Talk:SCIgen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 30 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[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used for a similar hoax (that is, with real intent to deceive--the hoax mentioned was 'fessed up right away, and was not for publication), I really don't see any relationship between the two.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)
[edit] Page Down?
was anybody able to see the page in the last couple of months? i always get a "(110) Connection timed out"
