Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-03/In the media

To move Forward we must name names?
Um, no, you deliberately and controversially took a position on the dispute while the case was ongoing at arbcom. 72.213.11.193 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Like many disgruntled ex-editors, the Forward piece's author notes that Wikipedia was edited to include several pieces of disinformation in his area of expertise. This is a well-known problem. What he doesn't note is that all of the misinformation was shortly thereafter fixed, and none of his listed examples survive on the encyclopedia today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Shira Klien has an article dated: 14 June 2023 in the same magazine: The shocking truth about Wikipedia’s Holocaust disinformation. In it she states:"Wikipedia’s structure leaves it vulnerable to be exploited by any small group of people willing to spend the time to control the content, whether they are from a government or a corporation or are simply ideologically driven private individuals". It not the fact the misinformation was fixed in those listed examples. The problem is that it is happening at every level and every process and we no way of addressing it except with the people we have and the tools we have. And that is no longer enough and hasn't been for a long time. The scope of the problem is enormous. The arbcom decision at best is a plaster, for that area only.   scope_creep Talk  15:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to say that Shira's article was covered in the previous Signpost issue. See Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-06-19/In_the_media. Regards, Andreas JN 466 16:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see a source afffirming that "checking the references for an encyclopedia article is a standard component of scholarship." Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, are tertiary sources, and while I'm not an expert on the editorial practices used in encyclopedias generally, I am fairly certain that for this encyclopedia we are encouraged to use secondary sources.~TPW 14:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a needlessly inflammatory headline.[T]hey can start by requiring everyone, occasional contributors and arbitration committee members alike, to use their real names, period is NOT doxxing, which OED defines as [T]o search for and publish private or identifying information about (an individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent. Washington suggested (IMO, flawed and even ridiculous) a policy change that will convert Wikipedia to Citizendium; he did not suggest that internet-sleuths publish PID about current the crop of editors and arbitrators.TrangaBellam (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What happens when adverts are allowed
On the Grimace Shake article: There's no reason to suppose that the author of that article,, has a COI regarding McDonald's, but its existence demonstrates a problem Wikipedia has with playing into the hands of commercial interests. We live in a world where TikTok memes get write-ups in The New York Times and Today'', so any big viral marketing campaign is going to result in a Wikipedia article. Such articles might be merged or deleted further down the line, when editors can demonstrate a lack of sustained coverage, but by then the companies have already made their profits.The Grimace Shake is currently on track for a Main Page appearance (see DYK nomination). Whether or not this will make any difference to McDonald's bottom line, I don't know, but it's certainly not a good look for us. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cannot really understand the long-term significance of such articles which appear to be heavy on trivia. I understand articles on widespread "memes" but on corporate fads and temporary trends not so much where WP:TENYEARS should apply. The distinction between Fandom and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia becomes blurred. Gotitbro (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with (btw, any relation to Giants in the earth?) - there is no special reason to think that the article was created as an advertisement, but the effect of putting it on Wikipedia is the same. McDonald's gets free publicity. And ultimately we know the source of the article - from the McDonald's PR campaign.  Under WP:What Wikipedia is not, "Editors are encouraged to ... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events," but not on insignificant current events or routine events. I'm not sure the ad campaign even reaches the level of "insignificant" or "routine". It doesn't have any permanent notability. Nobody will remember it 2 weeks after the campaign ends, certainly not in 10 or 20 years. BTW WP:NOT is a policy, that trumps the guideline WP:Notability. If an event doesn't pass WP:NOT, it doesn't pass WP:Notability. Thus I've objected to the DYK and put a "Recentism" template on the article. Likely, I'll follow up with an AfD when I have the time. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is that is that it can be used to give real teeth to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Don't like articles on mass shooting in the US? Delete them under WP:NOT! No need to demonstrate SIGCOV, RS or any of that sort of thing. Just vote to delete! Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:NOT covers this "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." But this just isn't a significant event. The problem is that McDonald's running adverts is simply not anything beyond the routine everyday day events that nobody is interested two weeks after they are over. WP:NOT also covers this under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, it has been my experience that, in any situation where there is more than one wiki on a given subject matter, the one that isn't a Fandom wiki invariably has a better user experience. Even when I use an ad-blocker, I still see a ton of links alongside and below the main content, all of which point to random nonsense that has little to do with the page I'm currently reading. It's as if somebody saw Wikipedia's See also and external links sections, built an algorithm to make a larger and less useful equivalent for Fandom pages, and then proceeded to saturate all of the unused pixels with it. The only benefit Fandom provides to its users is free hosting, and at this point, I cannot possibly believe that it's worth it, given current hosting prices from other, less opinionated web hosts. An independently hosted wiki probably would have told McDonald's to take a long walk on a short pier, if they even received such an absurd request in the first place. In short, I find it difficult to care what nonsense Fandom is doing this week. I wrote them off five years ago. -- N  Y  Kevin   08:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Other

 * Not in this weeks report, but this one just in yesterday, from Palmer Report: Many of you are aware that a rogue anonymous Wikipedia editor added the words “liberal fake news website” to the very first sentence of Palmer Report’s Wikipedia page several years ago, and since been blocking all other Wikipedia editors from removing this absurd and libelous claim. Enjoy. And don't miss the comment section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hakuna Matata and Wiki donations
Why does this story claim that only the abstract and the Georgia Tech announcement are currently available? According to both and, the full paper was already published on June 6. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)