Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-23/In the media

Discuss this story

Just as a note, not a fan of this popular style. Takes me too much time to interpret what is truly being stated. Innuendo is fun, but it can also be distracting. Especially if your English isn't top notch, that can be a problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I’m not a regular contributor, just helping out since there was a shortage. Sometimes we need innuendos and sometimes we don’t. Since this issue covered multiple months, I thought it would be nice to cover some topics with some wit. It might not have hit home, but I is better than nothing in my opinion. Feel free to write next issue though ;) (t) Josve05a (c) 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the trolls at Motherboard have just doubled down on this. Sometime after their issue came out, an editor User:Czar took them up on their suggestion and replaced the contested photo. At which point Motherboard published an update that pretty much accuses him of a serious policy violation: "I just noticed that someone updated Travis Kalanick's Wikipage photo on June 11, 2017. Wikipedia user Czar, a seasoned editor and the person behind the change, cited "much better color in more recent photo" as the reason for their edit. It's unclear whether Czar works for, or is affiliated with, Uber. No mention was made of the nipples." Such is the just reward of going along with a PC crusade. To be sure, his user page says he accepts payments on Patreon, but "not for advocacy". At this point though, someone is going to have to ask him about this and make a decision, if only to make Motherboard take back their accusation, which seems awfully loose-cannon to be putting in print based on anything they've told us. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I didn't know about this, but are we looking at the same article? I see clickbait and bad journalism (no effort to contact me), not a "serious" allegation nor "doubling down", and that's as if the prior photo should have received any press at all

czar 17:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Motherboard is such an immature website. The fact Vice recently got an $450 million investment is painful to think about. GamerPro64 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, of course, the Motherboard article has made this specific photo notable, making it even more of a no-brainer to put back in. :) I mean, there's no Wikipedia policy against a businessman looking good, or being seen at all outside those ridiculous Croatian cravats they have all made each other wear in recent times. Someday, someone will start a company that cares more about whether its administrators can do a good job than that they are fashion conformists ... Wnt (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mention of the The Times of Israel interviewing me regarding my Signpost article on Banc De Binary's paid editing and scamming. I would never suggest though that the Signpost is not "real news". It's a case of two different audiences. I felt honored to be able to present my research into Banc De Binary's editing here on Signpost where most readers understand the technicalities and wouldn't need the concept of "sockpuppet" explained. Getting feedback from our readers is invaluable.

On the other hand, Israel is (soon to be was) the center of the binary options industry and having the opportunity to explain the situation to a general audience there was irresistible. The days are long-gone when we can sweep under the rug news that paid editors are scamming our readers.

BTW, last week the Israeli cabinet passed the bill outlawing any binary options trading in or from Israel. Now just 3 successful readings in the Knesset and the bill becomes law. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::@Smallbones: I looked twice, and I can't see anything in the small items above that I can link to this. I even looked back at the Motherboard article (which now notes that User:Czar emailed them he was not affiliated with Uber, I should add) Could you explain, or is it possible you put this comment in the wrong place? Wnt (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Alright, I'm either going blind... or dumb. It was right there the whole time, and I missed it twice. Wnt (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]