Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-07-02/In the media

I really wonder what did that Washington Post journalist do in school. Or, how badly does Post's staff think about its readers. That comment says more about American education and journalism than about Linné. --213.184.43.2 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not surprised at Ethiopia's response to Wikipedia. After devoting several years to writing articles on that country, I found it was far easier to research topics from the 15th & 16th centuries than contemporary issues. Even to simply report the "official" POV on some matters was a challenge: for example, almost no major government official has a resume online somewhere. It's sad, because there is so many positive items relating to Ethiopia that deserves inclusion in Wikipedia -- but to write about them requires far more effort than to write on topics of interest to white, middle-class folks living in Europe & North America. -- llywrch (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Re: the initial rejection of degreed academics - Funny how history gets distorted. Academics have always been welcome. What rejected was the right of an unquestioned final say of any wikipedian; an "anti-credentialist" approach, which was eventually detailed into WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFIABILITY, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A plethora of substantive articles this week-- and a lovely video about Adrianne Wadewitz that I would have missed otherwise. Bravo, Signpost editors! Djembayz (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "recent initiatives from both the American Sociological Association" - which, unlike the APS one (which was quite successful), has to the best of my knowledge (and I was the Wikipedian contact for the ASA, and the only person to my knowledge to try to collect stats on it) resulted in almost zero activity (outside that of a few sociologists like me who were active on Wikipedia before, signed in for the Initiative, and continued as before). The ASA / APS difference is worth investigating, but as far as I can tell, APS continued with support and advertising for it, whereas ASA after some initial push was left with half-functioning webpage (that soon went down). This tied with the rotation of presidents, the one interested in Wikipedia retired, the new one never responded to my emails... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if The Grand Budapest Hotel is published CC-BY-SA or if the newspaper in it is at least? It would seem to me that license of Wikipedia's content isn't being followed otherwise. Zell Faze (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had hoped my description would be both accurate to the LA Times article and brief in its handling of the issue. I don't think I've distorted history, although that history hasn't been responsibly studied yet. As I recall, Jimmy Wales and others at the beginning of the project rejected vetting by academics. The anti-credentialist attitude would seem to encompass a rejection of degreed academics; not an absolute prohibition on their contributions but a deliberate disregard for their authority. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Almost what I meant: no one was to have an inherent right to vet anything (but for Jimbo :-) . However let me stress once again that the simplistic phrase "initial rejection of degreed academics" is misleading in both aspects: we neither reject academics as contributors (if they treat us dilettantes with due respect, even if we don't understand something), nor we reject their authority (if their authority is expressed as a superior skill in providing convincing references and not as bullying). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

US-centric bias
The item in the "In brief" section titled "National Archives announce collaboration with Wikimedia Commons" never mentions that the National Archives in question is that of the United States. Do we really need to remind Signpost editors (who should be more aware of systemic bias than most other editors)that this here website ain't Yankopedia? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for a moment I thought it meant the real National Archives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Good point; I've added "US". Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)