Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-10-14/In the media



Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten recently lamented the unflattering photo which had accompanied his Wikipedia article for the last year. Friends compared the photo of Mr. Weingarten in a yellow t-shirt (pictured) to the infamous post capture photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pictured). (Mohammed, despite being "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks", and having spent the last 10 years at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, has a much more flattering picture of himself on his Wikipedia article.)

Weingarten says he made numerous attempts to get rid of the offending photo by himself - removing it from the article seven times, but was rebuffed. A review of the article history suggests he or someone else actually attempted to remove it 10 times since August 2014. The photo itself was first uploaded and inserted by GRuban in mid-August 2014. An IP editor first removed it a few weeks later, but that only lasted for four minutes. The next IP attempt a few days later lasted for five days before reversion. A third attempt also failed. A fourth attempt in October 2014 did meet some success, however, lasting for almost sixteen months before being caught and restored once again.

At this point, attempts five, six, seven, eight, and nine in February and March 2016 were all swiftly reverted. Some discussion with Weingarten also occurred, who revealed himself as the IP editor, and it was suggested that he could upload an alternate picture since no other photo could be found. Weingarten had suggested that many other public domain photos were out there, but that was not actually true.

On July 16, the photo was removed for the tenth time with the comment "this was a picture maliciously placed here. editor, please replace with any one other than this one. or leave it photoless." After 40 days of bliss for Gene, it reappeared on August 23 with the comment "Restore image; it's the only one we have, and fairly depicts the subject." It was again suggested that Weingarten provide another photo if he wished, but it appears the latest restoration cut Gene "don't call me Khalid" Weingarten to the bone, as the next thing he did was write his column, which appeared on September 29.

After Weingarten's plea went out, editors quickly found a new photo already existing on flickr, though it first got until the photographer agreed to amend the license to allow its use on Wikipedia.

Weingarten is a long time fan of Wikipedia. We even used the offending photo earlier this year on the Signpost when mentioning Weingarten's column about using the "random article" feature. We promise this is the last time we will use the photo, Gene. Though this episode could all be blamed as bad karma for his 2007 self-vandalism of his article, it is a reminder that despite the great need and desire for photographs on BLPs, the use of discretion in deciding whether to use a photograph--and not just because it exists--would be wise. Certainly there are formal channels that Weingarten did not pursue to try to solve the problem, but the average reader and subject rarely understands those processes, and should also be able to rely on editors to avoid bad photos.

Despite Weingarten's distress over the photo, however, it may be conceded that perhaps few editors thought it was that bad a photo. The original uploader GRuban agreed, noting for the Signpost that he wouldn't have uploaded it in the first place if he thought it was an "attack picture". GRuban is glad to see the issue has been resolved: "I hope he likes (the new photo) better, we're not here to make people sad, as someone once said." And Gene also likes the new photo too, calling it "me at my HOTTEST". And its not even a selfie!

Reached for comment via Twitter by the Signpost, Weingarten noted: "What I hope is apparent is that I am completely technically incompetent. Anything I did that was violating the norms and protocols and etiquette of Wiki wasn't done maliciously, it was done ignorantly." This is no doubt the case for much of our readership, and should be kept in mind. But he is thankful it has finally been resolved. "I am really impressed and grateful that Wiki Nation jumped on this. If 'Wiki Nation' is not a term already, it should be."

In brief

 * Creative Commons newsletter: In our last edition, we missed the latest Keeping Up with the Commons newsletter, which covers open educational efforts around the world; a reflection on the value of non-commercial licenses by Creative Commons CEO Ryan Merkley; digital skills for researchers; European Union copyright law; and much more. (September 16)
 * Work on indigenous peoples coverage: An Indigenous Peoples’ Day edit-a-thon scheduled for WikiConference North America was highlighted by Smithsonian magazine. (September 30)
 * Article tags' deeper meaning: OZY Media highlighted the "Wikipedia Dispute Index" recently created by a group of researchers at the University of Heidelberg.  The index is fairly straightforward and derived from determining how many articles linked to from a country's page have been tagged for a neutrality dispute.  Thus, for example, the ranking for Georgia rose in 2008 during its conflict with Russia.  See more at disputeindex.org. (Sept. 30)
 * Indian edit war: An edit war over a death claim on the page of Jayalalithaa, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu state in India, broke out on September 30 as reported in The News Minute.  Jayalalithaa apparently remains in uncertain health, but the edit war was quashed when semi-protection was applied to the article, though nothing about her current health seems to be addressed at all. (October 1)
 * The BBC Does Hoaxes The BBC ran one of those regularly seen "top Wikipedia hoaxes" articles; this one, however, is fairly well written and its British focus brings up some less well-known yet still intriguing ones, such as statements in the article of composer Maurice Jarre that made it into obituaries after his death in 2009. (October 3) (See also Wikipedia Signpost/2009-05-11/In the news)
 * But can you trust newspapers?: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review answers the reader question "Can you trust in Wikipedia?", as the reader's daughter has been instructed to use it for a school project.  The paper concedes Wikipedia has value but directs the reader to tell his daughter's teacher to use the peer-reviewed Scholarpedia.  I see that site's main page has only been edited twice in the past four years, and doesn't even have a page on Donald Trump (which may or may not be a bad thing).  Maybe they will by 2050. We'll see what grade the daughter gets. (October 8).
 * Where's the "future history" tab?: The Huffington Post imagined what Donald Trump's Wikipedia article will look like in 2050, documenting a crushing loss in the presidential election fueled in part by the release of the 2005 audio tapes that are now in the news.  No doubt this trope has been used before, but it also assumes that Wikipedia will be around in 2050, which is nice.  I can't imagine what it will look like if editors in 2050 cite internal disputes from the 2010s and List of hoaxes on Wikipedia includes 30+ year old hoaxes that some teenager is only creating as I type this. (October 10).
 * Another Wikipedia alternative: Breitbart News reports on the founding of "Infogalactic", "branding itself as a censorship free alternative to Wikipedia without 'bias or thought police' ".  Instead of Wikipedia's "five pillars" it has "seven canons", which include "no griefing".  The site went live in early October, but unlike Scholarpedia it already has an entry on Milo Yiannopoulos. Members of the Wikimedia-L email list critiqued the launch; one list participant, Coren / Marc, mused: "Why is it people unfailingly mistake 'no bias' with 'biases that match mine'?" (October 10)
 * Pakistan loves monuments: Pakistani newsites noted Pakistan's contributions to this year's Wiki Loves Monuments competition. (October 10–11)
 * Poynter on Wikipedia and fact-checking: The Poynter Institute covered collaborative efforts between journalists and Wikipedians. (October 12)
 * Edit-a-thons hosted by the U.S. National Archives: The Weekly Standard covers a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons to celebrate the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Bill of Rights. (October 13)

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.