Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-09-27/In the media



← Back to In the media

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]