This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Possibilities: File:Echo chat icon.svg (ideally in orange), File:Überbildert.svg (ideally without shadow) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
To make it more clear what we mean to say, I have amended it to read as follows:
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)
PhantomTech[
talk
09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)This template was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Possibilities: File:Echo chat icon.svg (ideally in orange), File:Überbildert.svg (ideally without shadow) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
To make it more clear what we mean to say, I have amended it to read as follows:
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)
PhantomTech[
talk
09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)