Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-12-12

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2024-12-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited (1,888 bytes · 💬)

Amazing work you have done - thank you! - kosboot (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kosboot: - Thank you! A kind word goes a long way in keeping this series going. I'd been planning on doing an update on old stories for a while. Lots of little stuff comes up and I think that I should let readers know that the articles I've written are going out of date. This last month jolted me out of my hesitancy, starting with Lindberg's plea to new charges, and the jolts just continued, until last week with the Bloomberg article about Lindberg I just felt "oh, no, not another one!"

I am getting concerned that we are not enforcing our policy WP:PAID strictly enough and that these types of stories will just keep continuing until everybody is just so sick of reading about them that we'll start doing something about stopping them before they really get going. Perhaps, I'll just have to take a different tack. Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I generally don't work on political articles or "attention-getting" articles where one would be able to detect sockpuppets. I do work a lot on music projects where occasionally a person will edit their own article or have someone do it for them. But I am never able to pick up on these, even though I can easily recognize content that is questionable. Not to add more to your plate, but perhaps at the end of the series, you can create "how to recognize paid editing/sockpuppets" kind of article (unless it's already written). - kosboot (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge? (4,987 bytes · 💬)

Interesting. Thanks for mentioning our presentation. The Prezi can be seen in our Wikimania presentation: File:Wikimania 2024 - Dilijan - Day 1 - Exploring Americanization in different regions of the world using Wikipedia and Wikidata.webm. You may also want to check our paper on this, that the presentation was based on, published earlier this year: Americanization: Coverage of American Topics in Different Wikipedias. Accessible through WP:Wikipedia Library, I hope (not in LibGen yet, sorry...). No OA as WMF does not support grants for OA on Wikipedia studies (we asked), and no other funding source was available. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Now, comments on your analysis. 1) I'd nitpick not adding Australia and New Zealand to the Western world, but let's face it - their numbers are not likely to be very game changing. (Sorry, Aussies... I don't even know what is the nickname for New Zealanders...) 2) I understand very well why you have no Asian group (it's a pain to make); I'd still suggest having at least Japanese for some decent-ish comparison. Also I'd add German, as well as Russia to the set, those are big wikis (see also below). 3) Riding on - let's remember that Spanish and Portuguese significantly represent Latin America (you mention this for Spanish, but you seem to have forgotten Brazil...we have data from few years ago on views and edits to wiki by country - see [1] and [2]; sadly they are a few years old, the new Wikipedia Stats pages suck and if that information is still somewhere, I was never able to find it...), and English also includes many readers and contributors from India. Again, if anyone is interested in more, see our paper, we have like two page limitation chapter discussing this stuff. Anyway, the point is that the numbers above are not pure 'Western' world and to some degree (hard to estimate quickly) include Latin America and India. French is probably the 'purest', although it is popular in some African countries. That's why German would be very good here (big Western wiki not used much outside Europe). Russia would be good, since they not really 'West' (nor 'Asia'; Russia is, well, Russia). 4) As for the numbers, it's fascinating to see how different Arab numbers are, I'd love to learn more about what kind of people are and aren't discussed on Arab wiki, compared to 'Western'. 5) What's wrong with the table data for Arab and Culture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Kiwis. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right, I forgot... :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it's a basic understanding in eastern world editors that their is a supremecy of the so called west in term of equal distribution of content.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 00:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

While bringing a spotlight to a specific region with a new article is pretty doable (love seeing articles dedicated to specific fields in specific countries), trying to bring up a non-canonical region in a broad-topic article tends to be controversial. Here's one experience I've had with this, for example, trying to add a little section on Latin America in the History of video games. (Same with Africa but I'm not sure when that was removed) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• The linked articles es:Culture and pt:Culture are for the Migos album, not for the concept of Culture. Atavoidirc (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In the media: Right-wing politician opines: "Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial" (7,699 bytes · 💬)

"'As biased as the BBC'"

As the title is a quote from a politician with an agenda, it should not be in WP’s voice. With out it in quote marks, with appropriate inline attribution, or choose a different title. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Now added, per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the original headline, but see what you mean. It was not really in The Signpost's voice since it was in quotes. It definitely was not in Wikipedia's voice. To tell you the truth, I more or less agree with the quote: Wikipedia is very useful, and if folks want to say that we have a bias something like the BBC's, that's ok with me. Everybody has some "bias" and if ours is comparable to the BBC's, we've done a pretty good job minimizing bias.

But I don't want to fight about this. If we have a bias comparable to a UK Tory, it's not as good, but everybody has their own opinion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

When I saw the article, the headline was As biased as the BBC. No quote marks, no attribution, so it certainly was in WP’s voice, even if that wasn’t the intention. Given the parlours state of UK politics, and the source of the quote, it certainly needs some framing to explain to people that it’s not neutral, truthful or objective reflection of reality, but an opinion of a right-wing former politician (and all the baggage that type of individual carries). - SchroCat (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion here, some of it caused by having the main headline and the sub-head both "quoting" comments comparing Wikipedia with the BBC. But first The Signpost does not speak with "Wikipedia's voice" - never! We are an independent newspaper, not a Wikipedia mainspace article, nor a pawn of the WMF, nor of ArbCom. We follow Wikipedia rules as best as we understand them, but these rule are essentially those that any Wikiproject has to follow, pretty much the same as talkpage rules. So if I write a section of any article, it's going to reflect the voice of the Signpost as a whole, including the editor-in-chief and the copy editors, but mostly when I sign something, it is going to reflect my voice, as approved by the e-i-c and the Signpost project as a whole. Wikipedia's voice belongs on other pages, but not here.

Now, the sub-head is and always was in the drafts a quote inside quotation marks. "As biased as the BBC" The headline at the top is almost a quote, it could have been written Like "the BBC, often useful but not impartial" but leaving out the Like from the quote would be awkward. It's a paraphrase I guess, shortened from a longer quote, so I left off the quotation marks. Headlines are like that - they are not meant to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They're here to introduce the subject and get people thinking about the subject, attract their attention, and sometimes, even be funny. Here, I thought comparing Wikipedia's bias to the BBC's "liberal" bias was pretty funny. I'm from an age where the BBC was considered the gold standard of "unbiased factual reporting", even if it was a bit conservative - even aristocratic - in its overall presentation. Having Tories say Wikipedia has a liberal bias like the BBC is actually quite a compliment in that sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I know this newsletter isn’t an article, and you know this newsletter isn’t an article, but when the big wide world sees it, it’s not a distinction they make or even care about. And that’s a far more important point, because they’re already taking this ‘research’ out of context (based on a Signpost article) to make political capital, so they are likely to take this article (including headline) out of context too. If you use a quote, you need to use quote marks and attribution - it doesn’t matter where you put it, whether it’s in an article, or a newsletter title. I don’t think there is any point in continuing this any further - there is now attribution and quote marks, but please remember for next time. - SchroCat (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Since I am being mentioned: I think this Signpost story could have been a bit clearer in summarizing what the Telegraph and GB News were citing me/the Signpost for, namely as leveling "accusations of bias" against Rozado's report itself - although that's also not quite what I actually said in the review:

[Rozado's] report is not peer-reviewed and was not posted in an academic venue, unlike most research we cover here usually. Rather, it was published (and possibly commissioned) by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative US think tank, which presumably found its results not too objectionable. (Also, some – broken – URLs in the PDF suggest that Manhattan Institute staff members were involved in the writing of the paper.) Still, the report indicates an effort to adhere to various standards of academic research publications, including some fairly detailed descriptions of the methods and data used.

As laid out in the review, I think it's worth taking the report seriously, but also - like with various other research that is being perceived as showing incontrovertible evidence of Wikipedia being biased against various groups (like conservatives here) - one may want to retain some healthy skepticism about causality claims. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC) (Tilman)

• I'm probably left of center, at least in the US, but yeah...I wouldn't recommend WP for coverage of current political issues. We're not super at covering politics, and we're not super at covering things that are recent. We're good at covering things that are distant enough to be dispassionate. GMG^talk 12:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"DataStax and WMDE"

Besides the company's blog post and the press release, it might have been useful to also link WMDE's own accouncement (which we already briefly covered in last issue's "Recent research", search for "Wikimedia Deutschland"). It covers additional aspects of interest to Wikimedians, e.g. "A further goal of the project is to more easily detect vandalism on Wikidata". Generally, it is worth being aware that these are all still announcements only and the actual product has not yet been released. WMDE folks have been talking about this project for about a year already (including at some conferences and about three months ago in the "Wikimedia AI" Telegram channel, where they provided some valuable additional background in response to questions from community members). Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC) (Tilman)

News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes (1,247 bytes · 💬)

• I asked on the ACE talk page if this 2025 committee will have the highest % of women for an arbitration committee but no one replied. Not all arbitrators identify their gender on their User page so this may not be an answerable question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• • Wikidata item for every Arb? Wikidata:Q59715717 Jim.henderson (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure whether that makes my last-moment decision to thumbnail this article with an 1880s group photo of the (decidedly all-male) Supreme Court better or worse. jp×g🗯️ 10:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Op-ed: On the backrooms (2,487 bytes · 💬)

Take your time dear. Anyways welcome back. Being an everyday contributor is not easy. I always face troubles as I edit, but I can resolve slowly. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I voted against you as an administrator because I thought your expression of political beliefs was disqualifying, although they're not dissimilar from my own. However, you've been a good administrator. That's a real compliment coming from me because I recognize your name and I don't often recall the names of people I encounter here. Welcome to the world of humble content creators! We're a happy crew, although our names and deeds on Wikipedia are "writ in water." Smallchief (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! In my time away from adminship I wrote, expanded, and/or GA/FA/FL'd ten articles ( 1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster,  Advisory Neighborhood Commission district 7F08,  Capri-Sun,  Celebrity Number Six,  Cover-up tattoo,  Death of Richard Swanson, F1NN5TER, Ray cat,  Terminology of transgender anatomy, and  When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word). Being able to focus on content to that degree was really gratifying, and if "writ in water" was good enough for Keats, it's good enough for me. Being able to be away from Wikipedia entirely, without feeling any sense of obligation, was also a really good feeling. I'm trying to keep both of those feelings in mind as I return to adminning. Obviously it's impossible to opt out of our social economy, but now I avoid the more reckless forms of social capital gambling and the "buying" of blocks and block avoidance. The irony is that doing good admin work while avoiding drama is itself a good source of social capital... but I'll continue to abstain from the more Machiavellian parts of the system to the extent that I can. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing (2,804 bytes · 💬)

Indeed, that was an interesting RfA, with strongly held opinions covering both ends of the spectrum as to the value of it. This post is a good reflection on the value of feedback. I've been an admin for nearly eight years now and if anyone has feedback for me (good or bad), I'd certainly be interested to hear it. Schwede66 22:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You said: "I find it hard to conceive of a scenario that an administrator's petition meets its requirement for RRfA, and that administrator goes on to be reconfirmed." I don't know about that one ... had I not accidentally dropped accelerant on my recall petition (or in a scenario in which I hadn't encountered the editor whose block brought it all to a head), maybe it might have limped to 25 signatures on the 30th day and I would've been in a much better position regarding an RRFA. As for what actually happened, if my nominators hadn't had faith in me, I would've just resigned. Graham87 (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I basically rationalised the 2022 ANI against me, in short, because of the unusual situation in the main discussion and the relative inexperience of the user who brought up the 2020 block mentioned there. More specific discussion about that should probably go somewhere else. Graham87 (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a really good point. I've never been dragged to AN, AN/I or ArbCom but is that because I'm doing a good job or simply because I'm flying under the radar? I have no way of knowing, other than the mantra "no news is good news". Some sort of feedback mechanism, without the threat of losing editing privileges/tools being attached to it, would be very welcome. It's very important that such a mechanism isn't used for nitpicking though. Yes I want to know what I can do better and how I can improve, but equally important is some encouragement and affirmation where I'm already doing good things. Assuming, of course, that some of what I do is any good! WaggersTALK 09:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)