Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-05-20/News and notes


 * Yeah I saw this episode on Sunday and thought to myself that there was going to be vandalism on the pages. John Oliver is definitely becoming the new Stephen Colbert when it comes to these things. GamerPro64  01:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "sixth administrator appointed this year": Eighth, actually. But only five of those (the ones not followed by parentheses, if you follow the link) are first-time admins. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was not aware that WSC's page only counted admins from when they were first promoted. I've altered the IB in question. Thanks, Dank! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the section "Accusations do not come off a Wikipedia page easily," one use of the word "stick" is linked to Big stick; this is a disambiguation page and is therefore undesirable. The context seems to be discussing the idea of carrot and stick. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Close—I was going for Big Stick ideology! Thanks for flagging this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This 'Signpost' is bad journalism. One, Oliver is quoted incorrectly as having made the nonsensical statement, "Because chicken farmers may be able to retaliate against chicken farmers for speaking out". (The first reference should be to "chicken producers".) Two, Oliver is quoted out of context. The closing remarks of his show were preceded by remarks, flagged by Oliver as speculative, on why representative Steve Womack would try to counter Marcy Kaptur's initiative. Oliver offered three possibilities: (1) the HQ of one of the chicken producers is located in Womack's constituency, (2) Womack is on record for having received significant amoungs of campaign sponsoring from chicken producers, or (3) Womack is both sexually attracted to chicken and envious of (hence acting against the interests of) chicken farmers who 'get to spend more time with' the chickens. Oliver closed the three possibilities by saying: 'But I don't know, this is all purely speculative.' In other words, anyone who opposes Kaptur's initiative is more likely than not to act on a conflict of interests, of which (3) is both the least likely and the most offensive shorthand for 'is implicated in a conflict of interests'.92.108.237.41 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the incorrect quote. I don't see what's wrong in the rest of your post; I think it's pretty obvious that these people aren't actually having sex with chickens, and I've focused the piece more on what effect his words had on Wikipedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * made this comment, not -- can someone fix that?  It's confusing.  ekips39  (talk)  04:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed! If you see an obvious typo like that in the future, please feel free to fix it—we actively welcome gnoming edits. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Superb writing, kudos to all involved! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is an editing nightmare for Wikipedia staff, but John Oliver used his comedy to inform and rally the masses for a good cause. So maybe "chicken fucker" isn't accurate for corrupt representatives who favor big business with mafia like tactics over the people they are supposed to represent, but "fucker" certainly applies.  Quite frankly, if it is difficult to keep up with the cleanup, I think Wikipedia staff shouldn't stress about it.  If these types of edits remain online for awhile, it will simply serve to help inform readers of the quality of the representative holding office.  Thank you.   67.159.151.152 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point of view, that wiki is here to help people to orient in world of information - and I think, when for so many people is important to have mention of something on page about person who should be (and obviously is not) working for public interest, than I don't understand need to censor them. And if this is again some rule, than then should be discussed that rule instead, maybe. That could be way how to not waste time of our volunteers... Personally, I do not like how author totally passed J.Oliver's motivation and intentions (to help real people and to improve real world) and put this (virtual) tool (wikipedia project) on piedestal as most sacred thing.Fraktik (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This article reeks of partisanship rather than upholding the sanctity of Wikipedia and journalism. John Olliver is slightly misquoted, painted in a poor light, and the article suggests that his statements are untrue without actually providing information to the contrary. I can agree with keeping vulgarity off of Wikipedia pages though. Thanks to everyone who works hard to keep Wikipedia clean, I apologize that the mess of the masses made it's way to your doorstep. 15 July 2020 (UTC)