Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/In the media


 * Roc Nation appears to have fixed their typo. - Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have they? I'm looking at their page right now and it still reads "Rahmeek". In any case, if it does get fixed, here is an archived version from June 26, 2015. Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times does the Daily Mail have to publish bad (and often purposely fabricated) information before we stop allowing it as a source? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes not of wrong stuff is published. Another example of why we at WP:MED delete the daily mail on sight. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course as medical source Daily Mail is relatively useless. However, despite what some notable Wikipedians say, it is not the British equivalent of the National Enquirer.  A source to be used carefully, more carefully than The Times, perhaps, but not as carefully as The Sun, or The Daily Star.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC).


 * "a number of experienced editors are attributing the drop to the normal summer decrease in Wikipedia traffic" .. if that was true we should also see a similar drop in mobile. --  Green  C  13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I always assumed lower traffic in the summer (and a spike in vandalism in the Fall) was due to young people whose primary access to the internet is via their school. Mobile users generally have their own devices. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Google is specifically using a "micro-Wikipedia"  for searches - many folks just want date of birth, death, and a celebrity overview - rather than the generally hard-to-read (see articles on "readability of Wikipedia"), massive articles (the vast majority of future users will use mobiles or tablets) which all-too-often dominate Wikipedia. I commented a long time ago about this inevitable phenomenon, but no one noticed <+g>. Expect Google-driven traffic to go down substantially more in future.
 * (from the cited article) "The problem is that a few months ago that click might have gone to Wikipedia. And in fact the info in the Google box is drawn from Wikipedia. So on the one hand, this is good for Wikipedia (its info is featured prominently and the box does give Wikipedia a link). But on the other, Wikipedia thrives on clicks and this box is designed to save you from actually clicking through if you only need the bare bones info." Collect (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In what way does Wikipedia thrive on clicks? As far as I can see there is zero downside if someone gets the same information directly from Google and it answers their question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not my claim. It is a quote from an article which I certainly did not write, so your question should be addressed to the person who wrote the article.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The downside is that if fewer people come to wikipedia, fewer people become editors.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the people who can't see emoticons. Maybe that's a good thing.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Doc James@undefined intimidated? I don't believe a word. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I think an attribution is missing from the paragraph after the quote in the first story.
 * According to Wikipedia's medical articles likely have a larger readership than WebMD and are used by 50-70 percent of doctors. 
 * Shouldn't it be "According to (someone), Wikipedia's medical articles..."? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Nicki Minaj story was amusing. Perhaps somebody should notify her about the source for the error? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)