Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

Active discussions

Signpost promo videoEdit

I am an amateur at video production but I gave a go at doing a promo for The Signpost. I am not sure if I ever shared this here, I have been sitting on it for a while.

If anyone has feedback on this version then share with me, and I might do another version. I thought to make this because people ask what the newspaper is and how they can support, and I wanted to have some kind of promotion to help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Great idea! We are such a text centric culture, I didn’t even think of a video outreach. Where do you think would be a good place to get this, or a future revision, seen? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanger interview in a mainstream publication: "Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia"Edit

"there's a complex game being played to make an article say what somebody wants it to say"
""if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."
"seems to assume that there is only one legitimate defensible version of the truth on any controversial question. That's not how Wikipedia used to be."

These quotes seem pretty accurate. Have fun covering this story in the Signpost. 2601:602:9200:1310:7C4E:6991:8967:7322 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be a quick summary and write-up. Paid editing and how to combat it is indeed a complex problem and The Signpost has been reporting on the discussions about it for a while.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Sanger is stretching his 15 minutes of early Wikipedia fame beyond its limits, when he seems to endorse Alternative facts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
These allegations were covered in the Signpost in February 2021. Unless he has something new to say, with new evidence, this new article may not be worthy of coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope we have time to cover this in some detail beyond In the media. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Inform ?Edit

What if you misinform? How to disacuss/correct a text published in 2019 and readalready by many people? How to collect the feathers [1] ?Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hallo!!! Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Responsible editors all want to avoid lashon hara, even if they don’t know the term. But first we need to know what the problem is. If it is an error in The Signpost, the editor in chief can issue retractions or corrections. If the error is elsewhere in English Wikipedia, we may be able to raise it to the attention of the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to email me. I won't be able to get to it until Monday. In the interests of Truth and reconciliation, the first email will be confidential. E-i-C. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
"How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit": You have not proven that authors acted for "fun or profit". I find words "Only high quality sources may be used" absurd. Do they mean that Wikipedia allows low and middle quality sources in general? There is a discussion about the article, but I assume that 'The Signpost' is happy with the article.
So 'fun or profit'? Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I think the headline on the column refers to the "In brief" items, especially Ronan Farrow, NRA editing, plagiarism, etc. not the death camp hoax. The title appeared immediately above another #1 subtopic concerning politicization of Chinese content until this edit moved it into its own article. Is a re-titling in order? It does seem like a poor juxtaposition at this point in time. - Bri.public (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bri and Xx236: I can't tell you how sick I am of the "Fake death camp" story, even after all this time. My email and talk page and Signpost pages were inundated with pleas and accusations and counter pleas and counter-accusation for months, and nobody made any sense. I don't think that everybody involved was acting in bad faith, but nobody was trying to calmly communicate with me. I don't think "use or abuse for fun or profit" insults anybody in the case - it describes a wide range of possibilities and great uncertainty. I frankly cannot admit any fault here that I am aware of. If anybody ever brings up the subject to me ever again, I'll just say "I don't deal with that story any more," and perhaps pass it along to another Signposter. If Bri wants to change that headline to "This headline has been changed to prevent even the appearance of offence" he may. I'm done with this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Another Larry Sanger articleEdit

Larry Sanger was interviewed in this article published in The Sunday Times on August 1. Should this be added to the next in the news? X-Editor (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like Sanger is the only person willing to criticize the present state of wikipedia: The website can no longer be trusted, according to the site’s co-founder, insisting it’s now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment”.[2] I wonder how many editors on this site dare to look in the mirror. (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Is he saying anything new? He was covered in the most recent issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Wikipedia Signpost".