Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-12-28/In the media


 * That Forbes article does a very good job...at affirming our decision at WP:FORBESCON. Some more gems:
 * "To have a good Wikipedia page, I recommend to have several registered users contribute to it. Pages with no editing history are more likely to be flagged for deletion in my experience. You may be able to avoid this by having multiple users make edits to the page routinely."
 * "Actively promote discussion on the talk page. I’ve found that Wikipedia loves readers who engage in the article’s discussion page. Contributing comments or answering questions from other readers lets Wikipedia know that people care about a topic."
 * "edit ten articles from other users. I’ve found you have a greater chance of getting published if you contribute to improving users’ content."
 * "Make sure you provide your business email address or phone number in case there is a problem with your page."
 * Oh, and how about this diff? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Forbes contributors, that isn’t a WP:FORBESCON post. It’s a labeled paid post from a member of the “Forbes Business Council”, which to the best of my knowledge is handled separately. I think Rolling Stone has a similar program for people who want to pay money to make posts. Not a great look nonetheless. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Andrew Orlowski has Wikipedia Derangement Syndrome. X-Editor (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been quite a lot of heartfelt complaints and improvement suggestions concerning the fundraising banners this month. At one point, this led to the WMF pausing the banners for several days. See meta:Talk:Fundraising (and following sections). --Andreas JN 466 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Usual Orlowski attack against Wikipedia, not surprised.-- Vulp  ❯❯❯  here!  09:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Disclosure – Smallbones voted "Strong keep" at the AfD and has previously edited the article extensively."

Then why have Smallbones involved in writing that small section at all? Seems like the simplest method to avoid bias is to...just not do that? The choice to do so and to include the unnecessary second paragraph of description just makes even the Disclosure look that much worse. Silver seren C 20:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Writing about topics where you're involved is never preferable, but it's clear that the Signpost is tight on staff. I presume that if someone else had been available to write the blurb, they would've done so, but in the absence of that, a clear and prominent disclosure is the next best thing. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But they did. Llewee is listed as having written it too. Why not just have them be the sole contributor to that section and Smallbones bow out of any editor or other involvement with it, considering the bias conflict there? Silver  seren C 20:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what facts in that section do you dispute? First, while we do always need writers, almost all of our writers are Wikipedians, and should be Wikipedians (with very few exceptions e.g Matt Amodio). So these cases are going to come up, I think what you are objecting to is the idea of balance - but we don't insert non-facts to create a false balance. That would just be lying to our readers. Why do I believe I've struck the right balance here? Well, 6 attempts to delete the article have failed badly. The !votes in this last case were, off the top of my head, 150 to 30 in favor of keep. There appears to be only a small minority of very intensely driven people who want to delete the article, and a large majority who think that mass killings under communist regimes really did happen. With tens of millions of victims. I can't imagine that Wikipedia would delete an article on that topic, any more than I can imagine that we'd delete an article on the Holocost. I won't insert a false balance into a Signpost article anymore than I'd insert a false balance into the article on the Holocost. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You basically just gave an example here on why you aren't neutral on the topic, so shouldn't have been involved in any writing in the Signpost involving the subject. It is entirely because you aren't an uninvolved party that is the problem and your stance here where you're continuing to relitigate the AfD and even criticizing anyone who didn't have the same opinion as you shows that you in no way are capable of writing a neutral summary on the topic. Silver  seren C 05:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So what facts in that section do you dispute? Why do you think your opinion is more important than 80% of the editors who participated in the last AfD? I'm not re-litigating the AfD - just reporting the news. It's the folks who want to delete that have re-litigated 5 times since their first attempt to delete. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)