I wonder, is Ugh. Don't remind me that this guy is on the Supreme Court. What a sad, sad day for America. Please, never mention this name to me ever again, unless it's part of an impeachment effort. an accepted way to comment on a sensitive political issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under the recent generations of leadership of The Signpost it seems there is less emphasis on NPOV here than before. I think we should be careful about it. Bias is bias, and even if its only a traffic report, I think its best to keep such statements to the op-eds. It also contributes to the narrative that Wikipedia is a collection of left-leaning perspectives. And a comment such as the one made about Kavanaugh betrays an American-oriented bias, which I think is most disappointing for our users. I doubt the editors have ever made such comments about politics outside the West, and that in its own right shows a different from of bias, regardless of where the relevant comment falls on the left-right political spectrum. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle some people still fail to understand that The Signpost is not a collection of Wikipedia articles: The "Traffic report" section reports on the most popular articles on Wikipedia during the latest publication period, serving as a guided commentary on what was hot and what was not with the readership. As with the "Featured content" section the "Traffic report", serving as a curated list, generally has a lighter tone compared to the rest of the publication.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bias is bias and it is ubiquitous; there is no escape from bias by virtue of its nature. Omitting and segregating objectionable content does not free it from bias, nor are the objections from a place beyond bias, so relying on such omission and segregation to avoid bias is only successful insofar as the readers deem it no longer objectionable according to their biases. This is a problem not of insufficient objectivity or neutrality, but in the legitimation of objectivity and neutrality as coherent concepts and achievable goals, since only a belief in the latter can sustain the former. Unfortunately, Wikipedia clings to its fictions because they are useful and fundamental to its self-concept, so much so that their rejection is such an existential threat that only the faithless would do so. Beyond that, it is a problem of insufficient participation, since only through participation can one represent one's own perspective.The views of any post are those of its author, and the views of The Signpost are those of its team, since any creative work is a reflection of its creator. The same is so with biases. It is therefore unreasonable to expect any body to embody that which is beyond its constitution. If someone wishes to change those views and biases, then they are free to effect that change, in this case by participating in the creative process of producing the next issue (whether here or at the Top 25 Report, from where the "Traffic report" is sourced). Just as the response of the Wikipedia community to the gender gap and other systemic biases has been through content interventions such as WikiProject Women in Red, the response of anyone who objects to the content and biases of The Signpost can intervene by writing and editing it before publication. This cannot free it from bias anymore than anyone can be, but it will help ensure the content is not deemed objectionable by the readers according to their biases, since their participation will ensure their biases are better represented in the publication. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that this is not an article. If you need a box to put it in, it is an essay, with a byline, in Wikipedia space. If you don't like it, you may claim a full refund from your vendor. Or write your own. Thank you to all the Signpost writers for your efforts to keep us informed and amused. 213.205.240.199 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As in other professional wrestling promotions, WWE shows are not legitimate contests, but purely entertainment-based, featuring storyline-driven, scripted, and choreographed matches, though matches often included moves that can put performers at risk of injury if not performed correctly. This was first publicly acknowledged by WWE's owner Vince McMahon in 1989 to avoid taxes from athletic commissions. Since the 1980s, WWE publicly has branded their product as sports entertainment, acknowledging the product's roots in competitive sport and dramatic theater. - that is a direct quote from the lede of our article on WWE. I didn't pen the piece to which you refer, but to describe it as a crude bias is highly unfair. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone else feel like Lindsey Graham was describing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship with stunning accuracy during his volcanic speech? Here's the transcript. Graham wasn't the first Republican to say that the hearing wasn't a job interview, but he hit RfA right on the head with "you're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend." and "This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap." When he shouted "your high school yearbook!", he chillingly pointed out all the years-old incidents always brought up at RfA. There is also room for philosophical debate: Graham said "To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.", and there's often a lot of controversy about those who support RfA candidates purely because the oppose votes seem unsubstantiated. I hope I'm not turning anyone off RfA by saying all this . wumbolo^^^19:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
. wumbolo ^^^ 19:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
← Back to Traffic report