Arguably state media are distinct from mainstream, if that's what you are saying. I don't know a better term for this instance, though. It was an attempt to separate these media from others I didn't cover in the article with truly "fringey" conspiracy stories about Philip Cross. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does "the Mayor of London actions London schools" mean? I could speculate that somebody meant he sponsors or recommends unspecified actions, maybe it's something else, why not just tell us clearly? – Athaenara ✉ 12:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is irresponsible and alarming: "Among the articles he edited were some related to ...". Thousands of editors edit controversial subjects that don't actually interest them personally or reflect on their psychology in any way, ranging from WP:WikiGnome cleanup edits to preservation of WP:Neutral point of view and deletion of obvious WP:Original research, as well as flagging citations to unreliable sources. I really hope The Signpost never does anything like that again. If someone is a crackpot, unethical, or criminally minded it's because they have an "issue" in the real world, not because of what pages they happened to have edited here. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was a direct quote from Haaretz, circulation ~100,000. I don't think it is irresponsible to report on what reliable national print media have said about Wikipedia. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though it wouldn't hurt to put those types of blockquotes in the green template, similar how those above were treated. I think the quote would display better sans the potshot, personally. Major journalists generally don't do a good job of covering WP so we have to work even harder to counterbalance their false equivalencies. But Bri, as always, appreciate the work you put into this so maybe the solution is that SMC feels free to contribute to the next edition? ;) czar01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to In the media