Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-08-14/In the media

Discuss this story

I'm very disappointed that the Signpost is drawing attention to libellous vandalism (which I've now oversighted). Very poor editorial judgement an even more disappointing in light of the lack of article news in recent issues. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HJ Mitchell: You've got me confused. What did you oversight? There's nothing showing an oversight in this page's edit history. And I checked all the other Signpost pages in this issue. Nothing. Any clue will do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume that was in relation to the Kennedy vandalism. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the revision in question was already hidden from non-administrators, this does not strike me as a particularly big deal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake - I thought he was referring to something he oversighted on The Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far worse that they link to the Daily Fail. Twice. Polygnotus (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with linking DM on WP in the right context. "In the media" is the right context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I am not saying that linking to the Daily Fail isn't or shouldn't be allowed. I just think its a bad thing to do. Like putting your feet on the opposing bench on public transport. Or buying The Sun. Its not illegal; I just do not like it. Polygnotus (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also its not a story "in" MSN, it is a story by reuters that MSN republished with permission. Polygnotus (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell and Polygnotus: The information I could find suggests that daily circulation for the Daily Mail is around 800,000 (counting only the print edition) and Sky News has about 3.5 million YouTube subscribers. I don't know what the pageview statistics are for their online stories per se, but I wrote some software to keep track of Signpost views a while ago; our most-viewed articles of 2024 (the Jan 31 disinformation report by Smallbones and the Jul 22 discussion report by Svampesky) had 180-day view counts under 50,000. Granted, many more people read Signpost articles through the single-page view, or their talk pages, or whatever -- so there are probably more readers than this -- but not several million more. But the information here has already been conveyed to upwards of several million people -- and not simply incidentally, but specifically in the course of reporting by news outlets, organizations whose primary goal is to transmit information to as many people as possible. It is hard for me to see what actual damage is done by an additional few dozen thousand pageviews on text that assiduously avoids mentioning what the libelous statement even is -- without mentioning or repeating it.

Now, I will grant that there are likely to be some differences between the demographics targeted by the Signpost and the Daily Mail, but even if we are more smarter or sexier or more important, I highly doubt it is by a margin of tens of thousands of percent; indeed, even if we are more important in some general sense, people reading the Signpost seem much more likely to understand the context and significance of BLP vandalism, such that it's hard for me to imagine any negative consequence from our readers hearing about its mere existence. Are there a bunch of administrators on the English Wikipedia who we don't trust with the ability to view revision-deleted pieces of schoolboy peepee-poopoo nonsense? If there are any of these among us, we ought to be yanking mops immediately, because we have a whole lot more damaging stuff than that lying around in revision histories.

It may indeed be true that the Mail is a tabloid of questionable accuracy, and not considered a reliable source for citations of fact in Wikipedia articles, but this doesn't mean these hundreds of thousands of people have thereby disappeared from the face of the Earth. We do not have the power to delete them; I think it still matters (and is still worth noting) what they think of us, even if it is silly or wrong (inasmuch as we're trying to write an encyclopedia for the entire world, including people who are silly or wrong). While I agree with the implication here that their opinions tend to be dumb, aren't people with dumb opinions the most important component of an encyclopedia's readership? How are we going to get them to be smart if we are so obsessively fixated on performatively hating them that we forbid ourselves to even mention their existence? jp×g 🗯️ 03:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that linking to their site (even with nofollow) is far worse than drawing attention to that vandalism. I did not say everyone else is forbidden from talking about them. How are we going to get them to be smart we aren't. We don't have that kind of power. Polygnotus (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG makes sense to me. But then, I added a "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" template at Talk:Lachlan Kennedy a couple of weeks ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of those templates, the one at Talk:JD Vance is filling up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Well said! Ciridae (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)#Edit Request June 25, 2024 exactly how it's supposed to be done? Like, don't edit the article itself, neither by yourself nor by a proxy, but post an edit request and have it reviewed? Although I think they are missing some bits of the paid-editor disclosure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed like decent WP-behavior to me too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one quote about what a Wikipedian says at the end of Conservative Jewish media criticize Wikipedia and Wikimedia should be attributed given that the contributor's byline is right next to it. I highly doubt Jayen466 wrote that comment. Newbies sometimes read the Signpost (at least I did when I was one) and are more likely to misunderstand what that placement means. Feel free to let me know if you think I'm overthinking it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I guess one could add something like

"-Comment from a Wikipedian to JJ"

at the end of the quote. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason we can't say who the Wikipedian in question is? I assumed that this quote was taken from a talk page discussion somewhere but please correct me if I'm wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my reading of JJ, it's not a talkpage quote and JJ doesn't say who the Wikipedian is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my reading too. I've edited the text in line with your comments above. Thanks for mentioning it, Clovermoss (and congratulations, by the way!). Regards, Andreas JN 466 13:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my concern :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That JNS article is just "nuts", so to speak, but perhaps it's the last quoted part that confuses me the most. The author accuses the Tides Foundation of backing "antisemitic protests", but at the same time, they specifically remark that Tides has received funding by... a man who himself has been at the center of a myriad of conspiracy theories with evident antisemitic elements? --Oltrepier (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland story

As the headline inferred, IMO taxpayer have a right to complain that tax dollars are being use for persaonal PR purposes of an official. But IMO it's not right for the article to imply mis-behavior by the Wikipedia editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bandler / Jewish Journal article

IMO pretty thorough / impressive article regarding analyzing how the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia operated on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin women

I was a participant in the Franklin women edit-a-thon in Canberra. It was very successful. Together with the event in Sydney, they created 51 new articles and updated 110 more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are some pretty impressive numbers! Congratulations! : ) --Oltrepier (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]