Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-12-18/In the media


 * The monkey could at least get attribution. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 14:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia seagull on the currency note appears to have had a wee bit of artistic input in my opinion. Charles J Sharp who is interviewed in another part of this edition of the Signpost has a photograph that is merely flipped and reused in an Indian government postage stamp with no attribution and apparently used without permission. Shyamal (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article discussing This American Life is rather silly and insensitive. It laments "why oh why does Slater conflate Wikipedia with the WMF. Oh, how we're misunderstood!" Perhaps this photo might explain why.

David Slater: I soon got to know, from the good Wikipedians out there, that Jimmy Wales and many of the delegates were mocking me by printing out my image on great big boards that were placed all over the conference facility. And Jimmy Wales and various other people were encouraging the delegates to take selfies with my selfie. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 12:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If they were to get from Wikipedia, at least they should've checked if it was public domain or not. Or how about putting a very tiny " (c) 200x Wikipedia user Cele4~enwiki. Licensed under BY-SA 2.0 DE. " at the bottom of the bird? --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 05:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that Slater feels victimized by a quirk in the law which he thinks is deeply unfair -- but at a certain point, if your life hasn't been ruined, and you still have your health, your family, and your job, then eventually you kind of have to realize that your persistence in a lost cause is ending up affecting you more than it does anyone else. In any case, his plight has very little to do with the Internet or Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but with the dusty tomes of traditional old-style law... Anyway, PETA acted far more obnoxiously than anyone on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought I’d have a look at this Everipedia”. I chose my hometown of Homer, Alaska as a sample article. And....wait for it... it’s a copy of the Wikipedia article in every way. So... what was the point again? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve now checked five or six more articles that I am very familiar with, and they are all just direct copies of WP articles, yet I am not seeing any attribution or other admission that the majority of their content is copied from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Everipedia considers itself a 'dynamic fork' Wikipedia. This means that they copy all Wikipedia articles, but users can further edit them on Everipedia. Thusly, Everipedia claims to have more articles than any other encyclopedia, but actually has very few articles written on its site. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That’s weak. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)