers the veracity of Wikipedia + misinformation on Wikipedia, and the content is clearly related to this. (2) The content is verifiable - sources are above. (3) The content is significant - time length of the hoax is clearly raised by sources. (4) In terms of sources, Haaretz is clearly a top Israeli source, then there's the Times of Israel as well, and that story has picked up attention in the United States (cited above), in Germany [2][3], and in Italy [4]. (addendum from 27 November - even the Russian government took notice [5]) starship.paint (exalt) 09:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not even a hoax (according to the definition of the concept...). Please familiarize yourself better with the context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm going with what the sources said. Haaretz called it a hoax (...their longevity within Wikipedia are what turn the extermination camp at KL Warschau into the longest-running hoax ever uncovered on the online encyclopedia. CJN called it a hoax (The false facts pertaining to the death-camp hoax included real facts associated with concentration camps.). Der Spiegel called it a hoax (diesen Hoax in der Wikipedia 2019 aufgedeckt zu haben), Corriere della Ser as well, if the translation is correct (La bufala di cui scrive Haaretz riguarda la pagina in inglese di Wikipedia sul «campo di concentramento di Varsavia... Furthermore, in 2006, concerns about the misinformation were raised, with sources, but were removed by the original misinformation-adding editor as "vandalism" [6]. starship.paint (exalt) 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Starship.paint, Hoax definition, per WP:HOAX and any dictionary, is a deliberate attempt to mislead. No evidence that the editor who added it knew there were any concerns have been presented. As for the diff you cite, it was a talk page comment added erroneously to the top of the mainspace, starting with "!! Unfortunately, the below entry on Konzentrazionslager Warschau is highly misleading." Perfectly fine on talk, but subject to instant removal from the mainspace. And so the editor who wrote the article removed it as vandalism. We don't know if he read it - it is not uncommon for people reverting vandalism or what appears to be one (as in, adding talk page posts in bad style to mainspace) not to read them. Ideally, Halibutt should have read it, moved it to the talk, and replied to it (and it obviously was not vandalism, just talk page in mainspace), but to imply Halibutt was a hoaxter because he didn't read it/copy it is pretty bad-faithed. If there is a hoax somewhere, a new editor posts his analysis in the mainspace in bad style, and a recent changes patroller or someone who watchlisted this article reverts them without reading because of bad style, it's not like they became hoaxters. And anyway, this was never a hoax. Bottom line, this was an error - a fringe theory, now discredited, that persisted on Wikipedia for many years after it was called fringe in academic sources (here's an academic source that calls Trzcińska's view a fringe theory - in Polish, lit. an extreme point of view - "skrajne" - [7]. There is no academic source that calls it a hoax that I know of, and nobody has ever accused Trzicińska of inventing lies, only of being gullible and building a theory on poor evidence, from what I've been reading - a single interview). But there is no hoax anywhere, except in Icewhiz claims repeated in the article that this error is an example of a deliberate attempt by Polish nationalists on Wikipedia to promote their narrative. (Now, to make this more complex, some Polish nationalists still cling to this fringe theory, even after it has been called out by all historians, even including the more "nationalistic" ones associated with the IPN... but there is no evidence that User:Halibutt, a respected Wikipedian in good standing, now deceased and unable to defend himself, did anything wrong, except getting duped himself into believing this fringe theory was correct when he first heard about it and decided to include it on Wikipedia - note that back then Trzcińska's monograph was the only monograph on the Warsaw's camp; it was not until 2007 that a new academic monograph dedicated to this topic was published, debunking Trzcińska's fringe theory. Oh, and even if Halibut was to read the post added to mainpage that he removed, and follow the links (neither of which he was under any obligation to do, as removing a malformatted talk page post from mainspace is a simple rvv type of action), said links did not say Trzcińska was wrong. In 2006, which is when the diff you cite was reverted, link 1 [8] from 2003 effectively said that this issue is still under investigation and it cannot be conclusively confirmed that this theory is correct, and link 2 [9] is even older, fro 2002, and just states that the issue is being investigated). Sadly, the good faith SPA editor who spotted the error in 2006 did not know how to use the talk page and added his essay to the wrong place, and Halibutt didn't read it or didn't find it convincing and sadly did not copy it to the talk page for others - hence the error persisted for the next decade, even when better sources became available. To say that Halibutt at any point became aware that there is an error in the article but decided to suppress that information is a violation of WP:AGF. Yes, he added an error, and he restored it, but per AGF and common sense, when he added it, he didn't know it was an error, and when the SPA editor tried to bring to our attention this was an error, he did so in a way that plausibly Halibutt did not notice (again, we can't ever know if he read the malformatted text he reverted or not, and if he read it, what did he think about it). That's it, a simple error that evaded attention, no misdoing anywhere - well, outside of the campaign by the indef-banned harasser (Icewhiz) to smear his opponents, which sadly spilled into a few newspaper articles after he conned a journalist into believing his story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove -The story is based on the dishonest narrative of a banned Wikipedian then echoed by some other newspapers of various countries. The Wikipedia article was not an intentional hoax. (unlike the above commentator Starship.paint said - quote --> ..length of the hoax is clearly..) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. Until this is discussed in academic sources, what we have here is a news story by an indef-banned editor who duped a journalist into believing him, full of errors, that got nonetheless repeated in a reliable source (and then picked up and reprinted by few other outlets). But when reliable source prints out a bad story, we are under no obligation or common sense requirement to cite it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove — a fairly trivial point wrapped up in a narrative pushed by a banned user. Not exactly a notable reflection of unreliability, unless picked up by scholarly sources. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a prime example of Wikipedia being vulnerable to false content, on account of many factors, its size probably being one of them. The subject lemma is about this situation specifically, the "reliability of Wikipedia", a point driven home time and again across all fields here. And the fact that "this is an old story" is irrelevant. It's well sourced and serves its encyclopaedic purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount, who were explicitly mentioned by the source, have been trying to remove it from multiple articles (see edit warring at WP:HOAXLIST[10][11] and ongoing RfC at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp). Haaretz is a reliable newspaper (see here and here), as are the ten+ sources that mentioned the story (not including syndication), and until and unless someone can produce evidence that isn't the case, we are to assume reliability per WP:NEWSORG. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As this is a direct accusation, made by an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The inclusion is being contested by people who have a vested interest in not having this content included anywhere on Wikipedia, as several of them are mentioned by name in the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove This should be moved to List of Wikipedia controversies. The section is way too bloated for a simple 'examples of wikipedia being unreliable'. A couple examples would be sufficient to show that there is content that is unreliable on wikipedia. The content itself is obviously from a reliable source and notable and would rather it stay here then disappear all together. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep until it can be found here. Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove This whole thing is here simply because a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets went and spammed this incident into as many articles as they could as a form of “revenge” for the fact that said editor got side banned from all WMF projects (Icewhiz, for harassment, doxxing and death threats). There was coverage in one source - which relied on the testimony of that editor (oh, and to boot used hate sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source for its info). It was then reprinted in a couple other sources. Then, after about a week, everyone except certain people on Wikipedia forgot about it. This is a pure example of internal Wikipedia politics determining content rather than policy or actual coverage in sources. The whole thing is UNDUE and badly sourced. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  a banned editor and his friends and a bunch of sock puppets; oh, and to boot used hate sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica as a reliable source for its info -> ; please specify the friends involved.

  Then, after about a week, everyone except certain people on Wikipedia forgot about it. In fact, everything started when GizzyCatBella said they would not recognise the source as reliable, so if there's anyone who's not forgotten about its existence, it's some of the editors who wanted it out (and TBH also me, but that was involved with my expanding the article, so I had to know one way or another what the article was talking about).

  This is a pure example of internal Wikipedia politics determining content rather than policy or actual coverage in sources. As far as I could see the conjecture could be applied to you, too. The coverage in sources is there, you simply don't agree with it. Big deal. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove. A banned former Wikipedia editor, Icewhiz, presents a usually reliable newspaper, Haaretz, with disinformation, which the newspaper accepts at face value and publishes on 4 October 2019. Then that newspaper is cited as a reliable source on whether a debunked hypothesis (described as such in the Wikipedia article in question) concerning the World War II German Warsaw concentration camp was a "hoax". The most prominent author of the debunked hypothesis, Maria Trzcińska, had simply been ill-advised and gullible, not a deliberate hoaxer. Wikipedia is supposed to present the public with true information based on reliable sources. An unreliable article in a usually reliable newspaper (Haaretz) has no place as a source on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - relevant to the article's topic, and sourced to a reliable source. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock
• Keep per nom and Slater. It's directly mentioned by multiple RS, it's WP:DUE. Noting also that I've mentioned this RFC at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz. Levivich 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove There simply hasn't been enough critical, widespread coverage of the issue separate from people who were just writing churnalism based on the Haaretz report. There are serious issues including that the main source for the article is a globally banned user, who was found to be misrepresenting by ArbCom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. Having this at List of Wikipedia controversies would be sufficient. If we would gather all cases where the reliability of Wikipedia was questioned, we would write a thick book.--Darwinek (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • About an hour after !voting "remove" here, GCB removed the entry from List of Wikipedia controversies [12]. Levivich 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    Less than an hour after filing a conflict of interest case at Conflict of Interest Noticeboard[13] Levivich comes here to cast keep !vote [14] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    So what? Are you implying that something that Levivich did is improper? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. If the editors who say "remove" could point to some factual inaccuracy within the fragment (other than Haaretz's attributed opinion), I would have even considered an abstention. The only objections I have heard so far is that a) it's Icewhiz, so it's shit and b) it's not notable, mention it at some obscure webpage nobody cares (and where the info could still be removed, just look at the talk of List of Wikipedia hoaxes). To point a): it is totally irrelevant because we don't source Icewhiz's opinion as fact - we simply state facts as they were (and no one said that the facts themselves were wrong - just that the person who tipped off Haaretz for the story was suspect); b) given that I've read the same argument on multiple pages already (the Warsaw concentration camp, WP:HOAXLIST, etc.), I think the argument will still spread from article talk to article talk until some guy wiser than us closes the discussion, so this remedy will likely not help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Although List of Wikipedia controversies can be considered as further part of Reliability of Wikipedia (article on Reliability of Wikipedia has +200 000 bytes, still too overhemingly more than recomended size despite two articles), these two pages are two diffrent things in terms of WP:Content removal, reliability of Wikipedia is higher importance, and bit more close to core coverage. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the "Reliability of Wikipedia" article is supposed to list the most notable incidents of falsehoods staying on Wikipedia (section "Notable incidents"), with any less notable ones going to the List of Wikipedia controversies. The very fact that this article is extensively discussed by us 2 years later and the fact that the Warsaw concentration camp got substantial press coverage from various countries (and the fact that the falsehood persisted for 15 years) suggests that it is notable enough for the mention; other articles, however, may be less important to be mentioned on the page and as such might be moved to the article you suggested or, in case of a really minor incident, deleted altogether. This for sure isn't minor, as can be seen by the amount of effort some editors have put against mentioning this article at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Combinetly Reliability of Wikipedia and List of Wikipedia controversies cover 408 000 bytes. Per WP:SIZERULE it is at least eight times larger than "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and at least four times larger than "Almost certainly should be divided". Note I did not !vote and especially I do not oppose remove "all info about that sruff" from List of Wikipedia controversies (I simply do not want be involved in that stuff) so far but I am not impressed how it was promient. There were accidents on Wikipedia when article got more hits due to criticism but things are not notable enough and should not be to be mentioned anywhere [15]/[16] vs 10 000 views (I of course do not say "analysing hits" is better measure than "analysing soures" but I am using it as one of factors and just explain why I would argue that this stuff about WCC more fits to list of Wikipedia Controversies than to "Reliablity of Wikipedia" which is closer to core). And to reffer your discussion with Piotrus around, what you two do think to go into NPOV noticeboard and ask someone unilvolved: does it would be worthible to create new essays (I am saying WP:essays to avoid misunderstanding, not WP:Policy per se): WP:not aware error, WP:Intentional error, WP:Do not create fringe theories, WP:outdating sources etc. as we have only WP:Do not create hoaxes, essays are ususally created by WP:Bold without discussion. In the very most inclusionist case personally I think more info better fits to Wikipedia controversies but "short info about error in Wikipedias for years which raised media controversy" would be sufficient in article with "High-importance for Wikiproject:Wikipedia" - that article on Reliability of Wikipedia, at current form too much details in last sentence there is if we have list of Wikipedia Controversies. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The very fact that this article is extensively discussed by us 2 years later (...) suggests that it is notable enough for the mention Absolutely not! The reason it's being discussed 2 years later is because some editors, friends of Icewhiz, can't let this shit go, and they're using the existence of this article as a form of "revenge" against other editors they don't like it. That's it. That's all there is to it. It's only "notable" in terms of internal Wikipedia politics and in-fighting it's not WP:NOTABLE.

the fact that the Warsaw concentration camp got substantial press coverage from various countries Except IT DIDN'T. It got covered in an article in Haaretz based on info provided by an indef banned editor, and a couple other outlets reprinted the story. That's it. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason it's being discussed 2 years later is because some editors, friends of Icewhiz, can't let this shit go Let's remind you of the story of how the discussion about the Haaretz article began: I was arguing with User:Slatersteven about whether to include the info about a possible gas chamber operating in the camp that had nothing to do with the alleged gas chambers mear Warsaw West Station (this was in the Polish version, and I believed the information about the uncertainty belonged in the article). Two hours after Slatersteven started the section, GizzyCatBella intervened and objected to the word "hoax" used by Slatersteven, claiming that it was not backed up by RS. After Slatersteven provided the link to Haaretz, GCB declared they wanted to challenge the reliability of the source and removed it, which prompted me to start an RfC because that's more or less what WP:APLRS says when disagreements exist as to whether include the challenged source. That's how all hell broke loose. So, if anything, it all started with GCB - hardly whom you'd say is a friend of Icewhiz, and who seemed to be particularly sensitive over the semantics of the word, and who wouldn't let it go. BTW, I'm still waiting for the list of those supposed "friends".

they're using the existence of this article as a form of "revenge" against other editors they don't like If you can provide the proof to the conspiracy theory you are trying to assert exists here against some of the editors (including you, presumably), I will be grateful. Since this would most probably warrant ANI/AE/ARBCOM intervention, please don't post the proof here, just throw a link to the started case (with proof) on any of the venues I noted. Repeating this opinion over and over without proof doesn't lend you more credence.

Except IT DIDN'T. It got covered in an article in Haaretz based on info provided by an indef banned editor, and a couple other outlets reprinted the story. If that's "reprinted", it should be a word-for-word translation or copying. The problem is, the other articles (except for Cleveland Jewish News, which I deleted from the Press template because that was indeed the case where the outlet essentially reprinted the article) are anything but. Corriere della Sera, for instance, has contacted an unrelated historian and a journalist for interia.pl; Der Spiegel article was written by a German Wikipedian active since 2004; Rossiyskaya Gazeta simply based on the info to make stretched, to put it mildly, claims about the Polish govt; there also has been a polemic on Haaretz about the topic (Blatman is cited there but Christian Davies also wrote his editorial in response to Blatman's), and the Israeli TV also talked about this. It's akin to saying "well, the reports on the new Omicron variant are all more or less the same, therefore it's churnalism", which is wrong. It simply was a bombshell story. You hardly ever have 7 articles in a Press template, all of which might be basing on one incident but each covering from a slightly different perspective. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The only reason it was a "bombshell" (and a very weak one at that, all of the coverage just repeats Haaretz piece with some rewriting for copyright reasons - do tell us what "new facts" any of them find?) is that a simple case of "an error on Wikipedia persisted for 15 years" - hardly anything special - was twisted into a conspiracy theory that "this error was intentionally added and defended by Polish nationalists", a story that sells well in Israel, where bashing Polish nationalists is quite trendy (not that I can blame them, as they are hardly nice folks). I am all for bashing Polish nationalists - but there are plenty of real crimes or offenses committed by them (all well covered in Haaretz, ex. recent story from two weeks ago). No need to invent fake news about an alleged army of Polish nationalists trying to take over English Wikipedia (the Haaretz article implies they succeeded very well, are in alliance with powerful factions in the Wikipedia community, took over of duped Arbcom, and got the last honest editor, i.e. Icewhiz, banned - hence the Haaretz piece, as it iself clearly admits, is a "call to arms" to Icewhiz cause). The power of mass media is not to be underestimated, but at the same time, Wikipedia has a good history of keeping fake news out. Let's not allow this one to sneak in. Haaretz may be usually reliable, but this is a terrible piece of journalism, with terrible fact checking, controversial main source, misquoting interviewees, etc. that has no place being cited anywhere. Ps. Ironically, Icewhiz's original title form his essay - "How Wikipedia promoted Holocaust distortion for 15 years" - was better than what Haaretz run: "The fake Nazi death camp: Wikipedia's longest hoax, exposed". Since it was not a hoax - first fact-checking error, right there in the very title... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to invent fake news about an alleged army of Polish nationalists trying to take over English Wikipedia (the Haaretz article implies they succeeded very well, are in alliance with powerful factions in the Wikipedia community, took over of duped Arbcom, and got the last honest editor, i.e. Icewhiz, banned - hence the Haaretz piece, as it iself clearly admits, is a "call to arms" to Icewhiz cause). The power of mass media is not to be underestimated, but at the same time, Wikipedia has a good history of keeping fake news out. Let's not allow this one to sneak in. -> Two things out of it: first, Haaretz is not uncritical of Icewhiz, so it's misleading to portray this article as an endorsement of Icewhiz's actions by Haaretz, secondly, we aren't citing the 'powerful factions', taking over ArbCom and other stuff you mention as fact, so this point is really irrelevant. We are only citing the part about the hoax (or however you wish to call it) that persisted and that's it.

I'm not discussing the semantics of the word "hoax" anymore. Let's agree to disagree. Anyway this fragment is attributed, and you don't remove opinions simply because you believe they are misguided - you report them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

First, Haaretz is obviously much more sympathetic to Icewhiz or not. Their criticism is limited to a passing comment or two that Icewhiz might have ben "overzelous", but every second sentence he is justified in editorial tone. His misdoings are "alleged", and his opponents evil motivations are never cast in doubt. It's a classic David vs Goliath narrative. So yes, I find the piece very biased.

Second. Re "We are only citing the part about the hoax (or however you wish to call it) that persisted and that's it.". Please stop calling it a hoax. It's a fringe theory or an error. Here's an academic source that calls Trzcińska's theory fringe (in Polish: [17]). While this takes us back to the Warsaw's article, I strongly suggest you try to use academic sources instead of newspapers. Who needs to quote a historian speaking in news or being interviewed in newspaper, when we have a reliable academic paper? Trzcińska's theory is discredited, academics see it as fringe, there is nobody outside unreliable fringe far-right outlets like Radio Maryja who still give it any credence. No need to repeat the same criticism using a bad journalism that empowers site banned harassers. Cite a peer reviewed paper linked, and move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

To the first paragraph: even if that were the case, why is this not enough to cite the fact this article hosted content for 15 years that you describe an error? I get your opinion about this content being WP:UNDUE (though I don't agree with the notion), but you also suggest it's not reliable to state the fact the hoax/error/mishap/whatever existed, because that's the only thing we cite the article for. What you say are errors or manifestations of bias are elsewhere in the article.

Now to the second paragraph: a "fringe theory" label does not contradict a "hoax" label - it simply still is a fringe theory because Trzcińska's followers won't drop the stick. As I said in the original discussion, I believe that Trzcińska had acted in bad faith; but again, I promised not to discuss it - let's agree to disagree. As for your opposition, for some reason, to quote Dreifuss and Grabowski, severability applies: you might not want to cite what you believe are bad parts of the article but instead we only quote the ones which should not be controversial. Instead of killing the cancer patient altogether, remove the tumour. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We have to balance this with the UNDUE, WP:NAVEL and WP:DFTT. Perhaps a compromise would be to cite a more removed piece, one that does not repeat any errors (such as using the word hoax or promoting Icewhiz's conspiracy theory/narrative that this error is proof of Polish nationalsit cabal). If one of the other media sources fulfills these conditions, link it and I'll opine. I'd prefer academic source to any media ones, however, but I don't think any exist. Anyway, the ideal solution would be to quote a source that doesn't include any errors. Any chance their comments were reprinted elsewhere? The error may be worth mentioning here and there, but we need to untangle this from the Icewhiz's hate narrative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It could have worked were it not the case that WP:APLRS does not allow to host sources which have had a reliability challenge, and some of the colleagues here don't want to hear about anything remotely resembling something that cites the Haaretz article. By extension, if the source gets removed from the article on the camp, it is bound to be so there, too, because the text we cite is more or less the same. My opinion is that we should cite the original report; but if a retelling of the story is more preferable and everyone is on board with that, I will not oppose it.

My Google Scholar search has not unfortunately yielded anything, nor was the Google Books/Library Genesis query successful; but I believe it is only a question of time before this appears. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove Primarily because it is a malicious act by long time abuser, which is more akin to a form of fraud, that what you would call a traditional hoax. Because it is not a traditional hoax, all it can say, or indicate is that Wikipedia is particularly prone to these types of fraud. It doesn't indicate how reliable it is, because it is total outlier. The consistant results over years, is that Wikipedia is reliable, extremly reliable, 96.7% accurate is a figure I saw several years ago, so it's an absolute outlier. Personally I think whole lot of work should have been erased, when it was found out that he promulgated it; and everything else he produced. It worries me that this abuser is still dominating conversation almost two years to the month, since he was blocked. Work needs to be done to look at how it can limited, so that manipulation isn't there, or doesn't prsent itself. scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The person who discovered the hoax is not Icewhiz. And what is the difference between a "hoax" and a "form of fraud? Levivich 12:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Primarily because it is a malicious act by long time abuser, which is more akin to a form of fraud, that what you would call a traditional hoax. What is the "malicious act" you are referring to? The fact that they tipped off Haaretz? Because Icewhiz was not the person who started the false content in the article in the first place.

It doesn't indicate how reliable it is, because it is total outlier. A lot of mentions in the "Notable incidents" section are not indicative of the overall reliability - it lists the most notable mishaps (or, at least, it should). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it is completly wrong. Ignore it. That is what you get when it your half asleep. scope_creep^Talk 16:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep I don't think you were completely wrong. Icewhiz was one of the editors who noticed this error (not a hoax, hoax implies it was added as a deliberate attempt to mislead the readers - we have zero evidence of that) was added to Wikipedia (I think this is the news story that started all of this: [18]) and he removed it (so far so good). Then he decided this error needs to be advertised on- and off-wiki as proof for his claim that "Polish nationalists are dominating the Wikipedia discourse", so he added this error to the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes [19] (which is incorrect since it was not a hoax - although we don't have a Wikipedia:List of errors, so some confusion is understandable), wrote a short essay at User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory that was declined from SIGNPOST (since he didn't finish it before getting banned and becoming rather toxic), but in the meantime he did sell his story to Haaretz, hence the article we are discussing (full of malice and errors, but of course build on the kernel of truth, as in - yes, the error persisted on Wikipedia for ~15 years, it's just that no, there is no cabal of Polish nationalists defending it and related narrative... Icewhiz presented his claims about them - us, I guess, since I am one of his enemies - to ArbCom and got topic banned for his efforts, shortly before getting site banned for off wiki harassment, of which the Haaretz piece is his crown jewel of achievements, persisting in spreading his poison, unlike his Twitter and such which got deleted for ToS violations etc.). See also the essays written by User:Poeticbent (disclaimer: according to Icewhiz, another member of the Polish nationalist cabal), as well as the neutral Signost coverage at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media, written by uninvoled editors. Anyway, the simple summary is that yes, an error persisted on Wikipedia for 15 years, and a few media outlets wrote about. But it was an error, not a hoax, and since no academic sources discuss this, IMHO this is UNDUE here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• The scope and definition of this and related articles are unclear - I'm going to sidestep the hoax vs. misinformation business, the COI business, and whether the involvement of a now-banned user is relevant. I'm mainly thinking about this question: should an article about the reliability of Wikipedia (if such an article is to exist) include various independent examples of when Wikipedia has been wrong, with sourcing which does not treat them as part of a systematic study? There are, as we all know, an awful lot of examples of when Wikipedia has been wrong, including many instances which have received a good amount of press coverage. Even some random acts of vandalism have received extensive coverage. Do these, on an individual level, say anything of significance about the reliability of Wikipedia? Surely the phenomenon of vandalism and that Wikipedia gets things wrong are relevant, but when is it right to get into specific examples? The present lists of examples seem like they should be in some other List of times Wikipedia has been wrong which covers specific examples which get some high degree of press coverage, and then summarized in whole, rather than listed out, in an article about the larger topic of reliability. There's also the question of when "Wikipedia being wrong" fits into this article vs. criticism of Wikipedia vs. one of the various X bias on Wikipedia (like the perma-coatrack, ideological bias on Wikipedia) vs. one of the other related articles. Better defining what it means to be included in this article would be a lot more helpful than deciding whether to include individual examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhododendrites (talk • contribs)

• This is a splendid suggestion by Rhododendrites. I'm not changing my one suggestion but I think we can safely all fall back to the investigating this more thoroughly (hard work, harder than taking part in an RfC). -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Updating: Remove the Other false information section in its entirety following on the above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep largely per Starship.paint's well-reasoned stance. I'm not seeing the relevance of Icewhiz's ban to whether or not this statement should remain in the article. That seems to be the only substantive argument presented by those arguing to remove it. Even those assailing the credibility of the sources seem to be leaning on the Icewhiz affair to make a point. It's not germane to the discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Compromise I don't know how you'll want to do it, but I think it'd beat keeping or deleting. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, but really, the entire subsection should be removed, and the entire section should be drastically trimmed. It's an indiscriminate list of random articles which barely discuss the reliability of Wikipedia directly, whose purpose is to argue the reliability of Wikipedia via anecdotal examples. This is WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. The article should instead rely on sources about the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole; the standard for inclusion of any specific incident ought to be whether it is mentioned in at least one high-quality source discussing the reliability of Wikipedia specifically, in which the false information is an example rather than the primary focus. --Aquillion (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - topically relevant and the length of time is the significance. Haaretz is an acceptable RS, and it does not matter how they got it or if accurate as this is the portrayal WP has. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: does anyone advocating removal contest the basic facts—someone added sourced information about a concentration camp; the initial source was debunked; the information wasn't removed on Wikipedia until a decade later? If not, then we can discuss the finer points of the wording, but I'll support "keep". — Bilorv (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'll take that as a "no" then. Keep mention of the topic in some form, without commenting on appropriateness of the current wording. — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Bilorv But the same story happened many times, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes. Why use this example, given that it promotes the narrative of a sitebanned harasser? There are less controversial examples that can be used. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Give me an example not covered in mainspace that has reliable secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

    @Bilorv Sure: [20], [21]. There are more. All uncontroversial, third party confirmations of errors or intentional hoaxes on Wikipedia, none intended to spread fake news about non-existent on-wiki conspiracy theories and serve as "calls to arms" in a personal vendettas of a site-banned real life harasser. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    To be honest, I'm happy that this Warsaw concentration camp was not a "hoax" in that it wasn't intentional, concretely known as false when written etc. So I'm happy that these fit into the category of "examples not covered in mainspace". I hate to be a word pedant, but I did ask for an example that has reliable secondary sources, plural. The Deacon opinion column is fair enough but written by Deacon and not covered elsewhere by mainstream media. Atlas Obscura is a good read but it doesn't really make any commentary on Wikipedia, which is just one piece of the story there (and note that they're covering a story about themselves). When NPR covered the story, Wikipedia is not mentioned, indicating that it is not significant for a page about Wikipedia.

    With your assertion "There are more" unsubstantiated, I'm really not impressed by your response. It has the appearance of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, and not finding much to begin with. I won't respond further because it appears to me that you can't engage in this conversation at your usual excellent level of discourse, understandably, because of the connection this story has to a vicious criminal who has harassed you. The facts in this case, however, are not harassment, or a case of Icewhiz "winning". — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove, the text is misleading, Trzecińska's theory was finally debunked only in 2017 Marcelus (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes and no. I wouldn't say that 2017 was the definite cutoff. There were other works, the earliest dating back from 1967 (Berenstein), where the account was already different than Trzcińska's, and by 2007 we already had Gabriel Finder (2004), Andreas Mix (2003, 2004 (not cited), 2005), Edward Kossoy (2004), Czesław Rajca (1976), Piotr Matusak (1973) and Regina Domańska (1992, not cited in the article because the info she had was outdated) with their works + a whole book (Chaim Goldstein, 1970) being a survivor's account about KL Warschau. None mentioned the giant gas chambers, and if anyone mentioned other subcamps, it was only in the context of casting doubt on them. At least based on the body of scholarly literature available at the time, we could say quite well that the theory proposed by Trzcińska was probably not debunked in the sense that only Mix directly addressed the supposed 200K Poles figure (and said it was implausible), but lack of corroboration by other scholars would still imply it was fringe and therefore should not have had any place on Wikipedia. Walkowski's testimony was simply a nail in the coffin. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Trzcińska published her book in 2002, so in what way works predating it were debunking her findings? Also there were historians who claimed that KL Warshau never existed, and that it was only a labour camp. Today we know that they were wrong too. Also the existence of gas chambers in KL Warshau was afaik mentioned by Norman Davies in the first edition of Rising '44: The Battle for Warsaw, so even respectable historians at some point believed it was at least plausible. Marcelus (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  so in what way works predating it were debunking her findings? I didn't say "debunking", I'd say that a whole new theory previously unseen in scholarly literature when there indeed was material to work on is a big red flag (+ the only review of her book I could find, the Mix's review cited in the article, was disapproving of her work). The article would be in a different shape than it is today, because there was less certainty in the details back then due to the lack of extensive research made lately on the topic, but it should not have cited the theory as fact regardless. Later works did not seem to corroborate Trzcińska's thesis, either while scathing reviews of her work started to appear just after Kopka's book in 2007. So I'd say that no one treated her seriously after that (well, except the far right).

  I will also disagree with the claim that some historians were denying its existence - well, there were papers saying just the opposite, as mentioned above. Bartoszewski, who is often accused by Trzcińska's supporters of hiding/downplaying what they called the yet undiscovered atrocity (see here and here as examples of such accusations), did not, in fact, negate its existence or even dismiss it as a labour camp, as he writes about the "labour camp converted to a concentration camp for Jews" as early as 1967 (the 1970 version of the book, cited in the article, is also shown).

  You are correct, however, when saying that Rising '44 book indeed serves Trzcińska's narrative as fact (see text of his quote on the fragment here, not giving here because it's a little longish; "Goose Farm" is Gęsiówka and "Goose street" is Gęsia street). The funny thing is, Davies somehow was able to reconcile the "minor camp" label with the 200K dead figure (it's about the number of dead in Kulmhof/Chełmno nad Nerem, the first of the six extermination camps on Polish territories and not even the smallest among these). What's worse, though, is that the only support for his theory is the two eyewitness accounts originally from late 1980s, which are cited to two books: T. Strzembosz, ‘Hitlerowski Aparat Terroru’, in Akcje zbrojne podziemnej Warszawy, 1939–44 (Warsaw, 1978), pp. 44–53, and Maria Trzcińska (2002) at page 41. Strzembosz, however, did not write anything at all about KL Warschau on the cited pages (he describes the police and SS hierarchy in Warsaw, not mentioning the concentration camp there, though). The only place where Strzembosz does write about the concentration camp is on page 21, but then it's just a passing mention: Wypalona i zniszczona przez atakujących hitlerowców dzielnica od lipca 1943 roku stała się terenem działania ekip roboczych zor­ganizowanego tu obozu koncentracyjnego (Konzentrationslager Warschau) i powoli zaczęła zamieniać się w gruzowisko zatracające kształty dawnej zabudowy i przypominające raczej hałdy niż ruiny miasta. So unfortunately, even Davies would not pass muster under WP:EXTRAORDINARY, forget about the fact that Davies cited a source not supporting his text at all - he could only rely on Trzcińska for the fragment. There is good reason then for a negative review by Jan Ciechanowski, who, unlike most other reviewers, who largely praised the book but were puzzled by the peculiar naming convention, did not like it and asserted some pretty grave factual errors. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: I was actually the person who first paid attention to the bizarre contents of the article in question. In 2019, while perusing articles on the Holocaust in occupied Poland, I was stunned to discover that the Polish capital was the site of an “extermination camp”, this one targeting ethnic Poles. An especially sinister part of the camp, the Vernichtungslager, in the article’s terminology, housed an improvised gas chamber in a “tunnel [that] would have been large enough to kill up to 1,000 people at one time, using poison gas like Zyklon B or carbon monoxide”: 2019 version of the article. The notion of another Nazi extermination camp, hereto apparently completely unknown to genocide scholars, would have been ludicrous, had not the myth so easily found its way into Wikipedia. If Norman Davies fell for this conspiracy theory, then that perhaps speaks to his credibility. The story of the article is a blot on Wikipedia's reputation, and we should not sweep it under the rug. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Even the version of the article posted by you mentions that the existence of the extermination camp there is very controversial (exact wording) and clearly put an emphasis on the IPN historians findings, and only mentions Trzcińska theories as existing. Not so long ago it was believed that abour 360 thousands people was killed in the Majdanek concentration camp (postwar estimates were talking about couple millions even), today (since December 2005) we know it was about 78 thousands. But Wikipedia still mentions other estimates, is that a hoax? Marcelus (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @K.e.coffman - This is a perfect analogy!

  Estimated deaths in Majdanek:

  Wikipedia 2003:

  The estimated number of deaths is 360,000 -->[22]

  Wikipedia 2021:

  The official estimate of 78,000 victims -->[23]

  This is exactly what happened with the Warsaw Concentration Camp. New data came to life and the judgments changed. All you discovered K.e.coffman was just a piece of outdated information. Get over it already. Norman Davies didn't fall for any conspiracy theory either, he was relying on data available at the time. End this nonsense invented by the banned Wikipedian, okay? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  One can catch how assessments transform over the years here:

  [24]

  That's what happened at WCC article. There was no hoax or other intentional misinformation delivered to Wikipedia that would make Wikipedia unreliable. K.e.coffman found outdated data and banned Wikipedian flipped that into an intentionally planned misinformation, which was not true. [25] That's all to it. This should be removed from this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. Errors and their correcting happen all the time in science, including history. The article was updated and verified, that's it. Happens every day on Wikipedia in hundreds of articles. I myself around the same time corrected likewise outdated and somewhat nationalitically biased informations in a number of articles, some higher profile (WWII and linked from it) that WWII in Europe begun with the battle of Westerplatte and bombing of Wieluń. The difference is it never crossed my mind to look for some nationalist conspiracy responsible for promoting these narratives, nor to run to a newspaper to try to spread fake news about such conspiracies. Fringe theories were added without sufficient qualifiers, I fixed this with newer sources. Other editors did it for KL Warsaw. Nothin more, nothing less, regular day on Wikipedia, move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  You guys have made your position in previous responses to "Keep" comments; there's not need to repeat them again. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove - A sock-master & his socks, have no credibility. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Remove. First of all, that was not a hoax (a humorous deception), but incorrect information/misiniformation. We have a lot of misinformation on a lot of pages. Was that one "the most long-standing"? If so, that would deserve to be included. But the sources provide ZERO evidence of that (and it would be difficult to prove). Therefore, including the claim about "Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax" would be probably yet another example of including misinformation (or at least distorted information) to WP. Given the enomous waste of time related to this story, I would strongly suggest to remove, simply to minimize disruption to the project. Actually, this is the case when a former contributor who was banned from editing in WP and created sockpuppets is still trying to influence the content, and much worse, to punish other contributors who continue productive editing here. Let's just remove the thing and forget about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether it was a deliberate hoax or an honest mistake is debateable but it's indisputable that there are media sources which describe it as "Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax." Alaexis_¿question? 13:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

No, actually, the article in Haaretz does not really claim it was "Wikipedia's longest-standing hoax". It say this is according to an anonymous user who said he edited as Icewhiz:

The person who first discovered the scale of the distortion – and is now arguing to have it recognized as Wikipedia’s longest hoax – is an Israeli editor dubbed Icewhiz, who refuses to be identified by his real name

.

And this is a patently false claim. That was not a hoax to begin with. Is it something "most long-standing"? There is no any evidence of that either, as typical for all misinformation claims. Just say it, and it will stick.My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The title of the Haaretz article is "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed" and the sub-title is "For over 15 years, false claims that thousands of Poles were gassed to death in Warsaw were presented as fact. Haaretz reveals they are just the tip of an iceberg of a widespread Holocaust distortion operation by Polish nationalists". That doesn't get published without the approval of Haaretz's editors. They are confirming Icewhiz's claims. You really need to stop with this talking point about how this is Icewhiz talking: you can disagree with the conclusion, but it's Haaretz's conclusion, in its own voice. And by the way, it is true. There actually was a 15-year effort to tell a lie about this in Wikipedia... and now to cover it up... Levivich 00:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the publication [26] does confirm that incorrect info was included in WP. However, it is a lot more careful about the "most long-standing hoax". It tells: "for 15 years on the English-language version of Wikipedia in what is said to be Wikipedia’s longest-standing hoax." "is said" by whom? By Icewhiz they explain. So that is claim atrributed to Icewhiz. Not an RS, to say this politely. Actually, this is a typical situation when journalists use a misleading title to make more people to read their article. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia article on the “Warsaw concentration camp” was opened in August 2004, and until it was completely rewritten this past August, it falsely claimed that there was an extermination camp in the Polish capital. The article was translated into a dozen languages, and false bits of information from it permeated other Wikipedia entries on related subjects, gaining over half a million views in English alone. For example, bogus details on alleged prisoner numbers and the death toll found their way to central articles on the Holocaust on Wikipedia. These include “Nazi crimes against the Polish nation” and even the entry “Extermination camp,” where KL Warschau was listed alongside camps like Auschwitz and Majdanek for over 12 years.

The nature of this falsehood – the fact that it’s a well-known conspiracy theory that was deliberately pushed out – alongside the scope of its impact on other articles and their longevity within Wikipedia are what turn the extermination camp at KL Warschau into the longest-running hoax ever uncovered on the online encyclopedia.

It's Haaretz saying it's the "longest running hoax ever". This is not an attributed statement, this is the journalist's own voice, with links to diffs, and two historians quoted. You are flatly misrepresenting the source by saying it's just icewhiz's allegations. Levivich 02:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The page "falsely claimed that there was an extermination camp in the Polish capital". OK, that was "merely" a concentration camp, rather than an extermination camp. Big falsehood? Sure, that needed to be fixed, but why is that so important for you and others? I do not see any reason. There are many other false claims or lies by omission on WP pages in other subject areas. I tried to fix some of them, but could not because some participants objected. There is nothing special about this former little piece of misinformation except Icewhiz trying to make it a big story in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep false claim details, Remove hoax allegations – There is no evidence in the Warsaw article history that indicates the fringe claim was being protected, or that the editor who added it was aware it was even fringe to begin with (other than this 2006 edit getting quickly reverted, of which there are logical explanations for). It's quite reasonable to assume that a book written in 2002 by a Polish judge who served in a prominent position would be taken seriously and seem significant in 2004, particularly in the eyes of a Wikipedia editor that perhaps didn't know any better. The theory that gas chambers existed at the camp also festered in public discourse long before the book was even written. It's a strong allegation to tie this late editor's actions into a form of a hoax, a term that implies intent to mislead. It's somewhat concerning that the source draws this conclusion so easily, especially given the number of reasonable explanations that should be taken into account. This kind of exceptional claim really requires exceptional sources, and as thorough as the Haaretz article is at times, it falls short of being exceptional in this regard.
  With that said, I still think the lengthy run of such an obtrusive claim is noteworthy and significant in the scope of this article. We can retain the knowledge that this occurred without expounding the weak allegations surrounding editor intent and motivations. The source reliably backs the fact that a widely-debunked claim existed for 15 years on Wikpedia; we don't have to use the source for its theories as to why. I would be in favor of keeping the 1st sentence as-is, but then modifying the second to read something along the lines of, "The article was first drafted in August 2004 and presented as fact a fringe theory that the camp contained gas chambers in which 200,000 non-Jews perished, which persisted for 15 years before its eventual removal." A recent RfC also found the source to be reliable by Wikipedia's standards, so we cannot simply disregard the entire source; to do so would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether this was a "hoax" or a simple error, false information regarding the Holocaust was included in a Wikipedia article for more than a decade. In addition, I should point out the previously mentioned WP:COIN thread has been closed [27]. Calidum 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Calidum, appreciate the notice of the COI discussion. Since the hoax claim is part of the text, do you believe that portion should be kept as well? I assume yes but thought I'd ask for the clarification, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on the sources provided, it should be labeled a hoax. But even if it weren't a hoax, it should still be included here given the length of time the misinformation was in the article and the nature of the subject. Calidum 20:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove and Move discussed content to less popular and less core article "List of Wikipedia controversies" per Pabsoluterince or move undue weight per what GoneIn60 said (see also where it was earlier discussed, for example here or here). Dawid2009 (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Remove, it was just a genuine error by amateur part-time editors who edit Wikipedia articles in their spare time, beat up by a media outlet into a conspiracy to commit a "hoax", what ever sells newspapers I guess. The period of time this incorrect information was in the article is irrelevant, until an article has achieved WP:GA status with its review processes (and I don't think this article has achieved that yet) there cannot be any guarantee of reliability. The fact that it took so long is more a function of a lot of articles and insufficient number of editors to address them all in a more timely manner. --Nug (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do not understand that obsession with the "hoax". Sure, WP is not an RS, but everyone knows it already. OK, that was not an "extermination camp", but "only" a "concentration camp". But it still was a place of mass murder by other means, just as many other concentration camps. OK, Nazi did not kill that many people in that place. But it does not change the overall narrative of crimes committed by Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@Starship.paint - please note (polite again) that the 3 references are the same. All revolve around Omer Benjakob's 4 October 2019 Haaretz article - story based on the tale of banned Wikipedian. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: - they're based on the Haaretz article, yes, but they aren't duplicates. It's a conscious effort of the CJN and the TOI to feature the content. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

More sources? [28], in Der Spiegel, [29] in Deutschlandfunk Nova, [30] in Il Post. starship.paint (exalt) 09:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the same thing, all revolve around 4 October 2019 Haaretz article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint - yes, in some sense this is “longstanding”, but so what? That’s not a policy based argument. Frankly, all those instances of this controversy, all of them based on this single Icewhiz source, should have been removed immediately after he was indef banned by WMF from all Wikimedia projects. Especially since these got spammed into all these various places either by him, his sock puppets or his meat puppets. This is just cleaning up a mess that should’ve been cleaned up long ago. Volunteer Marek 09:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek and @Starship.paint @JPxG - It is kind of comical seeing these entries produced all over the place [31] by stale, brand new accounts with 20 edits to their credit [32]. Hey, but that might be just a coincidence. I'm just saying that's entertaining. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - Regarding your edit summary[33]. It is already included in List of Wikipedia controversies here --> [34] where is most likely WP:DUE - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@ Dawid2009 - That being said - the note there ([35]) should be extended.

It should tell that the story was based on the tale of a banned Wikipedian. The certain controversy. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this the Icewhiz thing? This is the goddamn Icewhiz thing, isn't it. jp×g 09:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s the goddamn Icewhiz thing. Volunteer Marek 09:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG - l.o.l. yes - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And that's probably is a good place for it. It was a controversy. Although it also should be a Haaretz controversy (how a newspaper got tricked by an indef banned editor...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

…because Haaretz should care about whether Icewhiz is indeffed? Does the fact you’ve been desysoped for organized attempts to promote particular views about Eastern Europe, and that the people arguing for the removal of this article were almost all part of those efforts, not affect YOUR credibility??—Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich this might violate WP:NPA since it's an argument Ad hominem. I would strike that if I were you. Up to you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A lie – if published in a usually reliable newspaper such as Haaretz, and echoed in any number of other outlets – is still a lie. Nihil novi (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Gentleman, could you please explain a bit more: what is a lie in the Haaretz piece? In so far as I understand these matters, they caught Wikipedia lying. So, who exactly is lying? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Miacek

Give it up Miacek [36]. Volunteer Marek 19:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't !voted, but it's confusing what exactly is being opposed here. Is it just the "hoax" claim? The article is about the overall reliability of Wikipedia, and how false information can linger for a long time unnoticed or unchallenged. This was false information that lingered for 15 years, and no one seems to be disputing that fact. In addition, the content in question is not just some minor detail or fact. It was a bold claim, much more bold than other lengthy hoaxes or false claims listed at WP:HOAXLIST. Regardless if it was an intentional hoax or not (and I'd be fine with removing that part in the absence of an academic source), the notion that it happened seems pretty relevant to this article. What am I missing? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  @GoneIn60 The problem is that the usually accepted RS that "broke" that story is tainted, as it is primarily based on the information that the journalist writing it received from an indef and site-banned editor, who has engaged in real life harassment of others (including myself). He managed to sell his conspiracy theory (presented on Wikipedia to ArbCom and rejected by ArbCom, which banned him, not me...) to Haaretz. From the source in question: "Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war." really don't think Wikipedia should support "granting [a site-indef-banned real life harasser] ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war" Note that I am not opposed to mentioning the error (it was never a hoax, that's another misrepresentation by Icewhiz who tries to suggest the error was added on purpose, there's no proof of that) if we can find a source that doesn't include content that continues Icewhiz campaign of harassment (WP:DFTT, WP:HARASS, Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS, and so on, perhaps even WP:BPL, are applicable here). I think this source, pre-Haaretz, mentions the error is on Wikipedia, hopefully someone can find one that mentions it was removed without repeating the conspiracy theory/fake news about how it got there and Icewhiz's "call to arms" against his wiki-enemies. So in other words, nobody is disputing that the error existed on Wikipedia, the fact is semi-relevant to this article, yes - but the question is, can we use a source that constitutes a campaign of harassment by an indef-banned editor against others? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that summary. It was very helpful, and actually got me interested in reading through some of the past debates on the subject. While I think both sides make captivating arguments, I think it's a mistake to treat inclusion here the same way we should treat it at the other articles where this was debated previously. The scope here is self-referencing: an encyclopedic article that focuses on its own encyclopedic accuracy. It is more difficult to argue in favor of the same WP:UNDUE stance given the change in scope. I'll weigh in further above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2021 (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.

Section reads like an opinion but presented as a fact. Not attributed to a person

The following portion “ What may be missing in academia is the emphasis on critical analysis in regards to the use of Wikipedia in secondary and higher education. We should not dismiss Wikipedia entirely (there are less inaccuracies than there are errors of omission) but rather begin to support it, and teach the use of Wikipedia as an education tool in tandem with critical thinking skills that will allow students to filter the information found on the online encyclopedia and help them critically analyze their findings.”

Reads like a quote or opinion from someone but is presented like a fact. According to whom? HusseinT2000 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Giraffes

Giraffes have 7 bones in there neck 115.69.183.249 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch. I wouldn't stick my neck out like that. --GRuban (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

its a fact theres 7, this is a hox effect "may result from an alteration in the upstream regulators of Hox genes" (sic as ref upcoming), I not sure you say hocks like socks (like I used think) or maybe say hoaks like pokes . This is verbaitam from The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) cervical vertebral column: a heuristic example in understanding evolutionary processes?? N. LUDO BADLANGANA, JUSTIN W. ADAMS, PAUL R. MANGER Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 155, Issue 3, March 2009, Pages 736–757, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2008.00458.x Published: 06 March 2009 on page 754 on the right column about 12 lines down referencing Krumlauf, 1994. There can even be hox crosstalking interactions as per "3 Hox-Hox interactions: auto-regulation, posterior induction and posterior prevalence are of key importance during vertebrate axial patterning. Auto-regulation and posterior induction begin with the first Hox expression, in NOM mesoderm, in the gastrula. They are required for driving the Hox timer to tick tock from very start to finish. Posterior prevalence starts later and is presumably involved in converting the Hox time sequence to a dynamically stable axial pattern.:" Kongju Zhu, Herman P. Spaink world famous cyclist, and team member Antony J. Durston concluded that "the findings above about collinear Hox interactions provide a promising explanation of the mechanism whereby Hox regulation and function underlie vertebrate A-P patterning. Collinear Hox-Hox interactions are involved in patterning the vertebrate anteroposterior (A-P) axis " (sic) (2017) Collinear Hox-Hox interactions are involved in patterning the vertebrate anteroposterior (A-P) axis. let no guff go without backup verifiable references PLOS ONE 12(4): e0175287. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175287 . "Rapid changes in caudal vertebral lengths in mice [from memory this is Irish dormeuses Hibernating in winter but this exact detail {needs ref}] have been reported through selective breeding, in some cases occurring in as little as 7–15 generations " again LUDO BADLANGANA who explain if the giraffes went all out banging bongos "over this 2-Myr period, based on a generation time of 5 years between birth and first parturition in extant female giraffes (Dagg & Foster, 1976), and a generation time of less than 3 years in extant okapi (Bodmer & Rabb, 1992), between 400 000 and 666 666 generations of palaeotragines may have occurred. The lengthening of the cervical region between P. primaevus and P. germaini was in the range of 350–570 mm (calculation based on the derivation of the Cervical Vertebral Length using the equations presented in Figure 5 for the individual cervical vertebra, Table 4, giving CVLs of 988.4 and 511.5 mm, on average, for P. germaini and P. primaevus, respectively), thus requiring an average increase in CVLs of between 0.72 and 1.19 µm per generation to reach extant giraffe proportions in this time period." It is mere speculation and intrique that by chance and chance alone this double devil generation number of 666 666 makes for long necks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.84.191 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Dedicated article on political editing

At the moment we do not have a dedicated article on political editing on Wikipedia, despite this being a recurring theme. I suggest starting one with this text, which contains all of the relevant examples from Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia along with some new content. Suitable names would be "Political editing on Wikipedia" or "Political manipulation on Wikipedia" (cf. Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Vandalism on Wikipedia, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia). François Robere (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do you think can be covered in such an article - please be specific - that cannot be covered here? And we both know the relevant history; Icewhiz and his sock puppets and friends [37] tried to use this article as a vehicle for their harassment campaign. This smacks of an attempt to renew these efforts by creating POVFORKs as vehicles for contentious material. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)