 | This page documents an English Wikipediacontent guideline. Editors should generally follow it, thoughexceptions may apply.Substantive edits to this page should reflectconsensus. When in doubt, discuss first onthis guideline's talk page. |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
| Wikipedia guidelines | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioral | |||
| |||
| Content | |||
| Editing | |||
| |||
| Style | |||
| Deletion | |||
| Project content | |||
| Other | |||
| Search | |||
Do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia. Doing so would damage Wikipedia and your reputation. Ahoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Since Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", it has been abused to create hoaxes.
Please do not attempt to putdisinformation into Wikipedia totest our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours of being created. However, some very sophisticated hoaxes, such as articles about made-up historical individuals with detailed biographical information and fake references, have lasted for several years before being detected. These hoax articleshurt the reputation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
It has been tried, tested, and confirmed: it is indeed possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia, just as it is possible toinsert profanity (it's an uncensored encyclopedia, after all). This is an inevitable consequence of being afree encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A hoax is simply a more obscure, less obvious form ofvandalism, and perpetrators of hoaxes are subject toblocking andbanning.
Disinformation on Wikipedia misleads readers, causing them to make errors with real-world consequences, including hurt feelings, public embarrassment,[1] reprints of books,[2] lost points on school assignments, and other costs. Some hoaxes about living people may be defamatory, which could expose Wikipedia to legal consequences (seeWikipedia:Biographies of living persons). With some articles, like medical topics (COVID-19 for instance), they could even lead to injury or death. Additionally, maintaining and improving hoax articles requires resources that volunteers could be dedicating to useful topics. Although it is important to read Wikipedia critically and to try to improve the reliability of its content, it is best to do this directly, by correcting false information, rather than by "testing" the system by creating a hoax article or content to see if Wikipedia will detect the hoax.
If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. Put simply,don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Wikipedia requires material to beverifiable to a reliable published source. If challenged, the burden is on the original author to prove the claims in the article. Thus, it is futile to try to continue a hoax once it is under scrutiny of Wikipedia editors if the general population does not already believe it external to Wikipedia. Moreover, if a hoaxer has already successfully tricked the public, then they need not create an article themselves; someone else will do it.
Wikipedia does have articlesabout notable hoaxesdescribing themas hoaxes, such asPiltdown Man or theWar of the Worlds broadcast. Wikipedia also has encyclopedia articlesabout notable hoaxes that have formerly existed on Wikipedia (such asJar'Edo Wens hoax orHenryk Batuta hoax). This is completely different from an article presenting a hoax as factual.
For example, this is ahoax:
A memorable and crowded meeting of theGeological Society was held in Burlington House,London, on December 18, to hear a paper read "On the Discovery of aPaleolithicHumanSkull andMandible in a Flint-bearing Gravel overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) atPiltdown, Fletching (Sussex),)" byCharles Dawson, F.S.A., F.G.S., andArthur Smith Woodward, LL.D... ProfessorG. Elliot Smith was called on to give an account of his investigation on the cast of thecranial cavity, and he pointed out that, while the general shape and size of thebrain was human, the arrangement of the meningeal arteries was typicallysimian, as was a deep notch in theoccipital region; he regarded it as the most ape-like human brain of which we have any knowledge... There can be no doubt that this is a discovery of the greatest importance and will give rise to much discussion. It is the nearest approach we have yet reached to a "missing link," for whatever may be the final verdict as to the systemic position ofPithecanthropus erectus, probably few will deny thatEoanthropus Dawsoni is almost if not quite as much human as simian. The recent discoveries of human remains... are demonstrating thatseveral races of man lived in paleolithic times, and we may confidently look forward to new finds which will throw fresh light upon theevolution of man.[3]
While this is the start of anarticle about a hoax:
ThePiltdown Man was a paleoanthropologicalhoax in whichbone fragments were presented as thefossilised remains of a previously unknownearly human. These fragments consisted of parts of askull andjawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit atPiltdown, East Sussex, England. TheLatin nameEoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collectorCharles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as aforgery, consisting of the lowerjawbone of anorangutan deliberately combined with thecranium of a fully developedmodern human. ThePiltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of humanevolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.[4]
Like anything else, a hoax must benotable to be covered in Wikipedia—for example, a hoax may have received sustained media attention, been believed by thousands of people including academics, or been believed for many years.Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.
If you see an article or image that may be a hoax, mark it with{{hoax}} or{{image hoax}} andlist it for deletion discussion. If it is indeed found to be a hoax, it is appropriate to warn the user with{{uw-hoax}}.
Hoaxes are generallynotspeedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as{{db-hoax}}.
Also, completely implausible text may be legitimate descriptions of fictional works that use aninappropriate in-universe style. Use"What links here" to check if this is the case, and if so rewrite the article in the out-of-universe perspective, or tag the article with{{in-universe}} or{{fiction}}.
This is a list of known historical hoaxes that have been created on Wikipedia. Its purpose is to document hoaxes on Wikipedia, in order to improve our detection and understanding of them. It is considered a hoax if it was a clear or blatant attempt to make up something, as opposed tolibel or afactual error. A hoax is considered notable if it evaded detection for more than one month or was discussed byreliable sources in the media. This list is incomplete, as it is probable that many hoaxes on Wikipedia remain undiscovered.