Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2020-09-27

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


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2020-09-27. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests (571 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

The JzG case showed how Arbitrators read one part of a case request and fixate on it. The case request was about JzG's behavior due to a recent NAC and past behavior however many of the declines commented about the NAC totally disregarding any past behavior issues and history of JzG. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content: Life finds a Way (3,519 bytes · 💬)[edit]

MacArthur?[edit]

Does not look like MacArthur and I can find no source indicating that it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia That's taken directly from the image description on commons. This source confirmed it for me initially, but as you have mentioned, it doesn't really look like MacArthur and he wasn't have been around to award it afaics. I've removed the mention of him, thanks for bringing it up. If you would like, I can add text here attributing the error, along the lines of " a previous version of this article mis-identified person X as MacArthur". Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the 1946 source makes no mention of Macarthur, saying the Army awarded it, while MacArthur was in Japan at the time of the award, and she was in the US. Sounds like someone puffed up the 89 obit to add MacArthur (families often write obits) but even if MacArthur conferred the award, there is no source that he is the person pinning it on her in the picture. It is quite remarkable that this mistake was made, with MacArthur being such a well-known figure and ... where are all his stars on that jacket? I think it is the Featured picture people who need to consider how to remedy this ... and it even made it to the mainpage at DYK. Perhaps it is an age issue and younger people do not remember MacArthur’s looks and vanity ;) ;). I am guessing the image will be defeatured, since it wasn’t that good anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is on the Main page NOW at DYK. It should be swopped for this wonderful image The Acid Thrower from my DYK nom for L'Estampe originale just below. Where is TRM when you need him? Johnbod (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no one yet has corrected the MacArthur misinformation over at Commons, while the image is protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a colonel's insignia on his shoulder? --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is. He also wheres what I believe to be the crossed rifles of an infantry unit. The image has no proper date, it is conjectured to be 1946 based on incorrect information about the award being given, but she also received her then late husbands two medals in 1947 in a ceremony in California presided over the General in charge of the Sixth United States Army. That means if it is in California it could be a full bird attached to one of three possible General officers, or someone attached to the War Department in DC. If this was in DC, it should be at a public venue such as the White House of the Capital Building, but this looks like an ordinary room, which suggests the information in the image to be sorely lacking since its left more questions than answers for us... TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later (10,661 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Readers might want to know the backstory and some results of the Untapped New York article - the myth was disputed in the Wikipedia article in 2013, and that editor later emailed me over it. Their research simultaneously led to this Untapped article, which as it happened primarily credited Wikipedia for creating and perpetuating the myth. Had to do a lot of digging, but turns out it was started and spread in news before being added to Wikipedia, so I emailed Untapped to have it fixed. Luckily, they've been very glad to work with me and Epicgenius, and even granted CC-BY SA use of five images of wonderful off-limits areas in and around the terminal, never before depicted in Wikimedia spaces :) We might collaborate on a new Untapped article in the near future, so look out for more Grand Central news... ɱ (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ɱ: Thanks for this. It's always nice to know where this type of story gets started - and it's not always on Wikipedia. We probably stamp out a lot more myths than we create. You said you've got photos? I was looking for a good one for the article, but ran out of time. Feel free to put one on this page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the images they granted were of subjects not related to the clock, seen here. But you could always add this or this, both excellent photos of the clock in question. ɱ (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a lower-grade Davis-type piece, here's "Wikipedia Strikes Again!" Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Willsome429: I love these stories about people trying to correct or spin "their" Wikipedia article. I mean there was Philip Roth on one of his characters, Jimbo about his birth date, there's a whole series of heavy metal (and similar) musicians on video (I love Ice-T's, see his article). There's a journalist who started collecting off-Wiki her and others' articles with all the good stuff taken out. Talking to a reporter is about the simplest way that I've heard - but it only works if you are truly notable! Video's should work well too - and you really don't have to be notable to make a video and put it on YouTube. And then there is the dark side ... Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the ultimate irony is that White's "big return to racing" (he currently meets NMOTOR by a mere one appearance) was derailed when the team's equipment was repossessed. Dude was so worried about his Wikipedia page that he couldn't find a team that could stay afloat. Always fun to see where people's priorities lay, for sure. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Section 230 is repealed, can't Wikipedia just move its servers to a less hostile jurisdiction? (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
given current world trends, all jurisdictions are likely to beat least equally difficult. A society with a great emphasis on either personal privacy or government control will be inherently suspicious of the free exchange of knowledge. This applies even within WP--look at the complexities of how we now handle BLP: there are things known to be true and documented and relevant that cannot be said. We deal with the difficult situations by focusing on details of documentation and degree of relevance, in order to compromise sufficiently to avoid provocation. I personally regret the degree to which we compromise now, but I suspect we could compromise further, without losing the character of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Beijing representative also suggested that Wikimedia Taiwan has been “carrying out political activities… which could undermine the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”" This might be a dumb question, but is there any actual truth to that accusation? I would hope that they wouldn't, but I'm not sure everyone's being quite so careful these days to avoid random politics. --Yair rand (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beijing is presumably referring to advocacy for Taiwanese independence here. In the linked statement, the chapter seems to strongly reject this, alluding to the NPOV principle ("we fairly display all points of view of a controversial topic, not the point of view from any particular country or government"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some good coverage of the WIPO issue at [1]. An interesting quote from the WIPO session, from Ambassador Andrew Bremberg representing the United States:

On the application of the Wikimedia Foundation specifically we see that this international NGO is similar to many other NGOs who have views on Copyright related issues and who have already been accepted as WIPO observers. This applicant has already demonstrated its interest in the field of IP and its organization’s link to WIPO’s work, for example, they submitted input to the WIPO AI and IP call for public input. They use the WIPO arbitration and mediation services frequently. Observers are meant to enrich debates and bring views that link to and support the activities and objectives of WIPO. We have no information that would lead us to believe that the applicants would not be able to contribute to our consultations and debates about current IP issues. Therefore, Mr. Chair, we would urge approval of the organizations listed in A/61/3 at this session. However, there is a agreement to simply defer, we will accept that approach. I would say that evaluating an international NGO’s credentials for observer status in WIPO is not a One-China issue. The Wikimedia Foundation's participation does not raise any questions about the political status of any other Member States allowing the Wikimedia Foundation to participate as an observer would be entirely consistent with the established precedent at WIPO of supporting other existing observers and Member States that also have some affiliation with Taiwan.

I'm starting to find it disconcerting that the WMF is being discussed like this at major international fora, let alone becoming part of them. --Yair rand (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find disconcerting about it?
By the way, for illustration of the "they use the WIPO arbitration and mediation services frequently" bit, see e.g. this Signpost piece I wrote back in 2009.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: 'Seigenthaler incident 15 years later' - Despite indicating their (and their parents') desire for them to no longer contribute on Wikipedia, and being indefinitely blocked, the individual at the centre of this particular incident has since twice tried to create accounts and to edit articles again. These WP:SOCKPUPPETS have been blocked, but they may try again. We need to remain more vigilant and be more proactive in not tolerating uncited BLP statements in any articles. The impact for the subjects involved, as well as on Wikipedia's reputation, can be disastrous.  Nick Moyes (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)  [reply]
  • It is said that crypto sites cannot be used to show notability. But the fact is, that apparently you can't even use them for facts either ("file it as pink-rated"). That leaves out the well-written articles by Aaron van Wirdum. So since you can't trust the magazine, because it has an incentive to prop up the tech, why can we quote Andreas Antonopoulos book on Lightning Network? Isn't it expected that there is a correlation between people who know about Bitcoin, and people who hold Bitcoin? Isn't it a bit funny, that Wikipedia is now aligned (adminship is alignment) with the only person in the world who makes a living off of criticizing the space? --Ysangkok (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki (4,366 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Kiev moves to Kyiv[edit]

@Bri and Smallbones: in While most participants in the RfA cited Wikipedia's common name policy is RfA meant to be RfC or RM? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagwar[edit]

As Jayen466 said: "Whatever Wikipedia as a community is doing, it is more of a vehicle for contributors' self-indulgence than it is a concerted endeavour to bring free knowledge to the world." Our community coddles editors like Jagwar and AmaryllisGardener because that's what we're really about, which is sad. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Malagasy wikidictionary problem is basically Scots Wiki 2.0. And whereas an encyclopedia with poorly written information and bits of gibberish is ineffective, a dictionary without proper definitions is downright useless. While a user is technically responsible for their bot, it seems we need to be more stringent in enforcing actual competent human review of their edits. I hope more audits are conducted in the future. We were too late to prevent this problem on the small wikis, but more audits may at least keep it from getting worse by exposing these deficiencies to the wider community. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe there is a Monty Python sketch that explains the issue very well. (IIRC, it involves the line, "My hovercraft is full of eels." And if not, it should.) Come to think of it, there are many issues very well explained by Monty Python sketches. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total number of pageviews[edit]

This is a misleading and not very useful metric, as it includes bot and spider views. Admittedly, the fault largely lies with the Foundation's Wikistats 2.0 tool, which mentions this issue in the small print - "In this data we try to separate bot traffic and focus on human user page views" - but nevertheless presents the total views as the default. The trick for following that "focus on human user page views" recommendation is to click "Split by agent type" in the left sidebar and then use the checkboxes to select the right combination of metric components. (Also, while the linked data documentation fails to mention it, be aware that a substantial amount of views were reclassified as "automated" starting in May 2020.)

Separately, while it seems indeed true that there was a coronavirus-related traffic peak around April and May, pageviews drop considerably from April to August every year due to seasonal changes. So the comparison in the article ("... down from the recent high in April ...") is not very meaningful.

Regard, HaeB (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tropical cyclone WikiProject[edit]

That's a rather usual name for a tropical cyclone... --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is an official naming convention yet, maybe just an unofficial plan. I know the agency in charge of this has run out of regular people's names and moved on to Greek letters, e.g. tropical storm Beta. I don't see any reason that they couldn't use the names of various WikiEntities if they run out of Greek letters. So we could have tropical storm "Tropical storm", or Hurricane WMF, tropical storm Women in red, or category 5 hurricane The Signpost. . Let me know what you think. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people don't understand things as well as I do." --Gracie Allen
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases (7,980 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

"social bias" on Wikidata[edit]

Why do you even bother with mentioning of this kind of extremely low-quality research? And undue promotion of sloppy researchers with weird results and no meaningful interpretation thereof. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference: Staszek Lem is talking about the paper by four researchers of Amazon Alexa, from Amazon's Cambridge Research lab.)
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion ("extremely low-quality", "sloppy") based on? Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If decent researchers receive a weird result ("male list is lead by baritone"), they do something about this. As for the observation "women more likely to be homekeepers", I guess I have to add this example into my article "British scientists". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the paper?
I'm not sure how this particular result is "weird" in the sense of likely to be wrong. Keep in mind that they are not saying that baritone was the most frequent profession among male Wikidata subjects; rather (as I indicated in the excerpt) that it was the profession ranked highest in a metric indicating that Wikidata subjects with this profession are more likely to be male than female. (The full description of this list in the paper is "Top 20 male professions in Wikidata relative to female using TransE embeddings".)
A more worthwhile question might be what Wikidata should and shouldn't do about these "harmful social biases related to professions" (to quote the paper's abstract). In the case of suffragettes (#4 on the top 20 female professions list), it's hard to imagine many benefits of adding male profession members until this disparity on Wikidata is resolved.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are qualified to act as a peer reviewer and willing to place your reputation behind the article(s), it's a very bad idea to promote preprints that have not yet been peer reviewed. It's bad science and bad journalism. ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not correct. Preprints aren't as reliable as peer reviewed publications (but those aren't guaranteed either!), but they're distributed for people to read and review, and give feedback. Indeed, if there's a flaw in the work that might be obvious to editors here, it's good that they see it and contact the authors so it can be corrected before final publication; WilyD 09:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia, not a peer review service. If they were decent researchers, they would have asked for feedback themselves. Signpost undeservedly puts them into the limelight just because they do some vivisection of our projects, and not for the merits. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Publishing preprints is an implicit invitation for feedback from interested parties. If we're reporting and discussing them, then we're interested parties. Not Peer reviewers (probably, perhaps someone is plausible referee, but I doubt I'd be asked to review a paper in any journal they're likely to submit to). Signpost is doing it's readers a service by letting us know what research is done on Wikipedia. Perhaps there's some room to improve how it's presented here to make it clearer it's a preprint, but the idea that the Signpost shouldn't be letting its readers what's going on with research on Wikipedia is totally indefensible. WilyD 09:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The articles aren't being presented in the context of "these are unreviewed articles and readers should offer comments and suggestions to the authors at <mechanism to provide feedback and commentary>." They're being presented as authoritative research articles. Using this venue as a means to solicit feedback is a very interesting idea and one worth exploring but that is not what is currently being done. ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor should they be, nor did I suggest that. They're being presented as preprints describing research that's being done on Wikipedia. Which is of interest to Wikipedians. If you (or anyone) thinks they could use some feedback you (they) should offer it. That's one of the purposes of preprints. It's also of interest to people here to know what's being researched, by whom, and what they're finding. These are also purposes of preprints, and of plausible interest to people who read the Signpost. WilyD 09:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's irresponsible at best and dishonest at worst to present reviewed, published research alongside unreviewed, unpublished research as if they're equivalent. ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since our objective is to make freely available the sum of all knowledge to all, it is on the face of it reasonable to check whether the English language version of Wikipedia is skewed towards coverage of floods in the parts of the world where English is spoken. Doing so without checking that other language versions have comparable skews does mean they are researching whether ursines defecate in a particular forest, without checking other forests with other species of ursines. It would be interesting to know whether the skew in EN Wiki coverage is better or worse than the coverage in secondary sources available online in English, that would be a bit of research that would tell us something new. ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it was stupid to write a Signpost article about this stuff (and certainly haven't read the paper myself), since it's nice to know what kinds of things are getting published about Wikipedia (for good or for ill). It does seem like kind of a facile observation that an English-language resource has more information on things that happened in English-speaking countries if they haven't controlled with foreign language resources − and if they didn't, I might be forced to echo the above comment about ursine defecation. That paper by the Alexa researchers seems like pure academic clickbait, though (and what a group of people to be making statements about "social responsibility", LOL!) jp×g 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediaBot[edit]

"we contacted the Wikipedia security team with the details and the inner workings of WikipediaBot prior to writing this publication as part of the responsible disclosure requirement" - What (within the parameters of what can be safely revealed in public) was the security team's response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special report: Paid editing with political connections (11,560 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • What exactly does any of this have to do with Trudeau? – bradv🍁 23:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand the article correctly, Trudeau received money for making speeches from this non-profit, when the more expected result is that he would make speeches so a designated non-profit would receive money. This does not make either party look good. Considering that this non-profit had hired someone to attend to "improving their brand image" (as the jargon goes), this really makes this non-profit look shady. (IMHO, the best way to repair their brand image would be to do good things, & many more of them -- but I'm not a brand manager so what do I know?) -- llywrch (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1st Trudeau was my entre into the topic. And it proceeded Trudeau, WE, sockpuppets, Percepto, others so perhaps I overemphasized Trudeau. But I couldn't leave him out. One of the main points here is that Percepto is not afraid to get involved with fairly important folks, like WE. And why is WE being investigated, and why are they closing down in Canada? the Trudeau investigation.
      • 2nd, it was Trudeau's family that got about C$300,000 in speaking fees over about 4 years. Digging into it, I was rather shocked that it was so low. But I guess each country has it's standards. BTW did you hear about Trump's taxes? About $750 per year. Now that's too low! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WE Day Canada was held on July 2, 2017 on Parliament Hill, the day after Canada Day celebrations for Canada's 150th anniversary, which garnered WE a huge amount of publicity and so is an entry point for many Canadians. But it also has nothing to do with paid editing by publicity firms hired by WE. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I wasn't clear about my "entry point". I started my investigation with the Trudeau-WE connection, but of course concentrated on Trudeau. It wasn't about paid editing for me at that point. Then I got a tip and stated concentrating on WE and things moved much faster. But I was always thinking about the Trudeau connection as I worked. There is some logic to that. What's more newsworthy a) Jane Doe sends a photo of herself to Commons or b) Ghislaine Maxwell sends a photo of herself to Commons? Like it or not b) is a news story, a) isn't. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I understood what you meant. My point was that different people can have different entry points, and those entry points may or may not end up being relevant to the final story that gets written. In my opinion, the illuminating aspect of this story is the details of the type of edits made by a given group of paid editors for their client. The clients of that client don't play a role in this, as the edits were not related to them. isaacl (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't mean a story must include the author's entry point. It was a BAD BAD bad idea to disclose how sockpuppet investigation works and how the paid editors were sniffed out. Next ones will smarten up . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that editors and administrators discovered, investigated and broke up this undisclosed paid editing operation. But maybe it would have been best to save this as a low visibility essay, recommended to trusted editors with a sincere interest in fighting undisclosed paid and COI editing. An old essay comes to mind: Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of a zeroday. They kept it quite while searching for replications then announced it once it had been neutralized. The benefit of informing is the whitehats also learn from it. -- GreenC 00:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same—no loophole or behavioural pattern was described, just a mistakenly pasted filename. "Keep a look out for out-of-place text that reveals something about the editor" is pretty generic. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent piece. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its Interesting the Signpost should affirm my theory on UPE & Sockpuppetry five days after I wrote this on my Userpage. Overall this is a good piece but I am not too pleased that our inner workings & the manner in which they were nabbed has been made public knowledge thus making evasion easier and nabbing UPE twice as hard than it currently is. Celestina007 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny critique: I had to read the part about Trudeau's mother twice, to infer that she was paid by the WE charity. The article just states she was paid to speak. Maybe a small edit there is in order? For the rest I agree with User:Indy beetle calling this an excellent piece. Since I started reading the signpost I've been impressed every time about the quality of the special reports! Dutchy45 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dutchy45: Thanks for the suggestion - I added "from WE" above. And special thanks for the other kind words. That type of comment is the only way that I am paid to edit Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 for a gripping report and well done to all involved in in the investigation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly agree with Cullen328. This should be kept on the back-burner, out of sight. Now we just enabled them further. Their trade body, institute of learning, slack group whatever are no doubt reading the Signpost, looking to pick up scraps, that improves their methodology and insider gossip. Excellent report. scope_creepTalk 12:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This investigative piece is impressive. I commend Smallbones and the Signpost staff for presenting the investigation of this paid-editing scandal as well as the results. This type of coverage enhances Wikipedia's claim to being a trustworthy resource. Acknowledging the internal investigation is good. The article is much stronger for this choice—its creditability is enhanced.
No secrets were divulged—to the contrary—Wikipedia is shown strongly protecting its users from articles manipulated by unscrupulous reputation management firms. How often can we see oligarchs, a head of state, a corrupt charity, and a shady publicity firm tied together by hard working, unpaid journalists at an encyclopedia. More often, I hope. I know this Special Report will inform the way I look at "reputation" type articles. Please make this a series.
@Staszek Lem As to secrets exposed, shady operators get caught, not because they do not know the investigators' methods; but by the conviction they are too smart to get caught. Think Sherlock Holmes or 60 Minutes.
The more detailed coverage of paid editing the better. — Neonorange (Phil) 08:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easy way to help: go to WP:AFD and be liberal with voting delete for articles that are likely COI magnets (like companies, products and borderline politicians, businessman and celebrities aka VANITY-seekers). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could not but smile at the above, given his notorious pioneering role in manipulating Wikipedia content (google Eastern European Mailing List).

In the media: Wikipedia probe exposes an Israeli stealth PR firm that worked for scammers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Quite the laugh that someone who calls themselves Sawbones, and doesn't post under their real name, has the gall to talk about hidden agenda editing. The "WE Scandal" description is inaccurate, filled with false information and logical leaps. It is partisan and ignores WE's substantial and detailed defence of itself and its operation. The writer accused Bill Morneau of a conflict of interest even though the Canadian ethics commissioner cleared him of a conflict. What this piece, and the edits of Wikipedia's WE entry show, is how Canadian Wikipedia editors and admins have become utterly partisan, unaccepting of any challenge of their version of political events, and havemade it impossible for those smeared by certain elements of the media, and of Wikipedia itself, to mount a defence, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BF60:6AA:8081:B1A5:5430:24EA (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the latest comment to the bottom of this section, as it's the usual place new comments are posted on Wikipedia. As far as me accusing Morneau of a conflict of interest, I'll just quote the New York Times article linked in the sentence following the one where I mentioned that Morneau had a conflict of interest.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau, whose daughter works in the charity’s travel department, also apologized on Monday. “I did not recuse myself from the discussions on this topic and, given the fact that my daughter works for the organization in an unrelated branch, I now realize I should have in order to avoid any perception of conflict,” he said in a Twitter post.

— New York Times

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Is there no justice? (1,915 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Wasn't the #Cancelnetflix hashtag started by people (with the analysis depth level of a kiddy pool and destroying a WOC filmmaker's career in the process) reacting to Mignones instead of Mulan? especially since Mulan is hosted on Disney+ and not Netflix... -Gouleg🛋️ (Talk • Contribs) 14:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, Rebestalic confused the hashtags (and blame me and the Signpost reviewers for the oversight). Fixed. igordebraga ≠ 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Dune[edit]

"reviled"??? Most people who dislike the David Lynch version wouldn't go so far as to say "reviled" (such a strong word). Stranger still when there are a lot of people who actually like it (it has a strong cult following), and even the director of the new film, Denis Villeneuve, is taking a number of cues from that version. Detractors are more baffled, frustrated, and annoyed by many choices in that film, but "reviled" isn't usually the adjective. — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective might have been too strong, but the movie certainly has a mostly bad reputation even if with a share of fans - the opposite of the other movie I raised on that write-up, Blade Runner, which was negatively received upon release but then gained a fandom, was influential, and became hailed as a masterpiece. Anyway, sorry if you felt my choice of words was inadequate. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2020-09-27&oldid=1125230822"