Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-23/In the media

Vox

Way to go, Vox. While not a copy-paste job you still managed to remake a story you linked to later in your work. Now this makes me wonder if this Phil Edwards frequents Wikipedia or be an editor here even. GamerPro64 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the issue is with Phil Edwards story here. While it is frustrating as a researcher to have to chase stories back through a bunch of "re-bloggers", there is nothing wrong with the repetition of a story from another source. Indeed newspapers have traditionally relied on specialist press as a source for stories. Edwards gives credit to Ed's blog, which is really all we can ask for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Maybe its a bit of bias from myself. Not an overall fan of Vox. Something about it bothers me. GamerPro64 22:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stone in the tooth is the original was written by a volunteer and the simulacrum by a paid journalist. -- GreenC 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PETA

As a professional photographer and animal rights activist I was intrigued by the "monkey selfies" article. I wrote a response discussing my perspective on the legal and ethical issues. Funcrunch (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is actually big into the anti-factory farming chickens, cows and pigs (not sure about fishes - who will speak for the fish). -- GreenC 02:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against all animal farming, not just "factory" farming. Regardless, PETA's messaging is very inconsistent, tailored to whoever will give them the most money. Funcrunch (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a detailed legal analysis of the claims. It stresses some complicated points of law regarding jurisdiction -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google results

I for one wish Google would downplay Wikipedia in its search results, particularly with pages that are not high-trafficked or whose high-traffic appears to be the results of someone gaming the system. I could also accept search engines giving a boost to articles that, over time, maintain "important topic" and/or "Featured/Good/A-class" or possibly even "B-class" status over several months, as long as there is no sign of the article being hijacked by editors engaged in "search engine optimization" tactics. Take away the "Wikipedia Search-engine-optimization bonus" and commercially-motivated Wikipedia-SEO abuse will be less attractive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]