Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-05-21/Traffic report

← Back to Traffic report

Discuss this story

The profile of Modi in the signpost seems a bit grotesque. Linking him to the assasination of *Gandhi? Seems a stretch. Guilt by association? Looks like systemic bias at its worst. Rather embarassing really. According to the RSS article " a former RSS member, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi", and I can't help but wonder how old Modi was at the time? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sure enough, Modi was -2 when Gandhi was murdered. So tying him to the assasination does indeed seem completely out of line. Disappointing. And the "slick ad campaign" is pretty pointy too. Effective might have been a better word choice? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
• Seriously, this kind of pin-pointing and seems like systematic bias, linking Modi with assassination of Gandhi, is so far fetched. Moreover, Modi is not the governor but the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I edited it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care, but in my defence I was simply saying he was a member of the group, not that he was directly involved with Gandhi's assassination. All this is very weird sometimes; should I consider myself a journalist at this point? If so I wish I could earn money doing it; maybe then I'd dedicate more time to my research. As is, I owe as much to journalistic ethics as a youtube commenter. Serendi^podous 10:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The political bias and prejudice in the traffic report's notes does seem to be increasing over the recent weeks. In the end, WP:NPOV doesn't apply here and the editors of the Signpost putting in the time and effort are just volunteers and should be commended but you don't want the bias to go too far. Readership may decline which will be contrary to one of the Signpost's main aims. At least Godwin's law wasn't invoked this time :). Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Serindipodous, I did not realize the Signpost is editable. So these issues were fixable. I think it's cool that you make the updates provocative and thought provoking. In this case I think the perspective was skewed in a partisan way that wasn't constructive. But we all make mistakes. Thanks for your efforts. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've rewritten it. The original version was way too biased. Even for me :) --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I did not at first realize the Signpost was a newsletter I could edit, so the mistake is mine. I could just have fixed the problems and have done so now. Thank you for your efforts to keep us informed, updated, entertained, and challenged Serendipodous. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I saw the note that Google Doodle articles tend to be C class. Any chance Google would be willing to share upcoming plans so we could alert editors to work on them? I realize there may be some secrecy involved, but I bet we could come up with a workable solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision

Since when has the Eurovision Song Contest been known as the "Gay Superbowl"? I've never heard it called this (unsurprisingly, since "Superbowl" means nothing to 99% of the population of Europe), and I can't find a single source ever calling it this other than a couple of bloggers. Mogism (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I read it in The Economist. Serendi^podous 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

By any chance do you actually mean you read a posting on a blog hosted by The Economist which includes the line 'gays across the continent’s more liberal East planned parties to celebrate the kitsch aesthetic of what PinkNews, a Europe-wide news website, has taken to calling the “gay World Cup” ' and selectively misquoted it to try to belittle Eurovision? Mogism (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No I didn't read it in a blog; I actually still read print. And why would what I called it belittle Eurovision, unless associating something with homosexuality belittles it? Serendi^podous 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article on it doesn't mention this "fact", and indeed some general internet searches don't mention it either - I'd guess its stretching it to say it's known as based on your reading of one article in one publication you know UNDUE and all that. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

For the 150 thousandth time, this ISN'T AN ARTICLE. The rules don't apply. Serendi^podous 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about the rules having to apply. You are writing an article for the signpost, which as best I can tell isn't supposed to be a tabloid. Applying good editorial standards like giving proper weighting to stuff and not repeating a one off as if it's a broadly understood term, is something surely being strived for? You know the editing policies which apply for the encyclopedia weren't pulled out of no where to be a pain, but because they are good standards to maintain quality. So I guess your message is that I don't give a shit about producing a good quality articles for the signpost, I'll reserve that for mainspace?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• As 86 said. You, as a writer for what is the largest internal Wikipedia newsletter, have an obligation to maintain a degree of decorum. That you answer constructive criticism with what appears to be exasperation is quite concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what should I have said instead? All I wanted to say was that Eurovision was popular with gays. It is. I don't really understand the problem with how I phrased it. Serendi^podous 08:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Serendipodous is an excellent writer. It is a joy to read the report and see her observations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You should have used a term that is actually widely used and not made up. The "World Cup" reference would have made sense, even if it is not actually used. "Super Bowl" is, in Europe, an insignificant sports event from the US that appears to be very popular over there. Some people here watch it on TV or in sports bars, but it is not widely popular. The Eurovision Song Contest (sometimes called the Grand Prix after the original name of the contest) is widely popular in Europe with public viewings and many private parties centered around the show. The radio stations speak of nothing else for a week before. The most fun is the voting, where political sentiment can also be measured. This is in no way a gay-only thing, so calling it the "Gay Superbowl" is a misnomer at best. Best to do some research before using a term like this, even if it makes sense to you. It is just the best pan-European fun we have at the moment, as we continue to dig out of the financial crisis. Let's call it the Eurovision Song Contest, shall we? --WiseWoman (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make it up! I read it in a newspaper. I wouldn't have used it otherwise. Serendi^podous 07:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? I can't find it using the databases. Thanks! --WiseWoman (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Witch of Agnesi

A far more interesting name than for example Cayley's sextic - the witch of Agnesi is always the first curve I check in any dictionary or list of curves. Maybe someone should mis-translate a few more curve names? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC).

Not an article, but

Should there be a link to a disambiguation page? If not, I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)