Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-31/In the news
Discuss this story
In regards to the section, "Foundation ramps up mobile ambitions," I would like to make a correction. WMF is not targeting operator partners in China at this time. Our focus is on India and developing countries in Asia excluding China. One of the factors we need to take into consideration is the degree of freedom readers and contributors have in accessing and editing the projects in the country in which they live. Also, I'm not sure what was conveyed from Amit's interview but there's not an issue with carriers not signing up yet. Amit has only expressed optimism since we just started this process and have already received lots of interest. Therefore, we expect good things to come. We'll update you on our progress. Kul (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Chinese censorship is a pain. I should know, I'm there now. However just about every teenager in Beijing has a VPN, and Wikipedia, other than one or two fifteen minute periods, hasn't actually been blocked since I've been here. I think that it's perhaps a bit irrational to exclude China from your development plans. Mind you, with Baidu in the picture, you might already be far too late to the party anyways. Still though, with 1.3 billion people and a rapidly increasing connectivity, it's an opportunity. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- You know that Baidu plagiarizes Wikipedia articles right? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Y'know, I wouldn't be the least surprised if the "Viva la Occupación" dog was Shankbone's own Chihuahua, Little Man... Circéus (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So what is the relation of David Shankbone to Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Beyond being an editor (User:David Shankbone)? With all due respect to David, I don't think Signpost should cover incidents when Wikipedians are interviewed or noted in media unless this is in their role as Wikipedians. I am not sure this was the case here; the interview mentions Wikipedia thrice, but at the very least, the Signpost article does not tell us we we (Wikipedians) should care about this interview. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The fact is that the media have made him as much of a WikiMedia public figure as Seigenthaler or Larry Sanger (which are mentioned in the signpost a lot more, whenever their public work/statements relate even distantly to Wp). Circéus (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can you prove that? Who says that David is a WikiMedia public figure? Also, the red links suggest he is not notable, which is a contradiction: anybody who is a media figure is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a reader, I was not aware the Signpost had to bow to deletionism-minded ideas of notability. Circéus (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a reader with precious little time, I expect Signpost not to waste my time with and today, a random Wikipedian was mentioned on a random website trivia. (Again, I am not taking any stabs at David, but I still don't see why the readers should care that he was interviewed; at the very least the article is badly written as it fails to tell us that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad I didn't miss out on this since the Signpost covered it! An interview with a magazine on media, with somebody who's made major, impressive contributions (especially photos of and interviews with celebrities), discussing subjects relevant to giving away images in general, how Wikimedia projects get photos, etc., all introduced with a claim by the magazine that he's one of the most important documenters of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The Signpost mentions coverage of, say, GLAM collaborations by very non-notable editors, so why not this? —innotata 03:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a reader with precious little time, I expect Signpost not to waste my time with and today, a random Wikipedian was mentioned on a random website trivia. (Again, I am not taking any stabs at David, but I still don't see why the readers should care that he was interviewed; at the very least the article is badly written as it fails to tell us that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- As a reader, I was not aware the Signpost had to bow to deletionism-minded ideas of notability. Circéus (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can you prove that? Who says that David is a WikiMedia public figure? Also, the red links suggest he is not notable, which is a contradiction: anybody who is a media figure is notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Slow week. Being a New Yorker myself I'm interested in him regardless. ResMar 23:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- The Shankbone piece is of particular local interest for the first two paragraphs. The article's basically a great big ad for contributing to the commons as a hobby. Most of the point is that he's no-one special and he's giving good stuff away and having a whale of a time doing so, and that's something that is very much in our interests to foster - David Gerard (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)