Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-04-03

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2023-04-03. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic (4,048 bytes · 💬)

An eye-opening article! Wikipedia is being diddled by big banks -- and likely other big other things. In one sense it's a compliment to the importance of Wikipedia that big banks would go to such trouble to burnish their articles. Smallchief (talk)

Thanks Smallchief. Yes, big corporations in general, and others, have gotten the idea that they can burnish their reputations on Wikipedia - and what's wrong with taking advantage of free advertising? they might say. Well, where to start ...? Actually though, I was a bit surprised that there wasn't more strong evidence here on paid editing and I think I need to do more articles of this type to figure where the biggest part of the paid editing problem lies. Big banks do have a fairly bad reputation in general throughout society, especially during economic downturns. But the companies in this list are highly regulated and know that they will be put under the microscope every so often. Or maybe the method - just looking how often there's been socking in the articles about them in the past that's been caught - isn't all that powerful. Well, the only way to tell what's going on is to continue looking.

One problem at looking at a "whole sector" is that it takes lots of time. In the past I've looked at a couple of individuals, or one company at a time. That gives me time to examine many individual edits, check each sockpuppet investigation, etc. With 30 companies, that's just too time consuming the way I'm working on it now. But I do plan on looking at other sectors (over time). If anybody wants to tell me what type of company, or what type of articles, they think are the most socked, please let me know and I'll take a look. This article could have used some comparison companies. The best comparisons that are already available are 2 articles I've done of 8-9 "companies" each: Russian oligarchs and the Adani Group's owners and subsidiaries. Something broader (more normal?) than that is needed. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, e.g. auto manufacturers, retail stores, food processors. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

One industry that might prove problematic would be technology. On one hand, there are doubtlessly cases of paid editors burnishing the reputation of given companies. (Twitter would be a prime example.) On the other, there are likewise doubtlessly cases of employees altruistically adding information to their products. I'll admit that around 15 years ago I helped one employer to craft an article on one of their products, but once it was posted I had little to nothing further to do with it. (I had a peek at it a few years back to see how it had changed.) Does that make me a sock puppet for that company? I hope not, especially as I'm as likely to add unfavorable information about that company & its products as favorable. And because I'm far more likely to edit articles on subjects unrelated to what I do for a living than to repeat that exercise. -- llywrch (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• This report is, I believe, quite accurate. We have, however, also experienced extreme hesitation on the part of legitimate editors with expertise in financial and business areas because they have every reason to believe that they'll be accused of being socks should they work on articles that have been skewed by socks and/or UPEs. There has definitely been a history of such accusations; we must guard against the "well, these accounts all seem to be interested in banks, so they must be socks" mentality in order to attract knowledgeable editors to the financial and business topic areas. Risker (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

From the archives: April Fools' through the ages (300 bytes · 💬)

• The article's skewed!? I feel like I got meta-pranked... Space Sushi (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions (4,743 bytes · 💬)

• Is... there a reason why the text is moving down towards the right? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I assume someone at the printing press screwed it up. Legoktm (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  To be entirely fair to them, it's an easy mistake to make.

  Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok so this entire thing is supposed to be a joke...so why isn't it in the humor section of the signpost? It's past April Fool's so this entire issue just being a joke makes no sense. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose there will be a retraction, then. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oh-oh... Someone borrowed the "askew" command from Google. (For those who don't know - type in "askew" in the Google search box and see what happens. It's right up there with "do a barrel roll" and other shenanigans embedded in that search engine). cart-Talk 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
• Bravo WaggersTALK 10:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
• Personally i think this comes across a bit bitter. If signpost wants to defend the previous things they wrote, their right to have opinion pieces and editorial discretion, or whatever this piece is trying to signify, by all means just do it directly. Lazy sarcasm is unbecoming and unconvincing. Bawolff (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  +1 I think the Signpost ('s editors) are allowed to take positions on controversial stuff. I think anyone who is unhappy about the Signpost's editorial line and how it represents the Wikipedia community is free to found WP:TSOPNGIS and write counter-articles. But I also think the editors should take it as they dish it, and complaining that one’s article caused a big ANI fuss is whiny. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• You missed such wondrous articles as Local man lost at Sea, and "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated" from the forgotten era when the signpost could be accused of an excessive focus on the English language Wikipedia, with consequent neglect of the rest of the Wikiverse, let alone the rest of the internet. ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
• The sarcasm is really unfunny and off-taste. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Night at the Museum was my first thought when I saw the painting at the top of this page, looks like one of the dioramas in it. 50.0.121.127 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• I suggest we cut the salaries of the editors until they swiftly apologise and retract every single article published. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In the media: Twiddling Wikipedia during an online contest, and other news (1,097 bytes · 💬)

Cathay Airlines:

Still getting vandalised. A longer block is probably required. (The giveaway is still ongoing and staggered for 6 months. [1]) – robertsky (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Motherboard news article really had me confused when I first read it. People are vandalizing Wikipedia in order to win a contest?! How does that work? Fortunately the admin was quicker on the uptake than I was on the write-up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's spelled "indigenous". Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI (1,461 bytes · 💬)

• I like the sound logo! I'm pretty sure that's the one I ranked first, too. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'd prefer to remove the five notes at the end and keep it short, like other sound logos. That's just my opinion, though. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 02:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  ThadeusOfNazereth supports a logo created by Thaddeus Osborne. Sus... Axem Titanium (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  For real, though, I do like the new sound logo. Congrats, Thaddeus! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• What is the hub of LLM content/discussion on enwiki? From the article I gather Wikipedia:Large language models; I have also found out Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and Category:Wikipedia and artificial intelligence, any other venues that exist? Gotitbro (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT (1,243 bytes · 💬)

• I wonder which Wikipedia has the most cosmopolitan POV. If such a thing is even quantifiable in the first place... even the papers cited here just took individual articles into account. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  A metric could be, for each Wikipedia: # of references used in other languages/total # of references used... in the 1000 articles every Wikipedia should have. The higher the ratio, the more cosmopilitan? Wikipedias in dutch or german might be more diverse as their users in general can read more languages. Cbrescia (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft or not

Is this a draft paper or a published one? PAC2 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The "elephant" paper? It's a preprint, as mentioned in the opening sentence of the review. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Great issue guys

The retractions were fun. Keep up the good work, as always. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)