Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/In the news
Discuss this story
- The last item under "In brief" mentions "dynamic content such as webcam footage and stock tickers". Please see Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing.—Wavelength (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I was very surprised at Fabrice Florin's statement "The vision is that over time, news reporters would get in the habit of posting updates on Wikipedia, after they have filed their story and shared it on social networks. It seems like a worthy goal and I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether this is a realistic scenario—and if so, how we might help make that happen." I consider this advice extremely dangerous, and I wish there would have been an area (i.e. not obscure comments) where I could have made it clear how ill-advised it is, in my view. Making updates on Wikipedia related to stories one has written runs a severe risk of being taken to task over charges of CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! and SELF-PROMOTION!!!, and I would strongly recommend any journalist to avoid it except in extreme circumstances. I've gotten grief at times even for making talk-page suggestions (granted, usually for contentious topics, but the point remains - the aggravation is rarely worth it, or at least is a significant cost). It is not a realistic scenario at all, except in the sense that the negatives will be hidden to get free work before it blows up in the reporter's face. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention Wikipedia is not a news source. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 02:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is a "hericidal Zambian cyberassassin"? Neither Wiktionary nor Google recognizes "hericidal" as an English word. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hericide: "The murder of a lord or master." — http://wordinfo.info ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm bemused that the Zambian government sought help from the US government in identifying the perpertrator of these misleading edits (the person made two), when a few mouse clicks shows that they came from Newcastle-upon-Twyne in the UK. (And a former boss told me last year that I'm not sufficiently computer literate.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- When a major case of vandalism is reported in the Signpost, it should be standard practice to also document Wikipedia's response. Vandalism that is quickly reverted is less serious than vandalism that takes a long time to catch, and vandalism that results in an edit war followed by semi-protection is somewhere between the two. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think the article should have been more serious and sympathetic. True, the vandalism wasn't the end of the world, and they may have overreacted, but we should be able to understand why he was upset. Our response certainly could have been faster. The initial vandalism lasted 8 hours. Once it was removed, an editor (using an automated tool) actually reverted the change as vandalism, putting back the unsourced claim he had died. The claim was put in again, and it took a relatively long time to finally get the article semi-protected. Far from demonstrating "national governments' ineptitude", it mostly demonstrates a failing on our part. We can do better. Superm401 - Talk 08:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- As much as I try to avoid being snarky on the internet (as the sheer weight of snark on the internet is sooner or later going to cause the world wide web to implode), I must say, wiki-assassin sounds like an excellent title to put on my resume. Jztinfinity (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"Foundation über alles"[edit]
Who is responsible for "Foundation über alles" as a headline? Extremely dubious taste.
- That would be me. I don't see what's hesitant or in doubt about it; über alles is German for "above all", which in pithy headline-friendly parlance is what the Swiss journal considers the WMF to be in the ranks of NGOs. Skomorokh 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The phrase has strong connotations of German nationalism due to its use in the first line of the World War II-era German national anthem; perhaps that was the commenter's concern. It additionally may seem a bit odd to use German in this case since The Global Journal appears to be written in English. Powers T 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- See Deutschlandlied. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well Germany has rejected those words as its national anthem, taking the third verse, only. But really its not a big deal. 81.178.144.98 (talk)
- The phrase has strong connotations of German nationalism due to its use in the first line of the World War II-era German national anthem; perhaps that was the commenter's concern. It additionally may seem a bit odd to use German in this case since The Global Journal appears to be written in English. Powers T 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)