Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-12-24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-12-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case (2,726 bytes · 💬)

Jytdog was a very good editor...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog was a very good editor, but to be a member of a community you also need to consider how to treat others. Jytdog tended to be focused on the articles, but at times it seemed that they were not focused enough on the idea that there was a person behind the account. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As demonstrated by the dozens of testimonials here, his work will be sorely missed. It was good, very good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog did excellent work, but their treatment of other editors sometimes left much to be desired, and was the ultimate cause of their departure. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I had a pointed off-wiki discussion with Jytdog in 2016/2017 timeframe. He insisted on bullying Barbara Page as a means to control her sometimes problematic editing and I took him to task off-wiki for his bad behavior. I had met with Barbara in person to resolve issues and I saw no need for his method. He wouldn't even apologize, let alone stop. Rest assured, I won't miss him. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It is notable that a significant number of productive editors have left the project rather than undergo an ArbCom case. Additionally, we have lost editors after cases, or part way through - one of the problems with these cases being that they effectively break WP:NOT COMPULSORY (though they are not the only part of the apparatus that does that). I'm not sure if there is a good solution to these issues, but when I was observing ArbCom closely it did seem that there was a distinction between those that investigated fully, reading all diffs offered, and subsequently making constructive suggestions, and those that relied on the judgement of other members, or of parties to the case, and rarely made any innovative proposals, rather tending to absolute versions of standard sanctions, regardless of evidence of their effectiveness. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Blog: News from the WMF (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Blog

Discussion report: Reliable Sources Noticeboard editors discuss deprecating sources (12,677 bytes · 💬)

Fake news alert: those passing by might like to compare the Signpost's coverage of the Daily Mail story with what has actually been said at RS/N [1]. Many have argued the ban should never have been promulgated in the first place. I suppose the most straightforward approach would be just to ask the authors: "Why didn't you report this?" It's there in black and white (and sometimes turquoise) in the page you were covering.

As an aside, it is extremely misleading not to call a "general prohibition" a ban. As I understand it the Daily Mail can only be used as a source about its own reporting, a luxury of verifiability which apparently "banned" outlets are not even permitted. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Out of 94 !votes so far in the current RfC, 26 !voted to overturn the ban, 68 !voted to uphold the ban. and 1 !voted to retain the ban for everying in the past but to overturn it going forward.
The most common overturn reasoning was that they just got a new editor who pinkie promises to make The Daily Mail a reliable source Real Soon Now.
Related:
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Guy, are you sure you counted right? I could have sworn I remembered one character voting "Kill it! Kill it with fire!" Which of your columns did that go in?
PS: I invite anyone(s) to peruse the Yes/Support votes to check out the facts being distorted above. I read over 20 such votes that said nothing whatsoever about the DM being better or worse now, just that the ban was dumb (not everyone was careful enough to say "in the first place" and not everyone spoke of the problem of cabal autoritah, though a few did...) In short I read one or two "yes lift the ban" comments saying what this Signpost article says they did, and 20 saying something very different. That's all I wanted to point out.
Here is a slightly indirect link to the article "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship" written by Kalev Leetaru for your consideration. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 21:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
If you have trouble interpreting something like "Kill it. Kill it with fire. The preceding sentence is based 100% on the demonstrated unreliability of The Daily Mail" as supporting the existing consensus From the RfC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC, you should avoid making comments about the results of RfCs. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"Apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources"

This caught my attention: "apparent left-wing bias in deprecating mostly right-wing sources (out of the 5 deprecated/banned sources on WP:RSP, only Occupy Democrats is listed on adfontesmedia.com as left-wing)". I've previously avoided discussing Ad Fontes Media's "Media Bias Chart: Version 4.0", since it's a self-published source. However, assuming the chart is accurate, a close look at the low-quality publications in the chart reveals why most of the currently deprecated sources have a right-wing bias.

The following is a list of the sources in the Red Rectangle ("Nonsense damaging to public discourse"), which includes sources that fit these classifications: "Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info", "Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info", and the lower half of "Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion". All sources with an "Overall Quality" score of 19 or lower are included in the chart. (The raw data is available at adfontesmedia.com.)

Source Status at WP:RSP Overall Quality Political Bias Alexa Rank Uses
Daily Mail (MailOnline) Deprecated 19 Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion 13 Skews Right 197 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Breitbart News Deprecated 8 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 34 Most Extreme Right 259 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Caller No consensus 12 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 24 Hyper-Partisan Right 743 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Wire N/A 16 Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion 28 Hyper-Partisan Right 2,700 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
InfoWars Deprecated 1 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info 44 Most Extreme Right 3,412 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
WorldNetDaily (WND) Deprecated 4 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info 36 Most Extreme Right 4,897 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Gateway Pundit N/A 12 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 35 Most Extreme Right 5,797 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TheBlaze (Blaze Media) Generally unreliable 8 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 27 Hyper-Partisan Right 6,642 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
AlterNet Generally unreliable 18 Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion -23 Hyper-Partisan Left 14,007 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Twitchy N/A 14 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 29 Hyper-Partisan Right 15,499 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Palmer Report N/A 8 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info -34 Most Extreme Left 17,879 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
RedState N/A 11 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 29 Hyper-Partisan Right 25,295 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Guacamoley N/A 17 Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion -20 Hyper-Partisan Left 28,289 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wonkette N/A 12 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info -34 Most Extreme Left 44,023 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Enquirer Generally unreliable 6 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info 10 Skews Right 95,781 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bipartisan Report N/A 13 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info -27 Hyper-Partisan Left 132,478 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
David Wolfe N/A 2 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info -32 Most Extreme Left 156,314 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
WorldTruth.TV N/A 1 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info 20 Hyper-Partisan Right 199,437 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Patribotics N/A 1 Contains Inaccurate/Fabricated Info -40 Most Extreme Left 375,449 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Occupy Democrats Deprecated 9 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info -30 Hyper-Partisan Left 1,102,908 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Forward Progressives N/A 15 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info -25 Hyper-Partisan Left 5,147,500 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Conservative Tribune N/A 12 Propaganda/Contains Misleading Info 35 Most Extreme Right N/A 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

Note: There is a discrepancy with Ad Fontes Media's data table and chart. PJ Media had an "Overall Quality" score ("Vertical Rank") of 17 ("Selective or Incomplete Story; Unfair Persuasion") in the table, but its position in the chart is around 27 ("Opinion; Fair Persuasion"). I excluded PJ Media from the above list.

When the list is sorted by "Alexa Rank", it's clear that among low-quality sources, the websites with the highest traffic are right-wing sources. Assuming that Ad Fontes Media analyzed all of the most popular publications, it's reasonable to conclude that, due to their popularity, low-quality far-right sources are more likely to be discussed and deprecated on WP:RSN than low-quality far-left sources.

If you're interested in this topic, there is another active discussion at WP:RSN § Why are more right wing sources considered unreliable than left-wing sources?. I'll repost this list in that discussion. — Newslinger talk 14:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue with the Daily Mail is primarily one of bias: specifically of certain editors against the paper. It is true that The Sun is less reliable, and that the Mail's web-site is pretty useless, containing as it does mostly syndicated stories. However, those that understand the British press have a good idea of where the Mail could be considered a reasonably reliable source and where it cannot. In many circumstances (for example age of people) the whole of the British press has a bad reputation, while for inaccuracy in spelling the Guardian is best known. The I magazine regularly mixes up millions and billions, and makes other egregious errors. While it is true that the broadsheets are in general more reliable than the tabloids, neither the distinction nor the scope are clear cut. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC).

Rf A Action!

Since publication there's been a desparate sprint for RfA in the end of the year with 1 candidate finishing up just in time, and another kicking off. Still would be 4 off, though...anyone else feeling like too many people like them? Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are implying. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Essay: Requests for medication (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Essay

From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again (583 bytes · 💬)

  • This is very problematic and should be a significant cause of concern, much more than any of the other articles in the Signpost imho. We should not have administrator accounts with weak passwords. The WMF needs to start attempting to crack their own password database to finally eliminate legacy weak passwords. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting? (11,181 bytes · 💬)

  • Hello. First of all, thank you for continuing to write the Signpost. I do hope the paper will continue on. Regarding content, I think you should report on everything worth reporting on, if you can, and not shy away from controversy. Benjamin (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've always enjoyed what Signpost reports on. Signpost is a mortar for community and that would involve reporting on the community. -- GreenC 16:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As we are - I would say the level of detail we've had in the past is about right. So Wikimedia and Chapter trustees who are in the media for Wiki-related issues should be considered. As have certain other individual cases covered in-Wiki. However, you've not just grabbed entertaining ANI cases, because there was nothing particularly important on it.
  • Ask this question once a year and we can always tweak it! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nosebagbear that the question should be an annual one to help maintain a relevant consesus. I think most of the coverage of individuals should focous on either those who have a large scale impact on the community because of their actions or because they have a high statuas or are in the public eye—The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 06:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Negative coverage of individual editors—typically those subject to sanctions or censure—should be avoided where possible, and where necessary should be kept fastidiously neutral. That's partly for DENY reasons; but mainly because public pillory is not constructive, conducive to a collaborative and collegial editing environment, is purely punitive rather than preventative, and is a barrier to return to editing (whether that's expiry of a time-limited block, through the standard offer, or modification of a ArbCom or community t- or i-ban). Neutral coverage of major controversies on the project, including ArbCom cases, significant AN/ANI discussions, or something happening in the context of an RfC or village pump discussion is fine, provided the overall process is what is reported on, and whatever it was is of general community interest. But using the Signpost to take jabs at individual editors (no matter how well deserved those jabs are), putting the spotlight on an editor that has already been made subject to the community's reprobation, or gravedancing on a sanctioned editor are all unbecoming, not constructive, and, often, actively detrimental to the project long term.
    The Signpost's collective judgement on this kind of thing has, by my reckoning, been generally good so far; but has in individual instances skirted close to and over the line. Thus this message: I would like to see The Signpost be more conscious of this issue, and to at least somewhat raise the bar they hold themselves to. Traditional non-tabloid journalistic standards exist for good reason, and no Wikipedia editor is a public person (with certain very narrow exceptions such as Jimbo). Putting the spotlight on any one of us had better be for good reason and with an abundance of caution regarding the framing and consequences.
    "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle." —Ian Maclaren (probably) --Xover (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Xover, thank you for your comments. They express my thoughts entirely, and I don't think The Signpost has overstepped the line this year. Of greater concern are the reader comments, which although sometimes inappropriate or a swipe at one of the magazine's editors, when we made a suggestion to be selective over what comments we publish as all newspapers do with their readers' letters, we were accused of censorship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kudpung: In the current format, I think the comment section is effectively a free for all. Bad behaviour there should be addressed as it should elsewhere on the project. However, a more "edited" format like "Letters to the editor" might have some merit; and it might even be a good idea to relegate open comments to the talk page in favour of some kind of "Letters to the editor"-type scheme (Select comments added as addenda to the article? Select comments collected in a separate "Letters to the editor" column in the next issue?). However, in general I haven't seen much of the problem you describe in the comments (I've probably not paid enough attention), so I can't claim sufficient basis to opine on the right course to take there. --Xover (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If this month's issue is any clue, I think the answer is that as long as the "perpetrators" of dubious article-stuffing can be linked to Donald Trump, it's OK. On the other hand, requests for the Signpost to investigate the link between the Clinton Foundation & the WMF (the most recent being last month) during the 2016 elections have been ignored for over a year and half. When will you be interviewing WMF contractor Craig Minassian about their role in the two organizations? The stalwart resistance to the idea of countenancing such a story is perplexing or revealing, depending on your point of view. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 12:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
What you are forgetting, SashiRolls, is that apart from the regular routine columns, special reports and investigative journalism are not made by the editorial staff - they don't have time. They are made by contributors like you.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely. To complain of lack of coverage in this community-produced work is to fundamentally misunderstand the process by which it comes to be. There is no Signpost cabal; contrariwise, there's two editors-in-chief begging for content collaborators :) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of that since May, 2017. I'm glad to hear of this change of editorial position! For the record, then, you both authorize me to contact the WMF & Minassian Media on behalf of the Signpost for the purpose of an article? ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 17:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The usual process is to make a proposal at the submission desk first, if you want the imprimatur of The Signpost for interviews and so forth. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I only discovered The Signpost a few issues ago. It has become my habit to at least start and usually finish every article. Which would suggest that you are meeting at least my information desires. In terms of the questions you pose, I would like you to report as fully and impartially as possible on Wikipedia's "controversies, conflicts, scandals, and other news involving specific members of the community". You ask "At what point does ... community news become gossip?" I would actively like to see gossip in The Signpost. As a newer editor I feel that it helps to orient me, and give me a feel for the form, and the accepted/expected behaviour of Wikipedia. As well as suggesting that I am contributing to a human endeavour rather than a bureaucratic monolith. Please keep up the sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep up the hard work guys, It's a great read103.215.54.136 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What is acceptable is simply thoroughly researched journalism, meeting WP:BLP, and other policies (The Signpost might be wise to impose an analogy of WP:NOTINVOLVED, but that is an editorial decision). Even within these bounds contributors will make mistakes, but as long as there are mechanisms for raising and correcting them, this should not be an obstacle. However what is desirable is to only report on significant issues, either because of their scope, general interest (or amusement value), or apparent breaking of new ground. I, at least, am not interested in every long-term vandal, COI editor or sock puppet, and if I was I would follow the appropriate pages.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC).
I Agree, while I myself am very new to the community and not very active, I Believe that we should only report on significant issues, and do our best to accurately report on such occurrences with as little bias as possible.Billster156234781 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The informal guideline in past years was, I thought, it's okay to comment on specific editors regarding RfAs, arbitration cases and when editors (or WMF) was in the news unless there was a case of notable disruption (like widespread sockpuppetry or a paid editing ring). It was also okay to quote specific editors who might have participated in these types of discussions, RfCs or Village Pump debates. I would guess that most readers are fine with quoting editors' comments but editorial commentary on editors has typically been more cautious unless it was considered "Wikipedia newsworthy".
I miss the Arbitration Report especially when I was working as an ArbCom clerk and enjoyed reading the Signpost editor's take on cases that can last months and months. With the light ArbCom load these days, I don't think it would be too demanding of an assignment. Any volunteers lately? Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Liz I usually do the arbitration report. There were reports in third quarter 2018 for October 1, December 1, December 24. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Gallery

Humour: I believe in Bigfoot (1,242 bytes · 💬)

I thot I would just browse through these quickly, but there are some fascinating links! thanks, --Doncram (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

NOT ONE mention of Mothman...SO SADCoal town guy (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
(Mothman) :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Mothman deserves to be here. Or is it mothperson, moth-he/she/it, moth-gender neutral pronoun? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 18:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant! Elfabet (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In the media: Political hijinks (0 bytes · 💬)

News and notes: Some wishes do come true (7,762 bytes · 💬)

  • If I'm reading this right, and 2018 saw 10 total successful RfAs, 6 inactivity desysops, 1 resignation, and 2 (permanent) emergency desysops… By my count the net change in the number of brooms being pushed on the project for 2018 is 1. --Xover (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not quite, you are getting monthly and annual numbers mixed up. For instance there were three more inactivity desysops and one resignation listed in the December 1 News and notes. The totals are strongly negative for 2018. "Down 50 in the last twelve months" said Kudpung in his May Op-ed. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bri: - I was wondering if we had any idea of number of properly active admins (say, at least 5 actions in the last month etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Active" isn't an ideal measure as it looks at logged editing activity, so you could have an active admin who hasn't used the tools in years. But it is the measure we have available to us, and it has the virtue of having been collected consistently over time. It is showing a drop of about 24 year on year - that's almost a 5% annual contraction. ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You might be right. I did a spot check of the "active" admins starting with 'A' and there are plenty who aren't really very active. Some are just doing routine stuff that could be automated, like deleting empty categories. At least one did just two logged actions of any type in 2018 (they were both page creations). Many are just doing page moves (which is unbundled [I have that right myself]). I'm sure there's some gaming the system to keep the bit. A better picture would be "who did more than N of [block|page protection|revdel]" where N is a significant number like 20 or more. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At the risk of tooting my own horn, this is sort of what I created User:Amorymeltzer/s-index to look at. There are plenty of failings with it, but it tries to get some measure of logged sysop activity over time by calculating S, the number of sysops who made S logged actions in a given time period. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The biggest question, though, is whether there are insufficient admins to actually keep the place afloat. Or anything close to that. As far as I can tell most backlogs that require admin intervention are not hopelessly long, but I may be mistaken. On another note it's worth bearing in mind that some admins concentrate on tasks that don't show up in the "administrative action" count, such as closing discussions or editing the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Factcheck (again): Could you be more specific about the sockfarm you mention during Galobtter's RfA? As I understood it there was one support vote (which was counted) from the Sagecandor/Yetishawl/Cirt sockfarm, and one yes-voter and one no-voter (neither of which was counted) from an unrelated sockfarm. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 18:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

SashiRolls, See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korruski/Archive. (something you could have checked yourself). The purpose of mentioning the socking is not specifically to discuss SPI, but to draw attention once more to how corrupt RfA can be and that it is essential to be vigilant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Kudpung, I saw this. What I found strange was that you mentioned the sock whose vote was struck/stricken, but didn't mention the sock whose vote *was* counted in the election. Who knows, maybe being the main author of the Wikipedia page on the Signpost brings some special perks with it, like not having your sock drawer reported in the paper of the same name. ^^ SashiRolls t · c 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
'Special perks', SashiRolls? I doubt it, maybe this thread will explain what your own research missed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's notable that one admin has made about 1,000,000 deletions. I'm not sure that if we lose that one we have enough resource to fill the breach. In fact, I have often thought that (and a small sample quite a few years ago seemed to confirm) we are not sufficiently careful about speedy deletions, even when we had far more active admins. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC).
  • I don't agree that we've a shortage of admins now. I remember huge administrative backlogs being dealt with during the first few years after I got the mop in 2007, and those backlogs are gone. There was more work for a larger corps then, not so much now. – Athaenara ✉ 04:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see a dark mode added to Wikipedia (I was hoping for something like this before, and installed a plugin into my browser to do pretty much that!) That said - and correct me if I'm wrong - but unless the account's been hacked or is otherwise being abused, desysopping an inactive admin seems like a solution in search of a problem. PrussianOwl (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @PrussianOwl: Please forgive me for whatever my problem is, but what is "dark mode" in this context? Is it reverse light/dark in text display so letters are light on a dark background, or something more nuanced or subtle or political? – Athaenara ✉ 08:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, scratch that, I see now "toggleable dark or night-mode" up there. – Athaenara ✉ 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee (13,009 bytes · 💬)

I must say, not the kind of story I was expecting on Christmas Eve. No comment on content per se.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 13:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

  • This is the world of undisclosed paid editing unfortunately. This case is not as bad as many though involves someone more high profile than most. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A very interesting and well-written piece. Thanks for the read, Smallbones! Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Would Wikipedia benefit from a Whitaker bot?Tamanoeconomico (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Very good reportage - thank you! - kosboot (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for all the kind comments. I'm off for some last minute shopping. Merry Christmas! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well this was very interesting for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the "Update" section that was added. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Good ol' fashion journalism - The Signpost at its best, though the football stuff seemed a little tangential. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Perhaps I should explain the emphasis on football. A lot of investigations use the rule from Watergate "Follow the money", others might "chercher la femme". When it became clear that the creator of the Matthew Whitaker article had an inflated view of Whitaker's football career, I just "followed the bouncing football." Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal posted an article referring to this post, Dec 26: https://www.wsj.com/articles/acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-incorrectly-claims-academic-all-american-honors-11545844613 Ncr100 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow - I just checked this out. Yup it's there. Reuters also has an article, just summarizing the WSJ though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
At least sixteen major mainstream media outlets are running the story now. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
"Academic All-American" is trending #3 on Twitter with 40K tweets. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
It is WSJ's #1 story online at the moment. I'm keeping a roster of media mentions here. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Good work, Smallbones. Tony (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Nice to get the scoop from The Signpost! Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Very, very good work by one of our own! Smallbones has helped to make us all proud to be Wikipedia editors. Gandydancer (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting read. I don't understand why people who want to edit Wikipedia don't have to register first and provide some sort of bona fides, so that edits can be traced back to real people. This would prevent Wikipedia being used as propaganda, and improve articles which are constantly targeted by idiots--Gueux de mer (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC).

Citations to this article

Moved in here from subpage.

Re-report (Tier II)

  • Maremont, Mark. "Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Incorrectly Claims Academic All-American Honors". WSJ.

Re-reported (Tier III, reporting on Tier II)

26 December

27 December

Re-re-reported (Tier IV, using wire services or other national papers)

Other (no attribution)

jp×g 22:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018; sounds reasonable enough, right? (6,747 bytes · 💬)

  • If you have any opinions or comments on this article please do write them down here. I am looking forward to doing a follow up piece on this in the next issue and will incorporate reader comments into it. Thank you. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like articles about adminship grab a lot of eyeballs. As a fan of the Traffic Report, I'm surprised it isn't higher in ranks of type of article most viewed. Liz Read! Talk! 17:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Liz: - bear in mind that many go directly to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the weekly, lengthier report. It has scored 160,000+ hits throughout the past year, and this may account for the discrepancy in views, with each individual weekly report grabbing 3,000 or so views. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I was also surprised, but Stormy clouds quick insight of ~160,000+ views makes sense. This is an interesting case, how most people prefer to go to the original source of the traffic report, something they are more comfortable and familiar with, knowing also that it is regularly updated. Compare this with say this issues op-ed, which may have got many many more views when covered by other media sources, whereas in Signpost, the article still has generally the same number of views which a high-view Signpost article gets. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This makes a case for the importance of The Signpost at the center of Wikimedia community attention and also at how low the ratio of content contributors to readers is. Wow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: That's an interesting point to note, the contributors to readers ratio. I wonder what the average ratio is in general for writer to reader ratio in media houses etc, I'm sure that may also be very low, much lower than Signpost maybe? Same case for Wikipedia articles... contributor to reader ratio for some are huge. I was also thinking about how low the ratio is for active Wikipedia users to contributors to Signpost. But I am sure this can also be explained by various factors including decrease in meta wiki stuff. Anyway, thank you for the insights. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If you include Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and all subpages (including talk pages), the total views comes out to ~1.3 million [2]. There are some discrepancies between Massviews (disclaimer: authored by yours truly) and User:DiplomatTesterMan/Signpost Statistics, but much of that I assume is because of when the data was gathered. — MusikAnimal talk 00:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    Going off of Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2018 and all the subcategories, which I presume would include all articles, we get ~394,500 pageviews [3]. — MusikAnimal talk 00:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    @MusikAnimal: The time period for the data gathered is: 16 Jan 2018 to 7 Dec 2018. If this parameter is put into the massviews analysis tool, a total of 354,862 [4] is displayed. This is very close to the figure mentioned in the article, which is 353,134 views. This is a discrepancy of 1728 views. This is explained in two ways. 1. The massviews tool lists 158 pages, which includes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2018, which accounts for 1449 views. I have not included this. 2. I have also made a difference of 1 day in Issue 1, which has been counted till 6 Dec 2018, which I have forgotten to mention anywhere. This accounts for 65 views. This leave a total discrepancy of 314 views, which I again know is my human error after quickly comparing my table with the massviews table. I think these points should sort out the discrepancies. (And I would just like to point out that the massviews tool is awesome and such a useful wiki tool!, I should actually attribute you in the final compilation of this report too, thanks!) Thanks for mentioning the total Signpost views also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    So in the Signpost Statistics 2018 page I have officially mentioned and thanked the three of you for the tool which helped make these statistics possible, the names as mentioned at the bottom of the pageviews and massviews site, MusikAnimal, Kaldari and Marcel Ruiz Forns. I also just want to add that I use the pageviews tool so much and helps in analysis A LOT LOT!!! Thank you! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents (4,576 bytes · 💬)

Under the Jason Momoa box, it claims that the film Aquaman is a "critical and commercial hit." Metacritic: 55; Rotten Tomatoes: 63. That's a critical hit? - kosboot (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Defensible. Variety said it got "decent reviews". ☆ Bri (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd thought for a while that the Yellow Jackets page might hit a million views this month. Nope, even 800K might be a push, now. Such small, pesky fry! Dead presidents! Bollywood! That's what we the Signpost readers want to read about, right?

I think this page could be more interesting if you looked through the Top 5000 from time to time. We could have inter-city popularity battles that might tell us something interesting, e.g.

Trump v. Clinton finishes 13-4 in reader interest, but I'm far too lazy to mark that one up. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 20:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying we should include things that don't make the list criteria (traffic/pageviews) but we judge to be important nonetheless? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm saying it's a traffic report. I notice that the format of this humor page ("Top-25 report: This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it too seriously.") hasn't changed in a long time. That's reassuring for the morning commute, of course, and is being done valiantly well. But, sure, there could be *all* sorts of zaniness based on the top 5000. Trivia: who was the reading public more curious about this week: Dick Cheney or Dr. Seuss? ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 21:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
We're simply posting whatever gets popular during the week (it is the purpose of the WP:TOP25!), with added comments to make things fun to read. Next edition might have a change, given we're preparing the yearly report. Otherwise, only huge occasions might break the format (such as that breakdown following the 2016 election). But your suggestion is great for the actual Humor section (@Barbara (WVS): do you agree?). igordebraga ≠ 00:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
What do you me to agree with? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also worth noting that this Traffic Report is not penned specifically for the Signpost. Rather, it is written on its own merits to catelogue the 25 articles to receive the most views in a week on Wikipedia. This helps to further explain the difference between a pure traffic report (which could operate as you suggest) and the Top 25, which operates independently and is adapted for the purpose of the Signpost, and so paves its own path (and as Igordebraga points out, the name broadly dictates what we do there). Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yay! The short-fingered vulgarian squatting in the White House failed to make any of the three Top 25 Lists! Here's hoping he stays off these lists until his removal from office. -- llywrch (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject Articles for Creation (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/WikiProject report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2018-12-24&oldid=1125230755"