Talk:SCIgen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On May 30 2005 this page was nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SCIgen for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of See also section
I deleted the "See also" section, which consisted only of a link to the Sokol Affair. Since the Sokol article was not randomly generated, and since there is no evidence in this article that SCIgen has ever been used for a similar hoax (that is, with real intent to deceive--the hoax mentioned was 'fessed up right away, and was not for publication), I really don't see any relationship between the two. Furthermore, the inclusion implies something that is not the case--that the Sokol hoax was as obvious as would be a SCIgen article submitted to a scholarly publication. On the contrary, Sokol went out of his way to make his hoax believable, which the "Rooter" article did not. Incidentally, a source should be cited for that information. Chick Bowen 22:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- It belongs there. See also doesn't mean they're exactly the same thing. Just that maybe you'd like to read about this too. Which is another hoax used to point fingers at people for sloppy reviewing of academic papers. If you'd like, you might add a bit explaining the differences between the two hoaxes, but I don't see why an internal link is wrong. NickelShoe 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wild card?
I remember reading somewhere that the conference in addition to review papers had a few wild-card slots, and this paper was accepted as a wild card. That may not be true, but if it is, it should be included in the article. I just have no idea where I read it--it could have been about a different event. But if it really was accepted as a wild card, I'd say the conference is off the hook. NickelShoe 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, it was accepted as a "non-reviewed" paper. This information is in the article, though not prominently. SpuriousQ 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
