Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-23/From the editor

← Back to From the editor

Discuss this story

Just wanted to say, I love reading the signpost, keep up the good work. Bawolff (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

«The promised second Wikimania special, focusing on some of the prominent sessions, will be published when videos of them are uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons». That is, in a few months? Nemo 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the investigative report was extremely helpful. The community should know when people in positions of authority and influence at Wikipedia are subjects of ArbCom cases or other serious accusations. Indeed, User:Fae has been indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. I am worried that some of the proliferating Wikipedia/Wikimedia chapters could become banana republics run by people with agendas that may not always be aligned with Wikipedia's mission. I am dubious that giving money to the chapters is a good idea – I wonder if our donors think it's a good idea. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean with "people in positions of authority and influence at Wikipedia"? Administrators? Bureaucrats? ArbCom members? I don't see how it's relevant to what we were discussing, chapters have no influence over Wikimedia projects, by bylaws: they're independent organizations. Cheers, Nemo 19:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• The issue with the report, in my opinion, wasn't the topic of discussion. It makes complete sense why that would be covered. The issue was how it was covered, with a lot of outright speculation (and when it's negative speculation at that, it's that sort of thing that makes it a hatchet job) and a lot of "This person said this negative thing about this person who said this person was bad". I mean...that's not reporting, that's tabloid gossip. Silverseren^C 19:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree the story was rather sensational. It wouldn't have been too hard to cover the topic properly without all the muckraking. Kaldari (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, such was my feeling too. It was the tone and the balance of content, rather than the content itself, which was at major issue. I actually felt sick reading it. Orderinchaos 19:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find the Signpost extremely helpful. I didn't even know there were "Chapters" until a few months ago through Signpost coverage. I don't always agree with the coverage - like the happy cheery coverage of events attended by a few people about a politically correct topic, and only included (in my opinion) because some editor has pull or is an employee of WMF. But, all in all, the Signpost is the only "other" voice available to an editor like me. Mathew Townsend (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with the very first comment (by Mike Peel) on the previous Signpost report. In fact I seem to recall that the words I used during some real-life discussions during my stay in the USA were tendentious and potentially libellous. Although I regard the Signopost as an essential feature of Wikipedia/WikiMedia, I have had occasion in the past to criticise/correct some of the milder inaccuracies in research/reporting. I firmly believe that Signpost must hold itself above red-top style reporting, stay neutral, and strive to be a quality (online) newspaper that represents the (hopefully) academic quality of an encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that someone decided it'd be fun to make the news and be the story - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd way to want to have a bit of fun. Maybe we should try shooting ourselves - even if it doesn't work we might die of laughter ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• It has become de rigeur to whine accusations of "tabloid" style whenever reading something you don't like in the Signpost. Take a look at any major broadsheet newspaper to find exactly the same style. Sorry it offends powerful interest groups—that's not going to stop balanced investigative coverage in the future. Tony (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• No one want to stop balanced investigative coverage - but let's just have some. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I might understand your complaint if we'd not included extensive quotes in support of Fae, by Ziko and Deryck Chan. But we went to some trouble to cover both sides. Thank you for your interest. Tony (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering there were several people in the comments in the Special Report, such as Ziko, that stated that their comments were either taken out of context or that they never said such things in the first place, it's hard to trust anything said in the Special Report as being anything close to accurate. Silverseren^C 03:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Before you make serious accusations, get your facts right. Fine, ask Ziko for a copy of the email—or I'll send it to you. Tony (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • There's probably work at the Register if you hurry. (Pays better than the Inquirer, I'm told.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
      • They couldn't afford me. Tony (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)