Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/In the media

Media fallout from Gamergate arbitration case continues
Media fallout continues from the January 29 decision in the mammoth Gamergate arbitration case, which had 27 named parties, including this author, and resulted in sanctions against 13 of them. Initial media coverage of the case consisted of short pieces that mostly reiterated the contents of a January 23 story in The Guardian which contained some factual inaccuracies. Now that the case has been closed, some media outlets have published longer stories examining the matter more closely.

Washington Post reporter Caitlin Dewey wrote "Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of ‘human knowledge'" (January 29) in the Post's digital and Internet culture blog, The Intersect. Dewey pointed out a distinction that many Wikipedians complained was missing from media coverage of the case, that the Committee was not deciding on the merits of the Gamergate controversy or the contents of that article, but merely "judging the behavior of the site editors". Of that behavior, she wrote:

She added that "the decision was a highly visible test of whether the Web site that millions of people turn to for facts can actually present facts in a fair and neutral way" and pointed out that to many, the Committee failed this test. She noted that critics "accused the [Arbitration Committee] of failing to support women more aggressively, an issue that goes straight to Wikipedia’s lengthy struggle against systemic bias."

Dewey concludes:

In Gawker, Andy Cush wrote "The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia" (January 30). Cush noted that intital media coverage of the case focused on the fact that "Despite the organization's repeated insistence that it is not taking sides in the conflict, it ruled to punish five editors who were specifically targeted by a coordinated Gamergate attack." As a result "Wikipedia has launched a full-scale charm offensive...reassuring readers that Wikipedia remains committed to civility and a neutral point of view".

The fact that the decision sanctioned parties on both sides of the dispute has been held up as evidence that the decision was an equitable one, but according to Cush "the parity is precisely the problem." This is because Gamergate supporters targeted five Wikipedia editors in what was called Operation Five Horsemen. All five were sanctioned by the Committee, with two topic banned and one site banned. Cush wrote, "Whether the committee knew it or not, it was expressly doing the bidding of a group of Gamergaters who plotted to take control of the Wikipedia article … Operation Five Horsemen was a resounding success."

Cush wrote:

Cush warns of

Cush compares the situation to that of the Croatian Wikipedia, which was taken over by "a group of far-right reactionaries" in 2013. The Wikimedia Foundation took no action and the country's Education Minister openly discouraged students from using the encyclopedia.

It should be noted that these articles cited the work of two critics who have been involved in the Gamergate dispute on Wikipedia. Dewey cited Slate commentator David Auerbach, who had a long-running public spat with one key party, , one of the "Five Horsemen" who was indefinitely site banned as a result of the case. Both Dewey and Cush cited Mark Bernstein, who was topic banned from Gamergate articles by this author and whose blog posts critical of Wikipedia were used as a source for the Guardian article and have been frequently cited in media coverage and commentary on this case.

Muhammad images continue to draw controversy
Also from Gawker's Andy Cush this week is an examination (January 26) of how Wikipedians dealt with the issue of depicting Muhammad in the wake of the January 7 Charlie Hebdo shooting. Cush puts it in the context of the long history of disputes regarding such images, including the 2008 petition drive to remove the images (see previous Signpost coverage) and the 2011 Muhammad images Arbitration case. Cush notes that the issue seems to have settled into a "status quo" with images depicting Muhammad remaining in relevant articles, while a calligraphic image of the prophet, a depiction which is common in the Muslim world, is used as lead infobox picture in the Muhammad article. This status quo is enforced through an FAQ page and a Talk:Muhammad/Images talk page dedicated solely to the issue of images in the article. Both pages provide or link to instructions so editors can modify their CSS page to prevent them from seeing those images. On the talk page, posts advocating removal of the images are common even without prompting from external events. For example, in April 2014, an editor advocated removing the images on the grounds of historical inaccuracy because they "contradict the well established historical fact: that Muhammad was incomparably good-looking."

Cush recounts that two days after the Hebdo shooting a new editor,, opened another such discussion, advocating removal of the images on the grounds that they were "offensive" and "violent propaganda" which prompted riots. Established editors like pointed out that "Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. That is a policy... All of what you say has been discussed before. If you have any new arguments to offer, you are welcome to present them." The discussion turned acrimonious, with Čamo declaring that "the arrogance of the editors on wikipedia is too big for a normal discussion" before abandoning the issue. Cush also offers an incident from the opposite perspective a day later. replaced the calligraphic image in the infobox of the Muhammad article with a 17th century Western depiction of the prophet, writing in the edit summary "its logical step to show His face after lastest [sic] Paris events. is consistent with the policies of Wikipedia. everyone has a face." The edit was reverted shortly over an hour later.

Paging Doctor Wikipedia
The Daily Mail reports (January 30) on the findings of a Research Now poll of 300 general practitioners in the UK. The poll found that 8 percent "regularly" consult Wikipedia to assist in a diagnosis, while 44 percent "sometimes" use it for this purpose. Some expressed concern at these findings, but Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said

In brief

 * WikiGnomes of the world, unite and take over: In Medium, author Andrew McMillen profiles (February 3) Wikipedia editor and his obsessive and quixotic quest to rid Wikipedia of the ungrammatical phrase "comprised of".  Giraffedata has amassed over 47 thousand edits since 2007 in pursuit of this goal and is one of the one thousand most prolific Wikipedia editors.  Giraffedata's brother  also got into the act in 2012, removing instances of the phrase "based around".
 * Objection: In Mint, Alok Prasanna Kumar of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy charts the use (February 3) of Wikipedia in citations by Indian courts. The Supreme Court of India has not cited Wikipedia since 2011, though it continues to be cited by Indian High Courts.  Kumar advocated that courts "abandon references to Wikipedia as an authority on anything."
 * Disappointing Future Hearts: Alex Gaskarth of All Time Low denies rumors (February 3) to SugarScape that appeared in the Wikipedia article for his band's upcoming album Future Hearts. The rumor was that Calum Hood and Luke Hemmings of 5 Seconds of Summer had participated in writing the album.
 * Philippine history: The Manila Standard Today reports (February 2) on the Philippine Cultural Heritage Mapping project to document historical sites in the country.
 * Nigerian history: In the Premium Times, discusses (February 1) the difficulties he had in creating Wikipedia articles on Nigerian sports figures of the 1970s and 80s due to the lack of reliable sources available digitally.  He suggests Nigerians rise "to the challenge of properly documenting our history" through methods like digitizing Nigerian newspapers.
 * "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member": In "Fighting the Wikipedia boys' club" (January 29), Dazed profiles Art+Feminism and their efforts to fight gender bias on Wikipedia.
 * Editathon: Fast Company complains "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?" (January 29), listing some topics that will hopefully be improved at the February 7 editathon at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. The Huffington Post interviewed (February 2) Schomburg director Khalil Gibran Muhammad about the editathon.
 * Book review: Times Higher Education reviews (January 29) Thomas Leitch's 2014 book Wikipedia U: Knowledge, Authority and Liberal Education in the Digital Age.
 * Reliable sources: Courtney Johnston, Director of the Dowse Art Museum, writes "So You Want to Research a Wikipedia Article" (January 28), offering key web and print resources museum staffers used to create over 70 articles on New Zealand craft artists.
 * Never Tear You Apart: Refinery29 offers "30 Heartbreaking Wiki Pages That'll Tear You Apart" (January 28).