Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-06-05/In the media

Discuss this story

So your defense to accusations of unreliability is...they sometimes get things wrong too? Wow, that is very pathetic and discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanoflaw049 (talk • contribs)

On which story? jp×g 01:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is § Have we already covered this enough?. Nowhere is it a defense, plus whether or not there is bias regarding Poland is still under controversy. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of § Have we already covered this enough? can easily enough be read this way. I don't know that we were defending any particular editor from accusations of unreliability (maybe @Levivich:?) But it does seem like the OCR article was saying that the "Polish side" was responsible for more errors than the "Jewish side". I do think that both sides should accept the possibility that much of what we want to know will never be known. And with millions of deaths on each side, the emotions run very high on each side - perhaps to the extent that nobody will be willing to accept that the other side could be partially right. There are some problems that Wikipedia (as a whole) can not be expected to solve. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm pleasantly surprised that the deletion log of Meryl Streep seagull incident (disambiguation) is currently empty. I thought about WP:BEANS but I figure this page is internal enough... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Just you wait until someone turns it into a redirect into this Signpost article... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Until we have that, enjoy Mark_Carwardine#Last_Chance_to_See_kakapo_incident. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice roundup! Very entertaining. Jane (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On "In fact, the relevant law was repealed later in 2018, after widespread international criticism." It seems that according to WP, the law wasn't repealed, it was revised. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The criminal sentencing part was repealed, and this article says criminal law, so it’s true. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Article 55a was repealed in 2018, about half a year after it was created. The current version of the entire Act is here. This erroneous statement, that "Those ideas are baked into Polish law, which since 2018 has criminalized accusing Poland of complicity with the Nazi regime", appears in half a dozen outlets. It's very hard to believe Grabowski and Klein don't know the statement to be untrue. ("Criminal penalties of the law were ultimately removed as part of a diplomatic settlement with Israel and mounting international pressure including from the United States, though civil avenues to prosecute those who mischaracterize the Polish role in World War II remain on the books." pp. 206–207.) Andreas JN 466 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The study does made one small mistake that I can see which is that conduct disputes should be reported at WP:ANI not WP:AN Lightoil (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a subpart of it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While its good to hear that we have overcome fringe here on enwiki, I cannot help but comment on the example cited therein. Too often when dealing with controversial or extreme topics I find a fixation on the lead in the vein of a crusading language either filled with too many descriptives (e.g. anti-12x labels) or labelling the main subject of the article outright without actually explaining what it infact purports to be. Making such articles look less encyclopedic. Gotitbro (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Andreas JN 466 11:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Years ago the intro to Cat became a battleground between editors who wanted to use the paragraph about the acuity of feline senses as evidence of God's providence, and those who wanted it to demonstrate random mutation and differential reproduction. It took a while but eventually I argued them out of using the intro for any such purpose, after which both sides lost all interest in discussing it in any of the sections including the one about feline senses. From which I concluded that those who argue most passionately usually think least deeply, no matter whether they be right or wrong. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]