Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-04-30/In the media


 * Great article here. I'd say in terms of Wikipedia being a social media site, cooperation is a necessity here, whereas it is not on most social media websites. Facebook and Twitter do not require anyone getting along to be considered successful (just look at all of the media coverage of "X slams Y on Twitter over Z" and all the retweets each person gets), but without attempts to reach an understanding in edit debates Wikipedia would flounder. Also funny that we came up in the Mueller Report, I was not expecting that. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Indy beetle blasts User:Smallbones in the comment section over comparisons to social media. Click here to see why this matters. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is social but it not a social media site. For one thing, editors have pages of listings of their contributions preserved. Who would think of their Tweets or Facebook posts as editorial contributions? They are opinions, reactions, thoughts, memories, emotions. They are the epitome of subjectivity (for good or ill). While I think we can accept that we all have our biases, Wikipedia editors strive for objectivity, to make contributions to the collective knowledge. There are many other ways they are different but this element strikes me as being core to both of their purposes. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , our Wikipedia article on social media defines it as "interactive computer-mediated technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks." Surely Wikipedia is devoted to the creation and sharing of information?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Foundation staff members expect [partial blocks] to be introduced to English-language Wikipedia this year" (NYT). Is that this RfC? Or will WMF introduce it some other way? StAnselm (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Though not literally a social media site, there are definitely things to be learn from the problems of social media sites and their attempted solutions. Since mainspace pages are only 20%ish of the site, most of the other 80% is the goal-oriented social interaction necessary to build the encyclopedia. I'm very much looking forward to the outcomes of the Community Health strategy working group. WikiMedia projects have an opportunity to show how community-lead strategy can turn show real change from the 'toxic Wikipedian culture' news stories. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 07:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Overall this is well-written, but I have to note the irony of an article that laments personal attacks on Wikipedia, then follows that up by describing the editors on one side of a deletion debate as a "network of trolls". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment and for the heads up. In my defense I'll say that the description of a "network of trolls" was in Harrison's Slate article - not those exact words - but certainly the idea: Quoting:
 * "By this point, though, the internet trolls had descended. The Verge’s Mary Beth Griggs recounts the online harassment in grim detail. Trolls set up fake Twitter accounts and fake Instagram accounts in Bouman’s name and had the fake Bouman claim that her colleague Andrew Chael wrote 850,000 of the 900,000 lines of code that were written into the algorithm that found the black hole. ..." and it goes on in some detail.
 * So my fault here is in letting Harrison's description of the internet's network of trolls, being mistaken for a group of folks at Wikipedia's AFD. I haven't checked the AFD in detail to see if there were indeed trolls there - so that really is something I apologize for. I believed that this description would be taken by readers as a summary of Harrison's article. In a dozen words or so, I still think it was a pretty good, but not perfect, description of that article. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should just remove that phrase? As you note, even the Slate article doesn't use that phrase to describe anyone on Wikipedia. The most it says is that some Wikipedia editors made "nasty and sexist" comments (although the one example cited doesn't seem especially nasty or sexist). Simply removing "network of trolls" would be a more accurate summary of the article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - sorry for the delay in getting back. The real world sometimes gets in the way. I did replace "network of trolls" with simply "those". That does reflect my view that, while there might be a network of trolls on the internet in general working against Bouman, I haven't seen any evidence that a "network of trolls" invaded Wikipedia's AFD discussion. I don't know how well that aligns with Harrison's intention - my original reading was that he thought the 2 groups to be connected, on my 4th(?) reading now, I'm not sure of his intended message. Thanks for the feedback. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The harassment of is very disconcerting to me. I have met this editor once and we have communicated a few times. This is a thoughtful, kind, knowledgeable person and a talented photographer with much to contribute to this encyclopedia. We must take all reasonable steps to stop this harassment and welcome these contributors from marginalized communities. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Efforts to broaden the definition of "social media" have a short-range political utility. The Internet used to appear uncensorable, so powerbrokers have dealt with it in a complicated multi-step plan.  First, companies that were net money losers fought to gain oligarchic control over the users while accustoming them to having anything too interesting deleted.  Next, they repeatedly expanded what they wouldn't allow.  Governments continually chastised them for "not doing enough" while exploring the idea of not censoring speech, but censoring social media, which is to say the unsympathetic network of corporate oligarchies with a huge impact on people.  This drove a lot of stupid, undesirable content e.g. racism onto the networks of the remaining sites that were more freewheeling.  The next step was to call those sites "toxic cesspools" of such undesirable thought and try to wipe them out by conspiracies in restraint of trade as admiring governments looked on.  And to put a finishing touch, well, any forward-looking pundit can see you have to call everything "social media" in order to "regulate" it.  Pretty soon two people trying to whisper a government-disapproved fact far from microphones in a public park will be prosecuted as social media moguls... at least, unless we have the insight and strength of character to find some way to intervene, such as raising the outdoor temperature of the park to 300 degrees in the shade through judicious carbon emissions.  In the meanwhile though, in the interests of obstructionism, I'd say that Wikipedia is not social media but collaborative media.  The difference being that in social media a thousand people say something and then the one that most confirms their uninformed prejudices gets upvoted to the top.  But on Wikipedia a thousand people say something and they edit war until a poor average is struck. Wnt (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * On Katie Bouman, it sounds like Slate has discovered deletionists: "The debate also shows how a minority of internet encyclopedists are more concerned with disputing individual merit than creating a reference source that serves the public interest.".  Though really the deletion discussion was not nearly as close as they made it sound: it was a "snow keep"! Wnt (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I invite any readers interested in more context on my experience to check out the links on my user page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the interview with Katherine Maher in this edition? She says "I don’t think most of the on-wiki policies we have today are conducive to creating safe and welcoming spaces. Far too frequently, people use our policies to walk the line while still engaging in harassing behavior." Sometimes folks at the WMF kind of mumble, sometimes there are many different sides to issues and they have to address all the sides and just end up confusing people. Maher did not mumble here, she didn't confuse anybody with this. It looks to me like the WMF - certainly the ED - wants to do something about harassment. Can you come up with what they, or we (the en:wiki community) need to do? It's time to step up to the plate. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Betteridge's law of headlines is in effect for this article. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 21:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, questions in headlines can usually be answered "no". But I often marvel at how much like a social media site we are. And few people talk about that here.  Actually I don't do Facebook, but it's impossible to avoid the characterizations of it. So it's not a yes-or-no question. More like "how far have we gone down that path?" And when the NY Times says that we're a type of social network, I think it's worth discussing. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the "In the media" snippet on the main Wikipedia Signpost page looks borked: "Is Wikipedia just another social media site? Harassment, a black hole, the Mueller Report, and Mötley Crüe - just another social media site?". Cut'n'paste goof from "Traffic report" section? DMacks (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'm looking into it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - nice work, - it certainly is food for thought. WP has many similarities to social media sites for the reasons mentioned above and the following key elements: anything notable can be included, anyone can edit/create content, we have user pages and treat WP as a community. While the pedia offers what most consider encyclopedic information, there are also aspects of it that make it appear more like the newspapers of yore which offered sections for news, business, sports and entertainment along with a mix of promotion and advertising. We try to eliminate the latter mix but I'm truly concerned we're losing ground because of paid editing and how far PR agencies and the like will go to accommodate paying clients. We also have our share of social justice warriors and other advocacies pounding at our doors. As they say, temptation knocks but opportunity more often rings the bell, and WP offers far too many opportunities in that regard. Atsme  Talk 📧 11:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)