Template talk:False version

Custom icon

Possibilities: File:Echo chat icon.svg (ideally in orange), File:Überbildert.svg (ideally without shadow) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Others: File:OOjs UI icon articleCheck-rtl-progressive.svg (but with an at File:OOjs UI icon close-ltr-progressive.svg) comrade waddie96 (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Can be black and white: File:OOjs UI icon articleCheck-rtl.svg comrade waddie96 (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Broader discussion on this template at the Village pump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_should_we_deal_with_false_versions_of_Wikipedia_articles_being_spread_on_social_media?. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wording

So, there has been a big hoo-ha at Recession and Talk:Recession (see the {{Press}} on said talk page for a basic overview). A bunch of newspapers have written articles about this, and a bunch of tweets have gotten mad about this. Most of them are wrong; some are saying stuff that's outright false, and most are referencing an old revision of the article.

This is the general idea behind this template being on the page right now: to alert people that the thing they saw may have been bullshit, and to gently suggest that they double-check it against what they are seeing on the page itself. Last night, I revised some of the wording to make it sound less like a Ministry of Truth announcement, but I am not sure that this has been successful.

I have been browsing some social media sites, and looking at what people are saying about the big hoo-ha. It seems that the template may have (predictably) made things worse. Presumably, many of the people who see it think "damn, I wonder if that screenshot is legit?", look at the article, realize it isn't, and stop being pissed off. This should be taken into account.

However, I can't help but think that it would be possible to write a version of this template's phrasing that did not sound like it came from 1984, Brazil, Brave New World, or the evil company from RoboCop. jp×g 03:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

After looking through some of the mentions of this template, it seems to me that the phrasing was overly vague, making it possible (and likely) that it would convey the exact opposite of the intended message.

What it said

"An outdated or fake version of this article has been widely circulated. Please check if claims or screenshots you've seen are consistent with what's currently here."

• What we thought it said:

"There was a version of this article that was all fucked up, and people have been screenshotting it on Twitter. However, since then, we have fixed it, and it isn't fucked up anymore. Please do not yell at us about how it is wrong."

• What a bunch of people thought it said:

"There was a version of this article from the past, that said something we've now determined to be wrongthink. Please disregard anything you think you remember about what we said, because we have changed the truth to be something different."

To make it more clear what we mean to say, I have amended it to read as follows:

"Some media outlets have circulated an outdated or fake version of this article, claimed to be its current state. Please check if claims or screenshots you've seen are consistent with what's actually here."

Hopefully, this clears things up, although I fear that the original wording of the template may have already caused a few million people to think we are assholes. jp×g 03:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A problem we face is that people will read things in ways we don't want them. Words are hard. So we will have people reading only the first sentence and ignoring the rest of it. Banner blindness and whatnot. imo, say the issue briefly in one sentence, the next one will briefly link to the history tab to encourage self-analysis, and the third will link to the talk page exactly as it is phrased. "Please review the [history page] for a timeline of [Help:Diffs|changes] and compare it with the circulated text." Something like that. It's going to require eloquence and neutrality in the wording. What may even be the case is that the message box is counterproductive, distracting people from verifying the content of the article with the circulated one. Kneejerk reactions from reading the orwellian text will overpower reason, I'm told from my psychiatrist who is currently sitting on my armchair.

Now that I'm thinking on it, the purpose of this template isn't congruous with other content issue templates. There's nothing wrong with *us* here, and I'm questioning if there is harm done to the project--harm that would otherwise not exist without its usage. It's sorta like trying to not draw attention to yourself.

People were going to Recession to verify the claims (which is actually good on them). If we let them verify it and not distract them, well? Should we make our collective MO to not get involved with petty things? I have no idea and I'm very tired! SWinxy (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@SWinxy Many people, possibly even a majority, seem to have been going to the article not to verify the claims but to edit it. While some might have ended up noticing that they were mislead, the activity on related pages seemingly caused by recession's protection indicates to me that there are many that wouldn't have. I agree that the template should attempt to avoid banner blindness and communicate the message simply, quickly, and clearly, but unfortunately words are hard and there might not be a way to do all three of those things. PhantomTech[talk] 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this template (created by Skdb) until I saw a post about it on social media yesterday. I take JPxG's point about the need for careful wording. But I think there may still be a number of issues that need addressing. Firstly, despite the template shopping it, there is no date automatically appearing with this template where it is in use at Recession and at this test page, which I think is essential. (How long ago was it added?; how long need it stay etc? A date is important to understand context of any notice)

I take SWinxy's point about encouraging use of the History tab and talk page to understand what's going on.

Then there's the concern that I could create a false version of the article which does contain this template and still share it for malicious reasons. How would that be viewed, I wonder? And if there are multiple screenshots of this page in which the template itself is seen to be changing all the time, how does that look? Would it not be better to agree a preferred form of wording here first, whilst remembering that it is designed for multiple pages, not just the current issue surrounding the article 'Recession'.

Once changes have been discussed and consensus found that is relevant to most envisaged uses, then the Template Documentation may also need updating. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)