Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-10-03/In the media

Netanyahu and Musk
The Atlantic had a really interesting article on this meeting the other day, focusing on a different part of the proceedings: the part where Netanyahu and Musk discussed the societal impact of AI.

The article is called The Unlikely World Leader Who Just Dispelled Musk’s Utopian AI Dreams (archive). Recommended. Andreas JN 466 22:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why unlikely? Netanyahu has undergrad and graduate degrees from MIT and is certainly qualified to speak about societal impacts of technology. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with his qualifications but with the fact that Netanyahu took an almost socialist view in the discussion. Here is a relevant passage: There is more in that vein in the discussion. (See also this issue's Recent Research on ChatGPT as a Wikipedia competitor potentially cannibalizing our unpaid jobs.) Andreas  JN 466 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk may or may not have an interest in assisting Wikipedia with a donation, but may find it within his dreams for humanity to further build Commons and related projects. Being creative with requests and meetings, Musk and WMF might just find much to collaborate on and plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And Elon Musk, in case someone points out these comments to you, please realize that you can edit Wikipedia (if you haven't already) to experience the process and improve the encyclopedia. Maybe only make one or three short edits, on points or topics that you care about and believe either need correction, improvement, or readability. Then, if you do enough edits and are inevitably reverted, assume good faith and discuss your position on the article's talk page. That should make that particular talk page sightseeable and educate some of the public about the interesting back-room discussions on Wikipedia. If you make just one edit you will be both a Wikipedian as well as an articulate critic of Wikipedia. And improve the encyclopedia while you're at it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn It may interest you to know that the Musk Foundation is one of the Wikimedia Endowment's five biggest donors, along with George Soros, Google, Amazon and the Arcadia Fund. Andreas JN 466 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good information. Is the two million annual or a one-time donation? What I'm talking of are the kind of donations that are world-changing. Two million to the endowment or to the WMF operating budget is a fine and appreciated start. The importance of Wikipedia to humanity, combined with Musk's sincere intent to improve societal advancement in many fields, hopefully will someday lead to the kind of partnering that 23rd century historians will take note of when writing the definitive history of the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn: The way I read the page, the Musk Foundation has given the Endowment grants totalling between 2 and 5 million dollars. (There is a reference to two 1-million dollar gifts from the Musk Foundation in m:Fundraising/2019-20_Report.) Andreas JN 466 06:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectable, appreciated, helpful, but not spectacular. I want to see Elon Musk WMFoundation spectacular. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Donations of tens of millions to the WMF don't seem to be enough to fix critical infrastructure. A donation of 1,000 hours of skilled volunteer labour is world-changing, at least when a few thousand of us do it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Each does what they can. I would think WMF letting Wikipedians and other project members decide where 1/3rd of those tens of millions goes yearly would allow some interesting projects to play out. Short descriptor: dance with who brung ya. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Musk and Netanyahu, like all right-wing authoritarians, distrust and fear a decentralized, democratic digital encyclopedia because it might educate the populace, and undermine their power base. Such individuals maintain power only through a strict control of information. Andre🚐 03:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * like all right-wing authoritarians Are you suggesting an edit to Elon Musk's biography? CurryCity (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, Musks politics are so mercurial you can say just about anything and find a source from some era which backs it up. For what its worth I think Musk is very fond of wikipedia, but not as fond of wikipedia as he is of winning (which he is by all accounts incredibly driven by, one of the most driven people on the planet). All in all Musks biggest gripe with us appears to be over the whole Tesla "co-founder" thing which while I understand why it would be massively significant to him its not exactly an indictment of wikipedia as a platform. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk is such an inspiration, truly. He recently told Bill Maher that a kid of one of his friends identified George Washington as a guy who owned slaves, and Elon thought the youth "should know more than that" about George Washington and other presidents. Elon is so wise, and I totally agreed with him, so I wrote these articles about people who were enslaved by U.S. presidents: Dolly Johnson, Florence Johnson Smith, William Andrew Johnson, Elizabeth Johnson Forby, Sam Johnson (Tennessee), Henry Johnson (Tennessee), Henry Brown (steward), all part of series associated with a redirect-turned-article for Andrew Johnson and slavery, as well as new and inadequate stubs (pls help!) for Zachary Taylor and slavery and John Tyler and slavery. Thanks for always being such a role model, Elon!! jengod (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

vile edits
I agree that the vandalism could better be described as "sophomoric," but it's not appropriate for a journalist to interject that opinion. Better practice would be to find an editor who feels that way, and then quote that source. I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult, and it would have reflected journalistic standards.~TPW 13:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did get one editor opinion in there - that "I'm baffled as to how one IP editor's childish vandalism could be considered remotely newsworthy" from . Beyond that I've come to view this column as more of a journalism review than a straight recitation of the facts, which would sound something like a plot summary. Pretty boring IMHO with this subject matter, and looking back over how it was done in the past almost all the authors have done some interpretation of what's going on with the stories we present here. If I were to write a section here about my story on the Express (me writing a story about my own story), I might write that the reporter (me) might have just as well left out the story - as the saying goes "There's no use getting into a pissing contest with a pisser." But some things really suggested to me that the Express reporter must have known that his story was unfair. For example: What was he doing minutes after the actor's death looking at a Wikipedia article (for material on the actor's death?). And how did he just happen to arrive during the right 1.5 minutes when he could have seen it? Or did he go trawling through the edit history for say 20 minutes until he found something like what he was looking for? But why would they want to do that? Well, I've seen some cases (not to say that it was in this case) where journalist (or involved parties) actually make (or encourage others to make) the edits themselves. There was a story like that a few years ago where the Detroit Tigers put up a suggestion on the big scoreboard during a game to vandalize Wikipedia. That type of stuff just strikes a nerve with me. So it's better just to be straightforward about it and say what I think. Sorry for the rant! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See "Gobbler of the month" at Wikipedia Signpost/2019-05-31/In the media. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The rant helps me understand your process, and I certainly support the goal. As a practicing journalist, I'll have to disagree with you about the tactics, but I suppose it's really a question of whether one should consider the Signpost to be journalism or not.  If it's just a newsletter, then you're 100% in the right.  If not, I'll give you 85%. ~TPW 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I find the the "gobbler of the month" raises no similar questions from me, because there's no sense that opinion is injected by the reporter. ~TPW 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I scan the news for interesting Wiki-relevant things for pretty much every Signpost issue. There's usually a smattering of "so-and-so's article got vandalized, isn't that fun". We don't usually run any of these. There's a pretty high bar in the for why it would interest the community, and sometimes they get discussed beforehand in the SP newsroom like this. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bri certainly does add a lot to this column, which includes warnings to me on a fairly regular basis not to get sucked into these types of articles. Part of our objective here is to let our readers know what the outside world is saying about us. Part of that is some very ignorant blather such as the Express story above. So I'll get caught on this type of thing a bit too often, but it does serve our goal. Our readers should not be surprised when they see that type of story in the press. But I do try to limit the coverage of these nonsense stories.
 * TPW: I'm glad you brought up journalistic standards. We don't dicuss this enough. So I'll include a link here to the SPJ Code of Ethics and note that they are written more like enWiki's Guidelines than our Policies. Common sense needs to be applied. Feel free to comment here or via email anytime on The Signpost's standards or any ethic lapses. Everybody needs a reminder every now and then. I have thought a long time about adding a notice here about being a journalism review rather than straight news. Dear editor-in-chief  what do you think? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were marked as a review, then yes I think that would do it, but why not just find a source and leave the writer's opinion out of everything that isn't specifically an editorial? I don't think it's inappropriate to cover this issue, because it surely is of interest to the community.  I'm just not clear why it's difficult to cover it in a journalistic fashion, particularly by sourcing every opinion to someone other than the writer of the article. ~TPW 13:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

On Nellie Biles and checking Wikipedia
A while ago my mother couldn't remember what year she and my late father got married. I couldn't remember either, so I checked my father's article, which told us it's 1991. She said that sounds right.

It did make me wonder how many people there are who do that, and whether there are any cases of citogenesis into someone's own narrative of their life. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Silly games
I submit that any effort to determine must certainly involve, a well-known stroopwafel expert. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh! What? Yes, I'd think so. Thanks Cullen. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Easy, . Jimmy Wales links to San Francisco, which has an office for United Airlines, on which airline the Stroopwafel is served. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's currently no wikilink from United Airlines to Stroopwafel though. Anomie⚔ 21:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)