Common names invented on Wikipedia

[Bbb23sucks]

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/common- ... edia/47269

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... es_of_fish

[boredbird]

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/common- ... edia/47269

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... es_of_fish

Bumping this because your thread title doesn't do it justice.

[Bbb23sucks]

Another thread: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/definit ... s/48759/12

Seems like circular referencing is happening too.

[ericbarbour]

So the point is; someone invents a name for a fish species and posts it on the WP article, it ends up on a "WP mirror" called inaturalist, and no one noticed for TWO YEARS? When someone does notice, "indefinite block for vandalism"? As far as I can tell, most of Alomomola's "common names" were properly sourced.

I've seen similar things before. Sometimes the "false info" is fixed and sometimes it sits on WP for years. And sometimes it's very difficult to determine if it's "false" or true. This is why I tell people, if you ReALLY wanna fuck with WP nitwits, write articles based on dead-tree book sources they can't google up.

[boredbird]

So the point is; someone invents a name for a fish species and posts it on the WP article, it ends up on a "WP mirror" called inaturalist, and no one noticed for TWO YEARS? When someone does notice, "indefinite block for vandalism"? As far as I can tell, most of Alomomola's "common names" were properly sourced.

I've seen similar things before. Sometimes the "false info" is fixed and sometimes it sits on WP for years. And sometimes it's very difficult to determine if it's "false" or true. This is why I tell people, if you ReALLY wanna fuck with WP nitwits, write articles based on dead-tree book sources they can't google up.

We have no idea if it's true, so let's keep it until someone comes along with a source which says otherwise.