Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Mailing list post done

[1] Andreas JN466 13:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Serendipity doing well at Hacker News: [2] Andreas JN466 19:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

To consider covering in Discussion report

Kherson Oblast (Russia) AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) is 173 kB and still going strong. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (4th nomination) ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

EpicPupper's inactivity

I happened to notice the other day that EpicPupper's last edit (on any Wikimedia wiki) was on August 28 - and that it consisted of adding "WIKIBREAK ENFORCER" code to their global.js, with the wikibreak's end set to January 1st, 3000.

That seems to indicate that JPxG is now de facto our sole editor-in-chief for the next three months and 977 years until further notice, or until EpicPupper changes their mind and finds a way to deactivate that enforcement code (per m:User:Epicpupper, they do have control over some alternate accounts). @EpicPupper: if you happen to still read this, know that all the energy you have been putting into the Signpost over the past half year has been much appreciated, and that you are more than welcome to jump back in. Also, we are all volunteers here and have the right to take a break from such responsibilities at any time.

That said, this does rise some concerns especially about things that EpicPupper had started on behalf of the Signpost but possibly didn't share with others on the team, including:

  • The user group application, as already extensively discussed above
  • The http://signpost.news domain (does anybody else have the Namecheap credentials for this?)

Concerning the Signpost's official handles (on Twitter etc.), we should be fine at least with regard to those listed here, as others still have access. But I vaguely recall EpicPupper talking earlier this year about creating a Signpost presence on other platforms as well - does anyone know more?

More generally, this is an opportunity for us to think more about the Signpost's continuity risks and how to mitigate them. I'll post some general thoughts below in a separate thread, so as not to make this too much about a specific person.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Has somebody emailed EpicPupper to see if they are coming back? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
That might still be worth trying.
But in case it was unclear from the above: The WikiBreak Enforcer code is designed to make any use of the account impossible until the given end date (by logging you out immediately whenever you are trying to access it). As I indicated, there may be ways around it, e.g. if you are exceptionally technically savvy or can convince a Meta-wiki admin to undo that global.js edit (note though that you can't even send a wikimail from the original account to prove who you are). But as an expression of intent, using it with an end date in the year 3000 is pretty close to scrambling your password. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You can disable Javascript and then edit the file to remove the code in question. I don't think setting an end date in the next millennium necessarily means the editor isn't coming back; some people might do that when they're not sure. (But I wouldn't bet against your interpretation, either.) isaacl (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That's kind of what I was alluding to, yes (and it does seem they are savvy enough, see below). Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Email sent. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I just received the following wikimail, reproduced here in full (having concluded from the wording and the context that it is addressed to the entire Signpost team):

Hi there!

This is to represent my resignation, effective immediately, as co-Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost.

The user group application has JPxG, Bri, and Smallbones' email attached to it. Should I receive any correspondence regarding it that was not sent to others, I will forward it appropriately.

The signpost.news domain is managed by JPxG and I have no control over it.

I can confirm that there are no other Signpost presences managed by me.

While I commend JPxG for taking over the helm when I've been MIA, I believe his rushing lead to the truly unfortunate loss of Adam Cuerden as a contributor. While we, or, rather, you all, are all volunteers, JPxG has generally not been very receptive to my off-wiki communication. He has also expressed that he would be uncomfortable with being EiC alone. As such, this is also to represent my vote of no confidence in JPxG as Editor-in-Chief.

I'm sorry for letting you all down.

Cheers!

EpicPupper

--
This email was sent by user "EpicPupper" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EpicPupper>) on the English Wikipedia to user "HaeB". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: what happened upset me, and I'm taking a month off FC. But I'm taking a month off FC. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I'll contact him. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 06:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I can commit to 977 years -- on January 1, 3000, I expect to be collecting on a good number of bets I've made (or paying them out). However, I will do my best in the intervening time. jp×g 23:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
In diplomatic speak, I deeply regret what EpicPupper has said. Signpost's editors-in-chief, like all Wikipedians, are volunteers. When we have a shortage of volunteers we have to accept whomever shows up to do the job. Not too many months ago, EpicPupper rushed forward with more enthusiasm than reason as Smallbones left the EiC position. We didn't have naysayers publicly condemning the kid at the start, especially since Pupper had prior to that been responsible for an unfortunate piece in The Signpost which did not go over well. JPxG has at least accepted responsibility for a mistake. It only reflects on Pupper to run away in shame and then cast aspersions upon the person left holding the bag. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Obituary

BeenAroundAWhile obituary

For anyone who has not seen yet, we have lost a long-time contributor in BeenAroundAWhile. I have received some text about his Wikipedia activity from a family member, which I will copy below. There is also an obituary on legacy.com including more biographical details. I asked if there might be a reason to leave out this information, including his real name, due to privacy wishes, and she said no.

Longtime Wikipedia contributor User:BeenAroundAWhile (George L.Garrigues) died after a brief illness at the age of 90 on August 10, 2022. Jimmy Wales had congratulated him on completing 100,000 edits, just before his 90 th birthday in April . An author, retired journalist and journalism professor, BeenAroundAwhile started enthusiastically editing Wikipedia in 2006, when the encyclopedia was just five years old. He specialized in history, journalism, and places in Los Angeles. Wikipedia was so much a part of his life that references to Wikipedia topics he was editing and discussions he was having with fellow editors would inevitably crop up in his conversations with family and friends. He made his last edit on July 23, just hours before he entered the hospital. He will be missed by his family, friends and the Wikipedia community he was so much a part of.

Hoping we can work this into the next issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like he may have been related to Charles Harris Garrigues. Is there any further information on that?
Oh, it was in the obituary; C.H. "Brick" Garrigues was his father. Further confirmation in the copyright notes on File:BrickAtTable.jpg. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
If we can get a bigger copy of the pic of his father or of him, I'll restore it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 19:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
No luck, though I found an image of his daughter Lisa-Gale that he uploaded to Commons. It's a little hard to know whether I'm finding everything because uploads were transferred by other users or bots. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Easy - I'll just check his deleted contributions for images. DS (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Question about research

Hi, I recently published my M.A. thesis, “'If You Want to Change the World, Edit Wikipedia': Mitigating the Gender Gap and Systemic Bias on Wikipedia", and would like to share it with the wider WP community. Can I do that here in the Signpost or do I need to do it elsewhere? Please advise and help. Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude, thanks for your quick response. I'll go ahead and write something up; I'm sure that you're all busy, anyway. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: Looking forward to reading your suggestion/submission; in the meantime I have also posted this on @WikiResearch and it will go on our to-do list of publications to cover in form of a review or summary in the "Recent research" section (doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter). As you may be aware though, that section is generally covering research from an independent perspective, so don't let that stop you from pitching your own writeup for another Signpost section. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@HaeB, thanks so much for the mention. Things are a little busy right now, so I may wait to submit something for the Nov. issue. Kuddos for all the good work you do here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"Deaditors" and "Wikijackals", again ...

[3] I suspect the writer got confused by the UTC time displayed on WP vs. BST. --Andreas JN466 14:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons open letter to WMF

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Think_big_-_open_letter_about_Wikimedia_Commons Andreas JN466 23:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Bernsteinbot disabled

Probably worth a mention in News & Notes: User talk:MZMcBride#BernsteinBot disabled --Andreas JN466 08:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this means WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000 will be frozen in time and I'll be #442 forever (isn't that a magic number or something? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
HaleBot has been updating the list for the past week. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

News and notes

Transphobia news

I do LGBT+ stuff so I am in these conversations. I am not sure how to address this so I am dropping it here for now.

  • "« Nous dénonçons le traitement que réserve Wikipédia aux personnes trans, non binaires et intersexes »". L'Obs (in French). 13 October 2022.
  • special:permalink/1115844830#Athaenara ArbCom case, Athaenara, many people (including me) interpreting their actions as transphobic
  • Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_8#A_classic_problem_with_categories - Jimbo Wales asking to remove "Organisations that oppose transgender rights" from an organisation that opposes transgender rights.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the L'Obs piece is an op-ed that doesn't have anything to do with the Athaenara de-sysop? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
These three are wiki and anti-trans stories from the past month; none have any particular connection to the other. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added the NouvelObs link to ITM. The Athaenara discussions could be covered in N&N or an Arbitration report/Discussion report. As for LGB Alliance, there is an ongoing court case on the org's charitable status that is relevant. --Andreas JN466 08:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

So I perused the fr.wiki talkpage of illustrator Maroh and – though I don’t plan to touch this story in our published edition – I can say as an editor it seems odd to have a notable person appear and state what they give permission to be written about them in a biography. Part of the debate surrounds the use of the part of this text in the fr.wiki lede after the comma: Jul' Maroh naît en 1985 à Lens, sous le nom de Julie Maroh. There’s probably EU specific laws at play here that will require expertise to interpret and convey. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant above, I'm talking about EU's right to be forgotten. The justification for this BLP subject's 5-to-10-page-long on-wiki request/demand for content removal will be unfamiliar to many US readers who are familiar with a legal regime in which "the only information that can be removed by user's request is content that they themselves uploaded" (quoting the same article). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think he mentions the right to be forgotten in the linked talk page post (the right to be forgotten is called Droit à l'oubli in French). He just wants the birth date fixed, wants the trans pronoun "iel" used in the article, be assigned male grammatical gender, and says he does not grant Wikipedia permission to use his deadname in the article, with the exception of old weblinks that cannot changed. One of those at the time of writing was his own website, which was then still called juliemaroh.com (now down). Plus there was a particular life event that he said was described inaccurately in the article; he offered what he said was a better source.
Here is another article (in English, though clearly a translation from French) about the affair that is worth reading: [4] I'll add this to ITM as well.
My advice, unless someone feels very sure of what they want to do with this, is to simply describe as best we can what the published media articles say, without taking a position. The community can discuss this. Andreas JN466 19:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom action and possible resignations

Can anybody parse Special:Diff/1115816409? I don't understand what's going on other than it could be related to this? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's directly related but to get the full picture you would have read up on it all from the start. In a nutshell, it began with Athenara's catastrophic oppose vote on the current RfA, went through Ani, there was some blocking and unblocking by TNT and Lourdes, then Athenara was desysoped by Arbcom within 24 hours. TNT pre-empted the Arbcom case against her for her block of Athenara, and opened it herself. Go get some popcorn. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

WMF organization

Selena Deckelmann is a redlink but User:Selena Deckelmann is not. Should we choose the latter? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I used redlinks because I thought they might encourage article creation. There are plenty of sources available:
Andreas, JN466 19:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Lying flat

Can I recommend that someone else evaluate the article above for inclusion in ITM? It concerns a Wikipedia article that I helped to start last July, Tang ping, roughly equivalent to "quiet quitting" in English. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of clear communication and a trouble-free October issue

Can anyone planning to be away during the October publishing window (say 3 days before writing deadline) please say so, and we can avoid unnecessary drama. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Tuning sessions are late

See m:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/Tuning_sessions. In 2020, the fourth-quarter "tuning session" presentation decks were published in mid-July. In 2021, they were published in late September/early October. This year, the first quarter of the 2022/23 year has passed, and the WMF still hasn't published the fourth-quarter decks for the previous year ... --Andreas JN466 17:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

n.b. the Foundation's fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

RfA interview

The RfA interview of ScottishFinnishRadish went well last issue, so I've reached out to Isabelle Belato and I'll be interviewing them for our next issue. If you have any recommendations for questions, please post them below! ––FormalDude (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Interview

More organized disruption

Might be worth keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Massive_off-wiki_campaign_aimed_at_disrupting_Wikipedia to see if by the next issue if it is worth writing about. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 18:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Seen on Twitter

@HaeB: Information Warfare and Wikipedia --Andreas JN466 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the sort of thing you would usually cover in Recent Research ... if it isn't, we can stick it in In the Media. --Andreas JN466 21:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
It is an item at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#In brief under "the hunt for Wikipedia's disinformation moles". ☆ Bri (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, missed that. Andreas JN466 23:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I am having trouble figuring out what the conclusion or revelation of this paper is. The closest I can get is: "Based on this, researchers were able to identify a number of other Wikipedia pages where blocked editors introduced state-affiliated domains, which helps spotlight various regions of Wikipedia that might be investigated more closely." They looked at article history, found that a bunch of people had added links to state media sources, and concluded that they had "narratives consistent with" disinformation from state actors. Fair enough, but "narratives consistent with" is doing a lot of work there, and I'm not sure what it means. If I think that democracy and freedom of the press are good, these are "narratives consistent with" the United States government, yet it would be a bit of a stretch to posit that the CIA was paying me to edit Wikipedia. I don't really see anything in the paper saying that they identified any actual state interference, just some relatively anodyne suggestions that Wikipedia editors examine articles to see if people are POV-pushing, which is hardly groundbreaking (as we figured this out twenty years ago). jp×g 19:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, they seem to overselling their findings considerably (especially in the WIRED article and the main author's claims on Twitter). See also my remarks on WW earlier this week (based on a quick cursory reading). I will probably write up something in RR, but feel to start a review yourself there if you like. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, Andreas. While not peer-reviewed, this is definitely in scope for Recent research/WRN (which is why Miriam and I had (re)tweeted it on @WikiResearch), and it will go on our to-do list of papers to cover. But that doesn't need to preclude a mention in ITM that focuses on the news angle.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, it's been in ITM since October 17, before this thread was opened. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and? Didn't you already say this above? Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Noticing that you just posted User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist/sandbox/Draft:Disinformation report, I'm not sure you saw the discussion here? Looks like we will now have coverage of this in three different sections. To be sure, I think your "Disinformation report" series is great in general, and the summary of existing cases studies of (especially) Russian disinformation is worthwhile. But I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that this think tank report provides "A new tool" and represents "a step forward", considering that it seems largely oblivious of existing research literature and product efforts. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"Why I sued Wikipedia" in ITM

This is an In brief – could one of you write it up? I've recreated the biography whose deletion the article subject, Tuhin Sinha, has been complaining about – he clearly passes WP:N, and the whole thing is a waste of lawyers' fees for both the WMF and the biography subject. However, that means I shouldn't write the Signpost coverage as well. --Andreas JN466 11:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Long enough for a DYK. In case someone didn't know, OpIndia also wrote on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't help smiling when I did this edit[11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is also [12] (deprecated source per WP:RSP but clearly factual in this case) and [13] which includes this pdf --Andreas JN466 13:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The deal, part 2: Readership, and who gives a rat's?

Hi everyone. It is that guy from the Internet again. Since I guess it is just going to me for the next 977 years, I guess it is time to step boldly into the future, or the past, or the present, or whatever.

So, okay, first of all: check out these graphs from the May issue. They go back to May 29, when the pages were created, and carry forward to now. This is something to keep in mind when asking the following questions:

What kind of person reads the Signpost? How many of them are there? Should we care?

I posit that the answer to these questions are "a smart one", "not enough", and "yes".

One thing I've noticed is that we write a lot of very good articles. A second thing I've noticed is that barely anybody reads them. For example, from the May issue, most of the articles got about a hundred views the day after publication. Some, like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Opinion (about WMF transparency in disbursement of funds), were real bangers: per pageview statistics we can see that it's had 1,729 views total (with about 1,000 of them in June).

"Well, that's not terrible," you may think. However, I offer a rejoinder: this Twitter thread about the same subject -- from October 11 -- has 35,000 likes. Is it presenting better information than the Signpost? No -- I would argue that this thread is basically an inferior version of stuff we have covered a million times. Is it coming from a more authoritative or popular source? No -- it is some totally random guy with 5,000 followers and a Haruhi av. So why are people reading this goofy Twitter thread and not our well-researched articles on the subject?

It doesn't seem like we devote a lot of effort to thinking about stuff like this. I have made some desultory efforts to figure out what causes an article to be a banger -- it's not immediately apparent. Writing catchy headlines helps a bit (as I have done for a few issues) and having people link to us from other websites helps a bit (as has happened with some articles before). Certainly, good writing has some impact, but not a whole lot. With the deletion report, for example, there seems to be no correlation between how much effort I put into the column and how many people read it.

It is possible to obtain readership statistics for each issue (and for each article in that issue), but presently there is not an easy way to do this. I have a couple draft templates in my userspace that calculate these things automatically, which I will attempt to get into working order. I think this will give us all (and not just me) some ability to see how things go over, and why.

"Who gives a rat's ass," you may think. However, I offer a rejoinder to this as well: thirty-five thousand people were curious enough about the WMF fundraising efforts to read a few hundred words about it, and these people all read some random guy's Twitter thread instead of a newspaper which covers this stuff in extensive detail. To me, this sucks, because it means that we are not able to earnestly work towards a goal of telling people the real shit of it all in a way that makes a difference.

I have a number of hypotheses about the deal of everything, as well as some courses of action that could affect the deal of everything, which I will post shortly. jp×g 17:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

FC is over to you

I've done a very basic one that's publishable. Someone else will need to work on it if anything more is to happen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 23:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, good to know people care just as much as last time. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on short descriptions for the articles. Probably won't hit the featured lists or topics, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Ready for copyediting! ☆ Bri (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

In the media

Just noting that I contacted Oronsay off-wiki to make sure it wasn't outing to identify their account as the same RL person mentioned in the Australia piece at In the media#In brief. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Endowment update

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/10/26/governance-updates-for-the-wikimedia-endowment/

@JPxG: Could be run as a WMF piece? Alternatively we can add a short summary to N&N. --Andreas JN466 00:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've popped it in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News from the WMF. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 15:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Things which we should have something on for this month

There have been a number of very big episodes recently -- while I don't think we need a graphic blow-by-blow, it seems like the following are discussions with some broader import and relevance:

- ArbCom deletion RfC (currently at WP:CENT)

- ArbCom mass creation RfC (currently being put together)

- Coldwell AN/I and indef

- Athaenara AN/I (here and here), indef, arb case about it, TNT arb case, subsequent AN threads (there seem to be some very bad rumblings going on with this at this very moment) -- Jesus, what a dog's breakfast

- Administrator resigning (prat)

- Any number of extremely long AN/I threads that may or may not have broader import (per current revision of User:JPxG/ANI_section_sizes).

- What the hell is this? It's from September but I seem to have missed it.

I don't think that all of these are necessarily newsworthy (and prudence would seem to militate against at least some of them), but they are big events that have happened recently. If we do not have anything written on any of them, it would seem rather unfortunate. jp×g 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I knew about the arb case/site ban, but didn't know about the other resignation. What makes the second one newsworthy? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it is mainly the fashion in which they resigned. Also that they had been an admin for 19 years. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we're missing your discussion report this month, User:FormalDude. That would have been the natural home for these. I guess we could put a list of some links with one-sentence summaries together? Andreas JN466 08:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't able to get to it this month. But normally it only includes the discussions from WP:CENT, so it would have just had the first two of these. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Right. There's something to be said for restricting ourselves to CENT ... I've mentioned the desysop/indef and resignation in the NaN Brief notes. Andreas JN466 10:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Btw, Spartaz has resigned. They haven't handed the sysop bit in though so best to wait and see. Andreas JN466 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Deadline

Just pointing out that the writing deadline for the issue has just passed. Recommend that article authors mark them ready for copyediting ASAP. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#The next time Wikipedia asks for a donation

(Are we really dignifying this fringe-right-wing website with coverage? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC))

@OwenBlacker: I am not up to date on the political inclinations of this particular website, but I'm not seeing anything fringe or right-wing in the article linked here (in fact, the meanest thing I could say about it is that it's largely duplicative of previous Signpost coverage). Is there something I'm missing? jp×g 19:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: The article itself is fine, but the publication itself is often pretty objectionable. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Aye, could we not just link every Fringe website that talks about Wikipedia? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 06:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It's worthwhile highlighting articles that actually get some things right about Wikimedia finances. They're rare enough. --Andreas JN466 10:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Not at the cost of tunnelling readers to extremists. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've got the right site. Have a look at Unherd. All the columnists listed there (Giles Fraser, Ed West, Tanya Gold, John Gray, James Bloodworth, Matthew Goodwin, Maurice Glasman, Julie Bindel, Michael Tracey, and Douglas Murray) also write for mainstream UK and US newspapers, left and right (The Guardian, The Times, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.). At the most "extreme" ends of the spectrum there are Bloodworth, who is a leftie retweeted by Sanders, and Murray, who is an associate editor of The Spectator, the world's oldest weekly. They're funded by a former LibDem who switched to the Tories over Brexit. Where I live, that's centre or centre-right politics. So let's please keep a sense of proportion ... --Andreas JN466 17:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
More to the point, Wikipedians should resist demanding that all content meet their niche political preferences. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Have you actually read the article you're linking to defend the site? UnHerd#Reception is giving me little to no hope for the site, especially as there's no POV tags, no objections to the characterisation. If you think it's a valid site, then maybe you should make sure the Wikipedia article doesn't make it look like garbage before trying to quote it in the Signpost. I stand by my view until such time as someone can find anyone with something good to say about it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
So the Reception section tells us that Simon Childs, in a Vice article published four days (!) after the site was established, thought it wouldn't amount to much. Looking at Unherd today, its "Weekend Essay" published this morning was penned by Mary Gaitskill ... --Andreas JN466 12:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that our article on the site is a red flag. If it's considered a reliable source, great, I was wrong - but we don't need to link every article that talks about Wikipedia on every half-baked site. And we especially don't need to cover the exact same content in two different sections of our newspaper. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 16:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This should be covered. There indeed seems to be a wide discrepancy between OwenBlacker's characterization ("fringe-right-wing website") and both the reception by reliable sources as recorded in UnHerd and its substantial use by the community as a source in article space. But the main point is that ITM isn't meant as a recommendation list of worthy news reports that the Signpost endorses, as OwenBlacker seems to assume ("dignifying"). Rather, as defined in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance:

The fundamental purpose of "In the media" is to inform members of the community about the popular perception of the Wikimedia movement (however divergent from reality the editing population may think it). For this reason, it is regarded as acceptable to devote significant coverage space to high-profile but factually incorrect items in the media.

To the latter point, while the quoted part above might be factually correct, Andrew Orlowski has indeed published various pieces on Wikipedia whose journalistic quality has been questioned (at one point he endorsed a characterization of Wikipedians as "the Khmer Rouge in diapers"), but these were covered in the Signpost too.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
PS: Apropos another Signpost convention that not everyone here seems to be familiar with: As explained in the notice in the talk page template, this discussion should not be happening within this page, but at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom instead. I will move it there shortly unless someone wants to take care of that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I still 100% object to covering this both here and in its own article. If we're using this at all, it needs to be worked in to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes and perhaps crosslinked. But this article seems like a trivial version of ours. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 01:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
They are completely separate. This is about a press article, and N&N is about community discussions following a viral Twitter thread. The Twitter thread made no reference to this UnHerd article, and the UnHerd article made no reference to the Twitter thread, nor indeed to the Knowledge Equity Fund that the Twitter thread focused on. The only thing they have in common is that they are both about WMF money. --Andreas JN466 10:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and making exactly the same overall point. It makes us look ridiculously biased to present two articles slamming the WMF for basically the same thing in one issue, without any attempt at balance or WMF reply Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, we are running their Endowment piece in this issue, but I take your point. Andreas JN466 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If nobody other than Andreas objects, I may add a couple of lines on how Orlowski make the same anti-fundraising story almost every year and include the "baby Khmer Rouge" comment (from about 2006). I'd end the section with the obvious "you can ignore Orlowski's pleas as well". Maybe even give the section headline as "You can ignore this". Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You and I have never agreed on this but can we please leave that to the Editor-in-chief? Andreas JN466 13:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It would at least be better than making the Signpost look desperate to find any excuse to attack the WMF, dedicating two articles to it in the same issue. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @JPxG and Jayen466: I've made the edit I described above here (I may want to include another link and copy edit it to include the word "ignore"). JPxG - please decide which version of the article is better or more complete or more neutral. If Andreas wishes to take off his initial, I'd understand. Please remove mine if you don't accept my changes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I support the idea of providing context about Orlowski's earlier Wikipedia reporting, but what's the source for the "baby Khmer Rouge" quote? (If we can't find one, we might rather want to go with the aforementioned "the Khmer Rouge in diapers" from (e.g.) 2004.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with sharing the byline with Smallbones. But we should fix the Khmer Rouge thing. The way it is described in our Orlowski bio is actually correct: In 2004, he approvingly quoted a Register reader who had called Wikipedia enthusiasts "the Khmer Rouge in diapers".
The Register piece described there is here: [14]. Orlowski wrote, "It's the Khmer Rouge in diapers," observes one regular Register reader, which seems as good a description as any to us. (He was lampooning someone who predicted that Wikipedia would eventually replace the entire education system ... which continues to look unlikely, nearly 20 (!) years on.) Best, Andreas JN466 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. I'll disagree in advance on the quibble that he didn't actually invent the phrase. It appeared under his byline and never would have seen the light of day if he hadn't used it. IMHO it's an irrelevant detail - he owns it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting on the summary for this article before publication. I am not really sure what the whole ordeal up here is about (I mostly ignored it because I could not tell how it was relevant to anything). As far as I can tell, some guy wrote an article saying basically the exact same stuff we say every month. I don't know why we need to crap on him from such a great height. Sure, maybe the magazine he published it in sucks (according to some random Vice reporter four years ago) but I don't think that we are really in the business of passing judgement on the moral worth of other publications. At least we are not in that business yet -- maybe if our article breaks 2,000 pageviews we can start to worry about "tunnelling". As it stands, it seems to me a little silly to think that we are the only people of pure enough hearts to say "the WMF is spending money in some troubling ways". As for the bias: yeah, maybe we should cool it on the Carthago delenda est. But then again, I dunno, shit man, what if Carthago really delenda est? I have sixteen years of archives to read through before I can really go all-in either way. Until then, I think is a safe bet to run Jayen's hooting and hollering, run the WMF's hooting and hollering, and trust that our readers are smart enough to tell the hooting apart from the hollering (or vice versa mutatis mutandis). jp×g 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Just checking

@JPxG: It looks like were all ready! Looking forward to seeing this issue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_29&oldid=1247598536"