Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-12-22/Traffic report

Discuss this story

Commentary is a bit over the top

Surprised to see myself as first commenter here, but here goes. I found the political commentary a bit over the top in this issue. Including the one that seems to imply that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination) never happened. I really came for a traffic report, not for a condemnation of America being "not normal". - Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe, thanks for your comment. The Traffic Report is derived from the the Top 10 of the weekly WP:TOP25 reports. When the Nov 13-19 report was first published at the Top 25 Report pages, the Barron Trump AfD was ongoing and the future outcome was unclear. If that was canvassing at the time that we mentioned it, I didn't care, because a ten year old doesn't need a BLP because his dad got elected President, just as we concluded for Barrack Obama. I have updated that entry to note the AfD was closed. As for political commentary, we welcome all opinions here in comments. The stats are the stats; the opinion is commentary as part of analyzing popularity, and when people wish to record additional points or disagreements in comments, they are welcome. My theory has always been that in 100 years or whenever, someone can read our commentary and discern something more about what humans were thinking in our times.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As editor in chief, I concur with what Milowent said. I did note, when reviewing this edition's traffic report, that it gets a bit more into political commentary than usual; I thought about it and read carefully, and found nothing "over the top" in my view. That doesn't mean I personally agree with everything said; but when volunteers go to the trouble, every edition, of compiling and contextualizing this data, in my view they have some license to put some of themselves into it, and the reading is more entertaining (at least for some) that way. The raw lists, as Milo pointed out, exist for those who prefer to skip the commentary. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brianhe here, I was surprised to read it and was about to create a new comment myself. Entertainment can be achieved without being scathing. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 06:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the notes instructive and incisive, one of the reasons I follow the traffic reports. SeoMac (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Brianhe, I want the traffic report without absurd and self-indulgent fringe-element in-crowd snarking. Rhetorical question: has whoever wrote the mischaracterization of Breitbart News in the notes on the Bannon entry been forbidden to notice the "racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic" aspects of other news outlets such as the NYT, WashPo, CNN, and MSNBC? I don't care about Signpost contributors' political views and I'd respect the process and the result more if obviously biased commentaries were decontaminated before publication. – Athaenara ✉ 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to me, as editor, to hear the kind of feedback here -- I appreciate you all sharing your thoughts, and it will inform future discussions. But ultimately, the influence of opinions that are accompanied by a willingness to roll up your sleeves and work with us from one edition to the next is the kind of influence that really counts. Please do contact us (user talk, email, or WT:Wikipedia Signpost) if you'd like to get involved. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So all this hub-bub is about the Bannon comments, isn't it? Those comments are supported by reporting (Serendipodous authored that report so I mention it here in case he wants to comment), e.g., it was reported by many sources that Bannon has made anti-Semitic comments in the past. As a middle aged white American male, I'll mention this doesn't shock me. A certain portion of us do rag on women, black people, and Jews , though we aren't all future Hitlers. But in my opinion I call out that bullshit whenever I hear it; being ethical is not always tidy. In no way am I saying I have special knowledge of all white American middle aged males or Stephen Bannon, though I was acquainted with Andrew Breitbart (a Jew!) in online discourse. I don't know how we can satisfy everyone here, as some articles are popular for the untidy reasons we are commenting on. Bannon wasn't such a popular article that week because he's universally seen as a groovy guy.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just state, for the record and hopefully for all time, my reasoning on this oft-recycled topic. My job as a compiler of the Top 25 Report/Traffic Report is to discover how and why some articles are popular in any specific week. If I have determined, as far as I can tell, that an article on a specific person is popular because a large number of people have been shocked by his racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic views, I will say so. If you do not believe that Mr or Ms So and So is in fact racist, homophobic or anti-Semitic, then fine. You are free to believe that. But that is not relevant to the discussion. Conversely, I do not include facts that I deem irrelevant to an article's popularity. For instance, I happen to believe that Mel Gibson is racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic, and, for the curious, can cite many of his own personal quotes. However, if he appears in the Top 25 and the reason behind his appearance is, as far as I can determine, utterly mundane (say if he has a movie out) then I will not mention them, because they are not relevant. Serendi ^pod ous 20:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment here generally, however you should state the Bannon description in a more neutral fashion (e.g. describe that a newspaper considers him a...). Though I know news is supposed to be entertaining, as I said above it can be entertaining without being scathing. I also thought the Trump comment was a bit over the top, given the pretty biased photo that in no way would make it onto a Wikipedia article, and the statement that this country hasn't returned to normal? That's extremely pushing the importance and effects of this election.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For me, it wasn't that at all. It was this: "[Article view] numbers are slowly returning to normal ...Would that his country could." Elections with results that upset about 50% of the population are quite normal in America. IMHO the country was normal both before and after this traffic report, and the words chosen are either incredibly inapt and non-descriptive, or gratuitously inflammatory. Either way, insensitive to the community as a whole. Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Why isn't the most recent week at the top? Doesn't make any sense to read what was popular a month ago first. The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, thoughts on this? Seems reasonable to me, especially if/when less frequent publication makes for longer lists. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense. Certainly would have helped this time, Bannon would have been buried well below my witty comments on UFC or other vacuous subjects of popularity!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanka's son

NO longer has an article. I didn't want to edit something that was signed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of Light

Romer's determination of the speed of light got a Google Doodle on 7 December. BakingNerd (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]