Wikipedia talk:Fictitious references

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

AI Cleanup

This page is within the scope of WikiProject AI Cleanup, a collaborative effort to clean up artificial intelligence-generated content 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.AI CleanupWikipedia:WikiProject AI CleanupTemplate:WikiProject AI CleanupAI Cleanup articles

This is pure instruction creep

Since links to this proposal were (prematurely) added to several other guidelines, I guess it's open for discussion.

What is the point of this? If a reference is fictitious, it obviously doesn't pass WP:V. There is nothing special about someone trying to use "fictitious" sources that would lead to WP:CSD or WP:AFD any faster than if no sources were used. If someone persists, we have WP:DISRUPT to deal with them. This proposal seems to be simply instruction creep, and thus I must oppose it. Anomie ⚔ 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:V, or at the least WP:COMMONSENSE should definitely establish that falsifying references to add otherwise unverifiable information or fake notability is wrong. This is unnecessary. Mr.Z-man 03:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you two seem suspiciously sure of yourselves ... how can we know you're not just defending your fictitious references? :p II | (t - c) 04:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be made in to an essay. No need for this at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the page to contain more emphasis that it's deliberate provision of false information that's being talked about. Having said that, I agree with Jossi that it could be left as an essay. We already have enough policy against deliberately adding untruths - this is just a particularly annoying subset of it, along with the people who change a referenced point without altering the reference that is attached, the number change vandals, and all the others. Why do we need yet more policy? Pseudomonas_(talk) 08:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has large overlap with WP:RS in its current state - what it amounts to is, don't add sources in a bad-faith attempt to lend false credence to a topic. This makes sense, but in practice I think it would be quite difficult to distinguish those who introduce bad-faith refs from those who screw up good-faith refs. A pattern would have to be identified and the users treated on a case-by-case basis. As such, no general policy appears to be required. Dcoetzee 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I have written about in here are situations that I have observed myself. For example, one editor had his/her own blog, disguised it as a newspaper, wrote whatever s/he pleased in it, and used it to source various information as fact. Sebwite (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be left as an essay - pure creep to make a policy or guideline. Happy‑melon 15:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, merge it as an example of vandalism. That's what it is, after all... Rossami (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this falls quite neatly into the "Introducing deliberate factual errors" type of vandalism, and can be handled as such, using Template:uw-error etc. --Slashme (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news

This should be updated to include fake news. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]