Wikipedia talk:List of citogenesis incidents

Roger Moore

I saw Roger Moore had recently been added to this page, I can't find a reference to it in the source. Googleing doesn't provide any references to back up the citogenesis story. I did however find several references Ranker.com, Durham student newspaper, Durham Student page, Durham University powerpoint, Durham university newspaper, Durham university accomodation, Interview with roger moore (not a quote) and Durham newspaper. I didn't just remove the claim because none of these which are dated predate the alleged date of April 2007. Should it be removed?SPACKlick (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bridesmaids ward off evil spirits

Saw this pop up on reddit, and did some digging. The original reference here on WP dates from 2005, but there's been a 'citation needed' flag since at least 2013 (before then, it was sourced to Encyclopedia Brittanica, which makes no reference of the 'Roman Law' at all). I've seen the same 'tradition' referenced on any number of wedding-related websites, but none of them offer any evidence or citation, and the substantially similar phrasing leads me to believe they picked it up from here. Given the lack of evidence over a 10-year span, I'm deleting that part of the section, but I wonder if we could pursue this as another citogenesis case. PublicolaMinor (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is quite likely misinformation (at least in the form it was stated), but appears not to be an actual case of citogenesis - see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Bridesmaid#Citogenesis.--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

History of video game consoles - a sui generis

I would say the "generational" periodization of video game consoles is not really an example of citogenesis, but rather of unintentional original research (though perhaps necessary, in an IAR sense). This seems very different from the other examples listed here, though there may be parallels with Wikipedia accidental trailblazing in other fields of lumpers and splitters.--Pharos (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I just came here because I came to the same conclusion. This isn't an example of "citogenesis", but an example of "trend setting". Dividing historical progress into sections (generations) isn't a reproduction of facts in form of words, but a creation which can be adapted or not. In this case it is adapted from wikipedia. There was no "wrong source" which was cited, and where the citation was used as a reference for the wrong source. There just wasn't a wrong source at all, just an effort to classify video game consoles. --Aszazin (talk) 20:55, 12 Februari 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added it now in Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents#Terms that became real, as it makes more sense now that there is a section to give entries like this some context.--Pharos (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Einstein's ghost parade

A possible rare spotting of citogenesis in the wild!--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Microrape

I'm beginning to highly suspect that "microrape" over on Microaggression theory is another example of citogenesis. All roads appear to lead back to Wikipedia. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Article layout

This list has grown quite a bit recently - has anybody got any good ideas for organising the examples clearly? Also, I think we need to be clear about real examples of citogenesis rather than just examples of reputable outlets citing false claims from Wikipedia. To combat this I think each example should include complete references to the 3 stages of citogenesis: 1) The first version of the Wikipedia article with the false claim and no citation, 2) The source that used the false claim (presumably with reference to Wikipedia) and 3) The version of the Wikipedia article that cited that source for the claim. It shouldn't be too difficult to find all of these links for a genuine example of citogenesis. --ChrisSampson87 (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Selfie-related Injuries and Deaths

The list on Wikipedia has frequently cited sources which cite an article by private company/web scraper Priceonomics. While arguably reliable sources do cite the report, the report itself is citing Wikipedia for its graphs. The lead also cites The Telegraph, which links directly back to the lead. These sources have remained despite criticism during an AfD, and are significant in establishing Notability. Others with the same issue have been removed, though not, it seems, for citogenesis. Fiachaire (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Phil Knight's 2nd daughter?

See this discussion. How do we confirm one way or the other? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dave Gorman reference

I'm not sure whether or not this reference is adequate, I've had limited experience using the content of stand-up comedy routines. I found a transcript of the relevant section of the show

1:58
I...I know from my own experience that Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source
2:02
Recently I was looking myself up, on Wikipedia. not in a horribly egotistical way.
2:08
Basically, somebody had asked me a question about myself, and I didn't know the answer.
2:14
and I ... I thought that Wikipedia would, right?. So, basically someone said "oh what year did you do such-and-such a thing in?"
2:22
Right? so I'm trying to find this on my Wikipedia page and what I found is that on my Wikipedia page it says...
2:28
"Gorman took a break from stand-up to undertake a sponsored hitchhike around the pacific rim countries"
2:35
And that is a thing that hasn't happened. I'm pretty sure I would remember if I'd done that, obviously.
2:42
Sounds quite nice, but I didn't do it. Now I understand, sometimes people vandalise Wikipedia pages for fun or
2:49
for satirical effect, like Recently I saw on Bobby Davro's Wikipedia page that he was best known for his work as the
2:55
inventor of Bovril. Right, now ... you know that's not true. You know someone's being funny, they're being silly,
3:03
they're being satirical. You understand where that has come from. But in that case, it's not obvious where the satiric
3:11
intent is. It's not absurd, it's not a dig at me unless ... unless hitching around the pacific rim is some kind of sexual innuendo
3:18
that I've ... i've never heard of and weirdly now that I've just said that, it is. But...But I thought well if I use
3:26
Wikipedia as a reference I'm sure other people do as well so I googled my name and pacific rim and hitchhike
3:33
just to see if I could find anyone repeating this fallacy as a truth. And I found this in the Northern Echo.
3:40
And they were writing something nice about this show as it goes, but in there they have repeated as a fact that I have
3:45
hitchhiked around the pacific rim countries. and I ... I haven't but that's a ... that's a Darlington Newspaper with about
3:51
30,000 Readers. That's 30,000 potential Darlingtonians who think I've actually done that. Now I don't really know
3:58
how Wikipedia works. I... I thought I'd mention it on Twitter, see if I could discover more, so I... I sent out a tweet
4:03
Basically saying "I've never hitchhiked around the pacific rim countries,I've just discovered that Wikipedia says I have.
4:09
& so has at least 1 newspaper" and within 5 minutes, 10 minutes people were telling me about other places where it was
4:17
being cited as a fact. Right, that is a Radio Interview website and that is a...a Cambridge Newspaper both of them have
4:24
repeated the idea that I've hitchhiked around the Pacific Rim. Then I get a tweet from someone telling me that it has
4:30
just been deleted, I assume he was the person who had deleted it. So I went to look at the page and sure enough, it had
4:36
been removed from my page. So I...I left it. I just moved on with my life. Except a couple of days later Mrs Gorman
4:42
alerted me to the fact that that fact had been reinstated. Someone's gone and put it back in. But this time... this time
4:50
They've added a footnote. Someone's basically gone 'Someone's taken my fact out. I'm going to put that back in and I'm gonna
4:58
provide a reference so they can see I wasn't making it up.' But do you know where that reference takes you to? The Northern Echo!
5:06
You've got a lie chasing a lie, chasing a lie, around the world forevermore. And the more people who believe that, the truer
5:13
it gets. At some point they should just start saying "I had a really great time" i mean "It was wonderful"

Here is the Northern Echo article from September 2014. The original insert was January 2014 and I can find no source earlier than the Northern Echo. so it does appear to be citogenesis.

Ysolo Mons

This isn't exactly an example of citogenesis, but it's related, and example of Wikipedia nonsense leaking out into the real world, and it was suggested to me that you folks would want to hear about it. Since 2012 our list of harvest festivals has the following hoax entry:

Ysolo: festival marking the first day of harvest of eggplants in Tirana, Albania

Last year the NASA Dawn photographed the surface of Ceres, and harvest-related names were chosen for some of Ceres’ geographical features. A mountain near Ceres’ north pole is now officially named Ysolo Mons, after this spurious eggplant festival. (See [1][2][3].) The mountain itself (which is not a hoax) now appears in Italian Wikipedia.

The hoax entry seems to have spread from Wikipedia to a single-sentence mention in International Harvest Festivals and Celebrations, a November 2013 blog entry. From there it made its way into the official nomenclature. —Mark Dominus (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I just received email from USGS that they agree with my assessment and that they are changing the name of the mountain to Yamor Mons. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That is happy for you but not use-able in WP. We work here based on reliable sources and an email you received is not a reliable source, nor is your statement that you received it. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought you'd be interested, and you might want to follow it up yourselves. (Also: [4] —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The USGS page says "Name changed from Ysolo Mons on December 7, 2016, to correct an error." This is a reliable source. This date matches Mark Dominus's postings on this talk page and at Talk:List of harvest festivals and at Talk:List of hoaxes, which makes it more than likely that this change was as as result of his research. Also, while there is not absolute proof that the website originally cited by USGS was based on a Wikipedia hoax, no sources have been found that predate the relevant Wikipedia posting and the USGS page supports the conclusion that the harvest festival claim is spurious. We do not need absolute proof to criminal justice standards, we can exercise editorial judgement. I suspect the evidence is stronger evidence than for many of the incidents listed here and I think it merits mention. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The two ends of an egg are named the aerus and the taglion

This Wikipedia hoax seems to have propagated into a 2012 article in the Research Journal of Poultry Sciences: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/363654/specific-words-for-narrow-and-fat-ends-of-eggs/363655#363655 —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Samurai Jack

Talk:Samurai_Jack_(season_5)#Circular_sourcing. Anonymous contributor to Wikipedia claims a voice actor at a convention did not confirm or deny their involvement in a project. Six months later two journalists report that the voice actor did confirm their involvement in the project at the convention. One of these reports was used on Wikipedia to cite that the actor did not confirm or deny their involvement in the project at the convention. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Wotherington

As explained at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Stanley Wotherington, the addition of “Stanley Wotherington” to the article might be a citogenesis incident since all sources came after the name’s addition to the article. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Crystallogens

I am a bit worried about this term (used to mean chemical elements in group 14 of the periodic table), most especially since I appear to have unwittingly gotten involved in its chain of transmission via assuming a little too much good faith. The article on group 14 was created on French Wikipedia by an anonymous IP in January 2006 with the title cristallogène, which translates indeed to crystallogen, as created on English Wiktionary by SemperBlotto (then already an established editor, and after all previously an industrial chemist) in June 2012. I added it as a redirect that September, assuming that there were references for it elsewhere that were not online; on that basis I also added it to this illustration of trivial names for groups in February 2013, together with icosagen which did indeed have a real reference (Greenwood and Earnshaw, 2nd edition, p. 227). However, I am now increasingly doubtful that such references ever existed: the one source I can find predating 2012 for it is a single patent from 2009–2010 (and, this postdating 2006, and having an organisation with a French name as an assignee, this may after all be traced back to the French entry).

Now, on the other hand, you will find lots and lots of references to this term in a multitude of reliable sources, for example:

• Micro Energy Harvesting (2015), published by Wiley-VCH and referencing "Properties of Crystallogens (group 14)" on p. 106;
• this paper (2015): "At this temperature, crystallogen sulfides (ie sulfur with element of the carbon group) are quite volatile";
• this paper (2014): "More recently, the carbon atom substitution was pushed further and the next crystallogen element, germanium, attracted attention..."
• this paper (2013): "where A is larger alkaline earth or rare earth cations, B is smaller crystallogen or pnictogen..."
• this paper (2015): "Silicon belongs to the crystallogen family and is the most abundant element in the earth's crust after oxygen..."

...and yet more courtesy of Google Scholar.

I think it's too late to do anything now about this; for better or worse, even if crystallogens didn't use to mean it, it now really does mean "the elements of group 14". And it did fill what was previously an odd lexical gap (the names pnictogens, chalcogens, and halogens for groups 15, 16, and 17 are IUPAC-approved, and Greenwood and Earnshaw lists the proposed name icosagens for group 13 on p. 227; adamantogens for group 14, listed by W. B. Jensen, never seems to have gotten any following), so evidently chemists now feel the need for such a term. In this sense this is a rather benign example of citogenesis (if it is one, which seems to be rather likely), similar to the numbering of video game generations, as it filled a gap and was found useful by reliable sources (furthermore, it is etymologically sound). Still, it violated WP:NOR and I regret having been part of its progress (in my defense, not then knowing that it was original research). This having been nearly six years ago, I think I've quite painfully learned my lesson to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to uncited and not obviously citable material. m(_ _)m Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Given that most references still seem to use the term in its well-attested earlier and unrelated meanings, I think that this is probably salvageable; I have removed references to it as a term, except as a rare alternative name in group (periodic table). Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

...and asked on French Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there things we should do?

The "unreasonable effectiveness" of Wikipedia at spreading made-up misinformation is distressing sometimes. Besides fixing the references and documenting the problem on article talk pages, is there anything we should do, in the article perhaps, to alert readers that the article has had this effect on what they may be finding outside, perhaps referencing the places with misinformation as having copied from Wikipedia? Without such comments, it seems unlikely that the misinformation will damp out. And if we know about such issues, should we list them on the WP page here, or only the "well-documented" ones that have already been externally discussed? As example, look up Sir Malcolm Thornhill, who made the first cardboard box in 1817, as you can verify in multiple books and tons of web pages. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It is of course not just a Wikipedia problem, it existed before the Internet, as newspaper reporters (once) used the morgue file as their main source of backstory. These days, it's probably Wikipedia for both news reporters and website writers, so we've inherited the problem.

IMO the solution is to promote critical reading. See User:Andrewa/if the rocket's gonna crash. Wikipedia cannot singlehandedly eliminate ignorance, let alone stupidity. We can and do help a lot with the ignorance part of the problem, but there's a certain amount of uncertainty involved, and we can't eliminate that either.

Of more concern to me is the inevitable use of artificial intelligence to insert spin into our articles. It is already very powerful, and you ain't seen nothin' yet. Again, that's not just our problem, but the only long-term solution I know is to use it ourselves. Scary stuff. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Slate

[5] Benjamin (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nominate Casio F-91W

WP editor inserts random statistic about Casio's F-91W watch. Factoid gets picked up by several news sources. NickCT (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Link to a relevant article [6]; look for the second story on the webpage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Julius Pringles

A user on Twitter has claimed that the Pringles mascot's name is Julius Pringles because they "named him on Wikipedia in 2006 and it caught on".

This story does in fact appear to check out.

Adroitwhiz (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There's now two cites for this, from the Pringles article: Input and Mashable Flyne (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this really citogenesis?

I was tempted to add this after having contacted the author of the "reliable source" in question and received not a "Yeah, I probably just got it from Wikipedia" but rather an "I don't remember where I got it", but then I noticed the "well-documented" part and decided against. That being said, isn't it really only "citogenesis" if "Step #3" occurs and a Wikipedia has added the circular citation to the Wikipedia article in question? I suspect most of the entries on the list (which appear to mostly document Wikipedia hoaxes that were picked up by third parties) were never actually attributed to said circular sources on-wiki (at least, the cited sources probably don't verify that much), unlike the above example where the original Wikipedia edit was tracked down in direct response to the circular reference being cited in the Wikipedia article.

If the entries on the list are actually all cases where the Wikipedia-based sources were actually cited for the content in question, shouldn't the list say as much and be required to cite a reliable source that explicitly supports it, per the "well-documented" bit at the top? Or, since this is a WP-space page that doesn't necessarily require reliable third-party sourcing, could we just add cases that have not necessarily been picked up by third-party sources but were established by consensus among Wikipedia editors to be bona-fide cases of citogenesis?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Trebek

When looking on the talk page for the recently deceased, I noticed a debate since 2006 that Trebek's middle name is "Suka". Suka is the Ukrainian word for bitch. Trebek's father was Ukrainian. I think we can safely assume this was vandalism. However, it's been included on pages on TV Guide,CNN, and ABC among others. This is a clear sign that sometimes Wikipedia is not for the public good when a "fact" is born from a vandal. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Including the comic here?

I believe it satisfies fair use. (But just in case, hey @Xkcd: could we get a relicense of this strip to include it on the page?) – SJ + 22:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added it; seems like the exception that proves the rule: the source is about this sort of administrative list and policy page as much as anything. – SJ + 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed via bot. I think this should be an exception to the blanket rule of no NFCC on policy pages (since this is an image about Wikipedia policy and directly led to the creation of this page). But more importantly to anyone watching this page: I have yet to hear back from xkcd and the image is up for discussion. – SJ + 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

A case of near-citogenesis is discussed at Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive_9#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_May_2019: the Wikipedia article had an erroneous birth year (separately, Wikipedia also had an erroneous year for her arrival in the US), and so said she was born in 1981, but she was 17 in 2000, citing two different RS. This set of figures was then reported by a few media outlets (e.g. Twin Cities) which didn't seem to notice the discrepancy, and nearly made it back into Wikipedia before the RS underlying the birth year was corrected. -sche (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hitchens's razor?

Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitchens's razor. Ain92 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A more concise description of the concerns may now also be found at the article's talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Playboy Bunnies name

I would like to report a possible case of citogenesis on the Catalan and the Italian Wikipedia related to the name of the Playboy Bunnies (while on the other Wikipedias, like the English one where it originated, the information is simply unsourced, but it could happen easily even there). I explained everithing in the talk. Bye, --Martin Mystère (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible citogenesis at Lipstick lesbian

There's a discussion currently occurring at Talk:Lipstick lesbian about a possible citogenesis issue. It'd be helpful if we could get an extra set of eyes on this discussion. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ordered list

Tomruen, I undid your edit but please do try to improve the page in smaller increments. I did see some improvements in your edit but because the same edit changed the list type the diff is almost impossible to review. I did spot at least one character error, some archive links went missing (never a good idea even if the site is currently up, downtime can happen and some sites may suffer from geoblocking. I also noticed nearly 10000 characters went missing but because the list type was changed it's difficult to figure out exactly what went missing. If you think a substantial part of the content should be removed it would be advisable to discuss that first and it would be inappropriate to do the removal in an edit with the edit summary "ordered list". It appears though that it was simply the bottom part of the page that indiscriminately went missing so I suspect the content removal was accidental. I'm not sure we should convert the page to a numbered list, numbered lists make more sense when the amount matters (like for a vote count) or when the order is fixed (like the results of a race). The page has grown fairly long so perhaps we could subdivide in sections somehow. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what happened, glad page length made something obviously wrong. I only intended on ol conversion. I agree, ordered list might not make sense, but helped with count at least. I'm not sure how it could be split up. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Tomruen, maybe by year or by decade or something. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis of "Sproftacchel" for pictures you put your head in

I found what I believe to be an instance of citogenesis in the Photo stand-in article. I provided evidence on the talk page. There was no evidence of the word "Sproftacchel" before it was added to Wikipedia. Although the word hasn't become mainstream it has spread a bit afterwards. It was used in an NZ Herald article, an art exhibition, an ebay listing, and a handful of other places. I don't know if this is notable enough for this list so I won't add it without input from others. But I thought I should document it here. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jak86: "Sproftacchel" has now been documented here, and while I agree it hasn't become mainstream yet, there are multiple google hits, image matches, etc. all using the term completely uncritically and unironically. (An urban dictionary definition surely helps propel the term's spread.) It may actually make its way into the "Terms that became real" section of the essay, eventually. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Citogenesis of "Free Territory"

Over at WikiProject Anarchism, we've recently been having a discussion about citogenesis as it pertains to articles about the Makhnovshchina, a Ukrainian anarchist movement during the Russian Civil War.

We recently did some digging on the term "Free Territory", the title for the article on the Makhnovshchina that was used from 2006 to 2019, and discovered that the term has absolutely zero basis in any English or Russian language sources. We uncovered a clear-cut case of citogenesis, as the term made its way into hundreds of English Wikipedia articles, dozens of Wikipedias in different languages (including the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias) and has even popped up in some scholarly writings.

We're currently in the process of attempting to clean up the damage, but the term has been associated with the subject for long enough that it has taken on a life of its own. We're not even sure how the term was originally came up with, as the user that originally created the page in 2006 was banned as a sockpuppet, so right now we only have vague hypotheses on its origin.

Not sure if it meets the notability requirements for this article, as the citogenesis has yet to be reported on by any reliable sources, so for now I'm cataloguing the discovery here in the talk page. Grnrchst (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Both "Dunning Kruger Effect" and "Dunning Kruger Syndrome" had been used at Everything2 years before they appeared on Wikipedia

In 2002, I made this post at Everything2:

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge. In a phrase, clueless people think they are smart.

Though many people have noticed this, it was rigorously demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December, 1999.

Their study involved giving people tests of their knowledge in various domains, then asking them how they thought they did. People at the bottom of the results tended to hugely overestimate their abilities. As Dunning and Kruger noted,

"Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd." Meanwhile, people with true knowledge tended to underestimate their competence.

This phenomenon manifests itself in all walks of life, and is surely familiar to users of Usenet and IRC discussion groups.

(https://everything2.com/title/Dunning-Kruger+Effect)

In 2005, I copied this text onto Wikipedia. Wikipedia likely played a role in the popularization of these expressions, but the term was not first used here, nor should user 'Vaughn' be credited with the "effect" variation. Uucp (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems convincing to me. I suggest we just remove mention of this being a case of citogenesis. Dicklyon (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I propose we have a look first whether the appearance on Everything2 actually led to any propagation prior to 2005 and the term's appearance on Wikipedia. --Andreas JN466 14:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably it didn't "propagate" except by its creator, since he says "In 2005, I copied this text onto Wikipedia." Still WP is not where it appeared first. Also, it is not unusual to refer to effects pointed out by authors this way. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The definition of citogenesis given at the top of the list says the term is used to describe the creation of "reliable" sources through circular reporting. This is a list of some well-documented cases where Wikipedia has been the source. There is no requirement for Wikipedia to have been first. Andreas JN466 09:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible false quote on the Bob Marley Wikipedia page discussion

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Now here:[7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Outer Manchuria

Hey, I came to the conclusion on Wiktionary that Outer Manchuria referring to Russian territory including Vladivostok, etc originates with the 2004 creation of English Wikipedia's Outer Manchuria page. See: Wiktionary's Outer Manchuria and the Citations page. Check this out! Maybe an entry here would read in part: "* The term "Outer Manchuria" became popularized in the late 2000s (reference: "Outer Manchuria" in Google Books Ngram Viewer") Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Structure-proposition-evaluation (SPE) method

The edit Special:Diff/117773837 (25 March 2007) added to the article How to Read a Book the unsourced sentence "The method presented is sometimes called the Structure-Proposition-Evaluation (SPE) method." The same editor, Jon Roland, added the term "structure-proposition-evaluation (SPE) method" to the article Reading (activity) in the edit Special:Diff/117771696 on the same day. I can't find any sources published prior to these edits that verify the claim. After the edit, the term started to appear in theses by students who seem to have consulted Wikipedia. I am removing the term from the articles as a probable case of citogenesis. Biogeographist (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Citogenesis re: Joker: Folie à Deux

This is not particularly notable because it didn't spread very far, but there was a mishap in the article on the upcoming film that stood for almost a year and was picked up by a few minor media outlets. Here's how it happened:

March 2023: In Special:Diff/1146973693, a user added properly-sourced information regarding filming at the Essex County Isolation Hospital in Belleville, N.J., but introduced a wikilink which was incorrectly piped to Essex County Hospital Center in Cedar Grove, N.J.

April 2023: In Special:Diff/1148414227, a user then added this sentence to the lede:

Principal photography took place in Los Angeles, New York, and Cedar Grove

Cedar Grove remained in the lede until I removed it today after this discovery.

Using your preferred search engine to look up "joker: folie a deux" "cedar grove" will reveal that a number of sources have since echoed the claim that principal photography for the film took place in Cedar Grove, the most prominent one being CBR.com.

Hopefully this demonstrates the danger in copying information without verifying it, by Wikipedia editors and the media alike.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)