User talk:Remember the dot/Archive/2018

hoax → sting

I notice that you've undertaken an overall revision of these pages but I wonder if it's the right thing to do. Yes, "sting" might be a better word than "hoax", but nearly all of the existing literature (at least, that part I've seen) refers to them as hoaxes. Was there an RFC that I missed? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there wasn't an RFC, but let me explain why it seemed like the right thing to do. List of scholarly publishing hoaxes did not have a clearly defined scope when I rewrote it and added links to it last May,[1] and since then we've still had at least one person try to add off-topic information to the page.[2] The word "hoax" never seemed right and when I realized that the "Chemistry" and "Sociology" sections referred to them as "stings", I decided to switch to that term for clarity. I don't think that the word "hoax" is so entrenched in discussion of this topic that it's more understandable than "sting". However, if you feel really strongly that "hoax" is a better description, we can always change it back. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I agree "sting" is a better descriptive word for the phenomenon, I'm just wondering about the status of the term in the literature at large. I think there could be NPOV issues in the use of one word in preference to the other, too. There have been some attempted hoaxes that were caught and thus failed as stings.

I've said my piece. If nobody else speaks up about it, we should keep it your way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. By the way, the first page of a quick Google search revealed at least two places where the Sokal affair is called a sting:

"In the headlines alone, Sokal's article has been called a hoax, a joke, a sting, an affair, a paródia, a prank, uno sfregio, a spoof, a con, un canular, a fraud (delicious and malicious), a ruckus, la farce parfaite, a Pomolotov Cocktail, a brincadeira, a mystification pédagogic, double-speak, un-atroce beffa, nonsense, gibberish, rubbish, and hokum." —The Sokal Hoax: The Sham that Shook the Academy by Alan D. Sokal

"The Sokal Hoax, also known as the Sokal Affair, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. The hoax was a so-called hoax of exposure. Hoaxes of exposure are semi-comical or private sting operations." —Blog of Morten Tolboll

Until just now I was unaware of the term "hoax of exposure". It might be an even better fit than "sting". What do you think? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like "hoax of exposure" is specialist terminology, but a pretty exact description for what Sokal did. And in looking for "sting", the word "hoax" came earlier in both those hits. We need some input from other editors. The word "hoax" is still used on the Social Text page. I think it's still the dominant word used in sources.

Somewhere, probably in a box of books in storage, I have two copies of the Social Text "Science Wars" issue, one with the Sokal article and one without. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For now, it looks like nobody else has an opinion. Mine is only a very weak objection. Let's keep it your way. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Syntax highlighter: suggestion

Hello, I leaved a suggestion about Syntax highlighter on your Mediawiki's talkpage a month ago. Could you please have a look at it. In advance, thank you. --ContributorQ (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)