Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-09-27/In the media


 * Readers might want to know the backstory and some results of the Untapped New York article - the myth was disputed in the Wikipedia article in 2013, and that editor later emailed me over it. Their research simultaneously led to this Untapped article, which as it happened primarily credited Wikipedia for creating and perpetuating the myth. Had to do a lot of digging, but turns out it was started and spread in news before being added to Wikipedia, so I emailed Untapped to have it fixed. Luckily, they've been very glad to work with me and, and even granted CC-BY SA use of five images of wonderful off-limits areas in and around the terminal, never before depicted in Wikimedia spaces :) We might collaborate on a new Untapped article in the near future, so look out for more Grand Central news...  ɱ  (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. It's always nice to know where this type of story gets started - and it's not always on Wikipedia. We probably stamp out a lot more myths than we create. You said you've got photos?  I was looking for a good one for the article, but ran out of time. Feel free to put one on this page. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, the images they granted were of subjects not related to the clock, seen here. But you could always add this or this, both excellent photos of the clock in question. ɱ  (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For a lower-grade Davis-type piece, here's "Wikipedia Strikes Again!"  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 02:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I love these stories about people trying to correct or spin "their" Wikipedia article. I mean there was Philip Roth on one of his characters, Jimbo about his birth date, there's a whole series of heavy metal (and similar) musicians on video (I love Ice-T's, see his article). There's a journalist who started collecting off-Wiki her and others' articles with all the good stuff taken out. Talking to a reporter is about the simplest way that I've heard - but it only works if you are truly notable! Video's should work well too - and you really don't have to be notable to make a video and put it on YouTube. And then there is the dark side ... Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the ultimate irony is that White's "big return to racing" (he currently meets NMOTOR by a mere one appearance) was derailed when the team's equipment was repossessed. Dude was so worried about his Wikipedia page that he couldn't find a team that could stay afloat. Always fun to see where people's priorities lay, for sure.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 04:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If Section 230 is repealed, can't Wikipedia just move its servers to a less hostile jurisdiction? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * given current world trends, all jurisdictions are likely to beat least equally difficult. A society with a great emphasis on either personal privacy or government control will be inherently suspicious of the free exchange of knowledge. This applies even within WP--look at the complexities of how we now handle BLP: there are things known to be true and documented and relevant that cannot be said. We deal with the difficult situations by focusing on details of documentation and degree of relevance, in order to compromise sufficiently to avoid provocation. I personally regret the degree to which we compromise now, but I suspect we could compromise further, without losing the character of an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Beijing representative also suggested that Wikimedia Taiwan has been “carrying out political activities… which could undermine the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”" This might be a dumb question, but is there any actual truth to that accusation? I would hope that they wouldn't, but I'm not sure everyone's being quite so careful these days to avoid random politics. --Yair rand (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Beijing is presumably referring to advocacy for Taiwanese independence here. In the linked statement, the chapter seems to strongly reject this, alluding to the NPOV principle ("we fairly display all points of view of a controversial topic, not the point of view from any particular country or government"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Some good coverage of the WIPO issue at . An interesting quote from the WIPO session, from Ambassador Andrew Bremberg representing the United States:


 * I'm starting to find it disconcerting that the WMF is being discussed like this at major international fora, let alone becoming part of them. --Yair rand (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you find disconcerting about it?
 * By the way, for illustration of the "they use the WIPO arbitration and mediation services frequently" bit, see e.g. this Signpost piece I wrote back in 2009.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: 'Seigenthaler incident 15 years later' - Despite indicating their (and their parents') desire for them to no longer contribute on Wikipedia, and being indefinitely blocked, the individual at the centre of this particular incident has since twice tried to create accounts and to edit articles again. These WP:SOCKPUPPETS have been blocked, but they may try again. We need to remain more vigilant and be more proactive in not tolerating uncited BLP statements in any articles. The impact for the subjects involved, as well as on Wikipedia's reputation, can be disastrous.  Nick Moyes (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is said that crypto sites cannot be used to show notability. But the fact is, that apparently you can't even use them for facts either ("file it as pink-rated"). That leaves out the well-written articles by Aaron van Wirdum. So since you can't trust the magazine, because it has an incentive to prop up the tech, why can we quote Andreas Antonopoulos book on Lightning Network? Isn't it expected that there is a correlation between people who know about Bitcoin, and people who hold Bitcoin? Isn't it a bit funny, that Wikipedia is now aligned (adminship is alignment) with the only person in the world who makes a living off of criticizing the space? --Ysangkok (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt that David is the only person in the world who makes a living off of criticizing cryptocurrencies - there is so much to criticize. I don't think the WMF or Wikipedia admins are too tough on cryptocurrencies. Wikipedia has been a major platform for advertising them. It's time we clean up the garbage articles about cryptos. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I am happy you are ready to contribute. Would you mind commenting on Articles for deletion/Symbiont (company) and Articles for deletion/PotCoin. Thanks so much in advance. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)