Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-27/In the news

← Back to In the news

Discuss this story

• Wikipedia:1984 Bulwersator (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• There is serious problem, even mentioned in this article "Inzwischen verlassen sich, wie Kenner bestätigen, Mitarbeiter von Ministerien, des Bundespresseamtes, von Presseabteilungen großer Konzerne, ja auch die meisten Journalisten fast blindlings auf die Einträge bei Wikipedia." - google translate Bulwersator (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Ohne Zweifel, wahr; aber what people don't realize (or admit to themselves) is that that phenomenon is inevitable anyway. All that can be done is to try to keep it in check to a reasonable extent. Call out the embarrassing breaches for social censure, but don't expect the breaches to stop occurring. Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir. I'm shooting from the hip in this comments namespace. — ¾-10 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps we have a gender gap in part because people think an article about a wedding dress is a typically "female" topic. Powers ^T 15:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know? It's the stock PHB solution to reach the female market, "And we'll have a model in pink for the ladies." -- llywrch (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the dress article was subject to a deletion debate with much discussion including by Jimbo himself should be noted. Rmhermen (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My favourite part about this story is that shortly after Jimbo called for 100 articles about famous dresses, the Category:Individual dresses was created, and now we're quickly approaching the 100 article mark, largely thanks to User:Dr. Blofeld! :D Mlm42 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Scary. The question is, is User:Dr. Blofeld female? =) Powers ^T 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I love about WP. Point out a flaw, and someone just may take some big steps to mitigate it as soon as you do. It's cool because it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of WP haters. Not saying that anyone involved in this particular instance was a WP hater (don't know without spending time to check). But the same principle is at work. — ¾-10 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)