Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-28/In the news


 * But I thought everybody loved Wikipedia. [[Image:shocked-tpvgames.gif|20px]] [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Must have been a slow newsweek for the 'traditional' media. :D —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously pissed off that I'm not being asked to join all these groups that are secretly controlling Wikipedia. C'mon, guys, I wanna join the club too! EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FOX News spread lies, bears shit in the woods.

I did discover one interesting thing after reading the article though. It mentions a campaign by a pro-paedophilia web site to keep an AfD on Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the leader of a Dutch pro-paedophilia party with only three members. The article is still there, though the name now redirects to the party, Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity. The deletion debate, from February 2008, seemed to move smoothly towards delete, until User:AnotherSolipsist made a strong pitch for keeping it. This was followed by four more "keeps", and the closing admin decided to keep it.

Here's the kicker though: AnotherSolipsist was blocked indefinitely in June 2008 for "Questionable activity in pedophilia-related areas". As for the other four users who voted keep, I make no assumptions, but this nevertheless seems like a pro-paedophilia campaign that succeeded. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, can wikipedia be leftist at times? Yes. Extreme? Heck no. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not a pedophile, I certainly am not an islamofacist, and I am not left wing (well, on the American scale I might be, but not the Canadian), so I guess that makes me a communist commando, whatever the hell that is. I guess I'm doing my Soviet heritage proud! Maybe? Resolute 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I wonder which one of us are the bigger trolls, us Wikipedians or Fox News?  Marlith  (Talk)   04:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I found it rather funny how there's four huge long negative sections, and one really short positive one. Well, perhaps a slow news week for you guys, but apparently not here- we never get any coverage of Wikipedia, regardless what happens. {&#123; Sonia &#124;ping&#124;enlist}&#125; 10:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good on Jimbo for putting unprofessional FOXNews in its place. Tony   (talk)  15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This article runs against the law of attraction.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 12:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Breifly: "Wikipedia is now recording anonymous posters’ IP" well that is not exactly news! Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC).


 * The section on Islamofascists doesn't have any independent information. No sampling of what must have been a huge move debate, no comments from appropriate WikiProjects, no verification or refutation of Lieberman's claims. I appreciate how much effort went into the FOX section, but this one seems a little underdeveloped. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help but ask: is it time to explicitly remove Fox News from the group of reliable sources? Yes, this may appear to be a tit-for-tat, but when considering a given source reliable, one always assumes it is making a good faith attempt to present the truth. And after reading this latest story, I'd say assuming good faith on behalf of Fox News would violate the general consensus that "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact". And lastly, Wikipedia has a bigger audience than that cable entertainment channel; while they may buy ink by the barrel (to allude to the old canard), Wikipedia owns one of the factories which makes the ink they buy. -- llywrch (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are secondary journalism sources on both the left -- FAIR -- and the right -- AIM. They are similar-sized and funded, and they take different sides on the typical left-right split issues. Why don't you ask WP:RSN to do a survey of the two to decide which is most reliable?  Because they both clearly have opposite views on whether reporting by Fox News (and other Rupert Murdoch outlets, which tend to the same side of the spectrum) are accurate and reliable. It should be a useful exercise. Clearly both of them can't be reliable because of the vast number of different topics on which they disagree very profoundly. Why Other (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)