While I've copyedited this page prior to publication, I just want to go on the record that I think this one of the few summaries that actually make sense, rather than the sensationalist nonsense of most other outlets, and the have-you-even-read-the-article misguidedness of demagogues like Musk and Hannity. Praise to JPxG for his FAQ and general sanity, and praise to outlets Fortune and the Washington Examiner for actually taking journalism seriously and figuring out what was going on instead of screaming on Twitter to see if they could put more oil on an idiot fire that should at most have been a minor breeze in a teapot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}02:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows the progression of how a non-story was circulated in unreliable sources and then picked up by the mainstream press. czar11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The average American has an extremely low media literacy level (because it wouldn't be profitable for them to have a high one). And the average Twitter poster has a lower level. But I'm starting to think that the lowest media literacy level of all belongs to these sorts of "journalists" whose job is just repeating nonsense on Twitter. Each of the references from 3 to 7 manages to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is in the headline. But then again, this is the country that famously thinks a corporation is a type of human being. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time that stupid Twitter drama started a controversy on Wikipedia. Back in 2021, a bunch of Twitter users got mad about the definition of bisexuality on Wikipedia, which was even picked up by PinkNews. But it did not get nearly as out of hand as this latest controversy, which was a complete dumpster fire. X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I like to think for peace of mind that everyone on Twitter is a child, and I give a lot of leeway to LGBT people who are discovering their identity and voice and occasionally misdirecting their anger in the process, but I have to say that all the people at PinkNews really should know much better (as should many Twitter users). I really go back and forth on the source, but utter trash like this makes me lose a lot of confidence in it, and I think our RSP entry is too generous. The problem with the article (and the "recession" ones) is that it's so surface level. Uncritically repeating social media comments is not journalism: at best, it's a 13-year-old's homework on the subject "Write about a topic of interest in the style of a news report".What's so frustrating is that it's so damn easy to do "investigative" journalism about Wikipedia, because the whole site is open source. You don't even have to email someone for an interview. Just take a look at the page history and the talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Just take a look at the page history and the talk page"
You've just talked about two notions completely unknown to 95% of the population. For journalists and randoms joe schmoes, Wikipedia is magic. They know everyone can edit it, but no one's actually done it. Let alone figure out advanced notions like page histories and talk pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree. But open up an article and look at the buttons you can click on. Or type into a search engine "How to see what a Wikipedia article used to look like" or whatever you want to know. It's hardly rocket science. We don't hide anything. It was no mystery to me as a child. It shouldn't be beyond the level of curiosity expected from someone specifically being paid to write an article about Wikipedia.All the manufactured "recession" outrage was based on Tweets that screenshot articles, page histories and talk pages. A journalist should think "huh, I wonder whether I can independently verify what this screenshot shows me". But of course someone who works for the Daily Mail isn't a journalist at all. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Op-Ed