Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Op-ed

I must say, not the kind of story I was expecting on Christmas Eve. No comment on content per se.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 13:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • This is the world of undisclosed paid editing unfortunately. This case is not as bad as many though involves someone more high profile than most. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • A very interesting and well-written piece. Thanks for the read, Smallbones! Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Would Wikipedia benefit from a Whitaker bot?Tamanoeconomico (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Very good reportage - thank you! - kosboot (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks for all the kind comments. I'm off for some last minute shopping. Merry Christmas! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Well this was very interesting for sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note the "Update" section that was added. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • Good ol' fashion journalism - The Signpost at its best, though the football stuff seemed a little tangential. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks. Perhaps I should explain the emphasis on football. A lot of investigations use the rule from Watergate "Follow the money", others might "chercher la femme". When it became clear that the creator of the Matthew Whitaker article had an inflated view of Whitaker's football career, I just "followed the bouncing football." Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wall Street Journal posted an article referring to this post, Dec 26: https://www.wsj.com/articles/acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-incorrectly-claims-academic-all-american-honors-11545844613 Ncr100 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow - I just checked this out. Yup it's there. Reuters also has an article, just summarizing the WSJ though. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
At least sixteen major mainstream media outlets are running the story now. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Academic All-American" is trending #3 on Twitter with 40K tweets. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is WSJ's #1 story online at the moment. I'm keeping a roster of media mentions here. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good work, Smallbones. Tony (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Nice to get the scoop from The Signpost! Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Very, very good work by one of our own! Smallbones has helped to make us all proud to be Wikipedia editors. Gandydancer (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Interesting read. I don't understand why people who want to edit Wikipedia don't have to register first and provide some sort of bona fides, so that edits can be traced back to real people. This would prevent Wikipedia being used as propaganda, and improve articles which are constantly targeted by idiots--Gueux de mer (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC).Reply

Citations to this article edit

Moved in here from subpage.

Re-report (Tier II) edit

  • Maremont, Mark. "Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Incorrectly Claims Academic All-American Honors". WSJ.

Re-reported (Tier III, reporting on Tier II) edit

26 December

27 December

Re-re-reported (Tier IV, using wire services or other national papers) edit

Other (no attribution) edit

jp×g 22:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply