Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-08-04/In the media

I'm not convinced number of citations is a good marker of amount of research. A few scholarly overview texts might be appropriate for a large overview article like Bible - which splits off into thousands of sub-articles. Meanwhile, a more recent topic like Pokémon Go might have to have its research assembled from a large number of quite short citations - newspapers and such, and is more likely to have been edited cumulatively as more evidence came in, encouraging people to always be looking for newer, more recent citations. That doesn't mean that the Pokémon Go article is better; in a way, the large amount of citations can indicate a very messy article creation process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it's just a clear indication of WP:RECENTISM. ~ ★ nmaia d 01:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam. The Gizmodo article is unfairly implying that our entire coverage of Bible studies consists of the 25 sources of Bible, rather than the tens of thousands of sources tucked away at Book of Joshua, Authorship of the Pauline epistles, Codex Zographensis, etc., etc. This seems to reflect a serious misunderstanding of WP layout on the Gizmodo author's part. FourViolas (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

On the Highsmith lawsuit: As a professional photographer, I am appalled that stock agencies would so blatantly steal work in this manner. I'm more surprised at Alamy than at Getty; I have images on the former, and had considered them to be a respectable company. I'm seriously considering pulling my images off of their service now. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * While it's a bit hard to tell, it looks like the top story is about the same folks I reported at WP:AN, the banned editors of Wiki-PR, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive282 and also Wikipedia_talk:Harassment.  It is really quite scary when the Signpost does not feel able to report on a banned editor/company rebranding itself, in an attempt to better break our rules on Paid editing and NPOV.
 * I just want everybody to know that Wiki-PR sent the press release to me (and likely 100,000s of other people) thru my Google News setting. It took me all of 15 seconds to check that these were the Wiki-PR folks under a new name.  Is this the type of personal information that the folks who wrote WP:Outing wanted to protect?  I don't think so.  And if nobody can report this type of info to WP:AN, then we really can't ban editors like them and then every Wikipedia article can be written by the highest bidder.
 * This whole nonsense about threatening to block editors for "harassing paid editors" could be avoided by just recognizing that paid editors who voluntarily advertise their service on the open internet are not in anyway being outed when the ads are reported. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, the Signpost isn't scared. They're being petty and perpetuating an argument that was already settled to be pointy.  If they can't report without letting their grudges spill over into unrelated articles, then they shouldn't be writing.--v/r - TP 04:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how you get "settled" out of this RfC here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Paid editors have the obligation to disclose themselves as such, and if not we have all the right to reveal their wrongdoing. This post prompted me to do a quick search for reputation management companies offering Wikipedia editing, and I found two, one called LibraryCom in India and another one called GetYourWiki in an undisclosed location. Do we have any directory where we can list such companies so as to better protect against them? --Hispalois (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not true User:Hispalois. We had an editor indefinitely banned not that long ago for stating / proving an obviously paid editor was obviously paid in an effort to help them adapt to the rules of WP. A likely not so random IP reported them to ANI and a functionary a few minutes latter indeffed them. Even after promising that they would never link to an outside account ever again arbcom has maintained their indefinite block. So is there concern among the community that attempts to deal with COI, definitely. This has sent a chill through those working to address undisclosed paid editing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. That's sad! --Hispalois (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The extraordinary prescience of Wikipedia editors for "names which will be in the news tomorrow" is explicable only once we accept that it is not only commercial paid editors which exist.

"Silly season" articles exist for many nations each year, and I rather think a researcher who notes the wondrous "accidental timing" of such articles will also note that each such article may well have a "dominant editor" who, in my exceedingly unenlightened opinion, may not appear by pure coincidence.

I suggest that such articles be closely examined, and that we establish some means of weighing likelihood of "partisan creation" rather than accept that some Wikipedians are simply extremely lucky. And I do consider the effect to be quite as pernicious as the effect of "paid editors" on commercial articles. Collect (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Highsmith case dismissed
Just a little housekeeping, I notice that the dismissal of Carol Highsmith's lawsuit was never mentioned here. See: https://www.diyphotography.net/us-district-court-dismisses-carol-highsmiths-1-billion-copyright-claim-getty/ diyphotography.net] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)