Talk:Hoax

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcjacks6. Peer reviewers: Elizatangen98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me guess...

...this article is one that often has false information on it. Colabcalub (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia and Georgia political hoax

' "On Saturday 13 March 2010 the Imedi television station in Georgia broadcast a false announcement that Russia had invaded Georgia." '

Given the history between the two countries, this sounds less like a hoax and suspiciously like the TV station jumped the gun over something and then tried the old "I was just trolling all along, lol" schtick. Are we sure it deserves a place here? --164.71.1.221 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Wikipedia hoax

The article I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax describes how a college prank, wherein two students added bogus text to the Amelia Bedelia article back in 2009, and which was taken as gospel truth (having never been removed by any other WP editors), to the point of being quoted as fact in several serious publications. WP user Milowent appears in the article as an "expert on Internet hoaxes". It might be useful to mention the article on this page or on a related page. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have redacted part of this comment per WP:BLP, as described on Talk:Amelia Bedelia. 9kat (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Regional Hoaxes

I just found a region, which has some Wikipedia articles which are only relevant by a specific region. If I publish an article about a Hoaxes in this region, how could I add this article to the existing one? Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirect of Fake news

For those who are interested, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Fake news (disambiguation) about whether Fake news should redirect to Fake news (disambiguation) or Hoax. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Media Hoaxes and Fake News

Paragraph 2 and 3 of this section should be reviewed. Postconfused (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Opening definition is too broad

Here is the opening definition that I found:

A hoax is a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth.

This definition is too broad, since both frauds and fakes are deliberately fabricated to masquerade as truth.

The OED says that a hoax is

a humorous or mischievous deception, usually taking the form of a fabrication of something fictitious or erroneous, told in such a manner as to impose upon the credulity of the victim.

In this definition it is the last clause that is the most important, because it indicates that the representations of a hoax always involve things that people are willing to believe reflexively, without evidence; frauds and fakes, on the other hand, are developed so as to withstand all but the most diligent efforts at verification or authentication.

The first part of the definition, however, is too narrow, since hoaxers do not always have mischief as their, for some hoaxers may wish to discredit others, some to promote a cause, some for profit.

When we think of the Piltdown Man hoax, the Alan Sokal Affair, the Cardiff Giant, I, Libertine, and Jussie Smollett, for instance, it seems that two other characteristics are distinctive of hoaxes.

First, a hoax is usually submitted to universal public attention so as to excite the interest and passions of people of the most varied social classes who can be counted on to treat the representations as of the highest import.

Second, a hoax is meant to entrap persons and institutions of high repute who can be counted on to vie with one another in putting whatever form of social credit or influence they have in the service of the hoax.

I therefore propose this definition:

A hoax is a widely publicized falsehood so fashioned as to invite reflexive, unthinking acceptance by the greatest number of persons of the most varied social identities and of the highest possible social pretensions to gull their victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax.

The definition as it stands at present is followed by this statement:

It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment, rumors, urban legends, pseudosciences, and April Fools' Day events that are passed along in good faith by believers or as jokes.

There is no point at all in using things that bear no relation whatever to hoaxes to help characterize it concretely. After all, errors aren't intentional, most people are aware that rumors are rumors, nobody takes urban legends so seriously as to stake their reputations on them, people quickly realize that an April Fools' Day prank is a prank, and no matter how many sceptics try to debunk pseudo-sciences, true believers will never accept their arguments.

Hoaxes are related, as I pointed out, to frauds and fakes and scams, which people do take seriously, but whose creators devise their falsehoods to withstand scrutiny. Thus after the definition I think this would be proper:

Whereas the promoters of frauds, fakes, and scams devise them so that they will withstand the highest degree of scrutiny customary in the affair, hoaxers are confident, justifiably or not, that their representations will receive no scrutiny at all. They have such confidence because their representations belong to a world of notions fundamental to the victims' views of reality, but whose truth and importance they accept without argument or evidence, and so never question.

Some hoaxers intend eventually to unmask their representations as in fact a hoax so as to expose their victims as fools; seeking some form of profit, other hoaxers hope to maintain the hoax indefinitely, so that it is only when sceptical persons willing to investigate their claims publish their findings that at last they stand revealed as hoaxers.

I think my definition and epitome touch upon all the most salient characteristics of hoaxes.Wordwright (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely prose of a high calibre, but I oppose on grounds of WP:TECHNICAL . Someone who is seeking to understand what a hoax is is not going to understand what is meant by "gull their victims into putting up the highest possible social currency in support of the hoax." I did a double take when I saw the page personally.

Could you explain why the phrase "most varied social identities and of the highest possible social pretensions" is necessary? This seems more like a specific scholar's opinion of what exactly a hoax is, rather than an introduction to the concept. Something like (roughly) "...A falsehood deliberately constructed so as to receive widespread attention, while plausible enough to be taken as truth within a large segment of a society or population." might get across your point more aptly?

I also disagree that it does not need to be distinguished from other concepts relating to deceptive events. Anecdotally, things such as urban legends and pranks are often called hoaxes in common discourse. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead verbose

The lead is written verbosely. Should be rewritten to be more plain. seefooddiet (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. BorgQueen (talk) 05:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)