Talk:Sinbad (comedian)/Death hoax

message: As I am locked from editing this page, can someone remove the FindArticles spam hidden in the references section? Thanks. --FeldBum 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  --  Zanimum 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam

message: If we minded our  attribution rules this would not happen. If you see an unsourced death, revert it until someone provides a source that is verifiable. Dominick (TALK) 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is true, but so far as we know, no admin saw this edit until it was reverted.  --  Zanimum 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: There's a USDA office, and a Resource & Conservation office in the area.  --  Zanimum 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Per Jensbn's request, I've restored the deleted entries - which I initially deleted after a request to do so to stop people from viewing the incorrect entry - and moved them a subpage of this talk page. The current version redirects to the talk page, but the 9 entries which I deleted are available in the history. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a better link to the deleted edits. MisfitToys 21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted edits available

message: I don't have the authority to do anything but warn the vandals, which I will. Most of the IPs have been used before for vandalism. But there are a few problems with blocking them now.2 of the IPs (User:12.32.91.80 and User:204.99.250.45) are from office supply stores in the Chicago area, indicating that someone went to a few stores to mess around with the pages on the demonstration computers. Another (User:167.206.128.33) is a college address in New York, meaning its likely at least somewhat dynamic, at least year to year, or another public PC. The other addresses are apparently single people, and I suggest an administrator do something about them. Consensus?--CastAStone|(talk) 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree completelyT 
ALK•QRC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take a risk and semi it.  --  Zanimum 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with the Vandals. 

message: Thanks to the recently posted hoax, Wikipedia has been "proven" yet again as a "unreliable source."
Theophany 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is, in itself, a unreliable source. Otherwise, articles would reference other articles in Wikipedia. By the way, new comments go to the bottom. -- ReyBrujo 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the media has grossly exaggerated the issue. It would be fair to blame wikipedia if the hoax had gone unnoticed and uncorrected for a fair amount of time, but the fact is that the hoax was discovered and corrected within an hour. I doubt many people actually had a chance to read the hoaxed article in that interval. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a single news source that actually read the article in its hoaxed state before it was corrected. From what I understand, the malicious hoaxer forwarded the article to the media, but specifically only the link to the by then already outdated article in the vandalised state, and no doubt because he knew his hoax would very soon be discovered and corrected, as in fact happened. What this whole thing really says about wikipedia is that while it can potentially be abused by anyone, its self-correcting abilities are remarkably quick in reverting vandalism and hoaxes. The only reason some wikipedians feel embarassed is that we're used to Wikipedia correcting that sort of abuse in minutes or even seconds. This slip took more than an hour to correct, but that's still nothing to be ashamed of. Jens Nielsen 16:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone with a clue already knew (beyond doubt) that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable.  If there were people who didn't already know that, then their learning of it via publicity over this event is a good thing.  And for people to learn how quickly the error was detected and corrected, that's a good things, too. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saw the news on Yahoo! a while ago. /i didn't even notice anything wrong with the article when I peered over it. Wikipedia itself is not reliable because of the lack of sources on some pages, but nevertheless it is a reliable source to many. Nescio sed Scio 00:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because we fixed it.  --  Zanimum 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Given that this hoax will be noted as one of Wikipedia's worst moments, we should probably include a section in the article about it due to the intense media attention regarding this hoax. Jonyyeh 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my first instinct is no, because it will encourage more vandalism.  however, that would be censorship. also, considering the amount of recent change patrol people, 72 minutes, and the news coverage, it is significant in the fact that out of the 1000s of vandalisms per day, this one had quite an effect. the_undertow talk 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it big enough news-wise to be put into the article. Jordan 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The John Seigenthaler, Sr. article mentions the wikipedia controversy involving him. Why not this one? Dr. Morbius 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see news coverage about Wikipedia vandalism almost every month on Google Technology News. This isn't anything special, just another black eye for Wikipedia.  SeLfkiLL 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  (And it isn't even that black an eye -- "there's no such thing as bad publicity".)  There's no need whatsoever for a paragraph in the article, nor for us to feel any particularly egregious sense of shame or embarrassment over this. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've got to admit this is something different though.  Did previous hoxes rate Snopes articles: , toplined CNN "Buzz" stories: , multiple Fox News cites:  and  (plus more), and Reuters: ?  Sinbad has been effectively off the radar for years, and now all of a sudden he's receiving massive attention. - Richfife 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section About the Hoax should be included in the article