Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/In the media: Difference between revisions
Smallbones (talk | contribs) →A Musky smell: add https://www.euronews.com |
actually remove (see previous edits) / +spectator |
||
Line 27:
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1716102436123783175 A tweet] from the world's richest man and leading tweeter, [[Elon Musk]], said that Wikipedia should change its name to "Dickypedia," offering Wikipedia a billion dollars to do so, "in the interests of accuracy". The tweet mockingly referred to a screenshot of a Wikipedia fundraising banner ("Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales").
An
*''[[The Guardian]]'' opines that [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him Wikipedia's ''very existence offends him''] and compares the "good internet" (Wikipedia) to the "bad internet" ([[Facebook]] and [[X (website)|X, the website formerly known as Twitter]]).
*''[[Rolling Stone]]'' writes that "[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/elon-musk-wikipedia-twitter-x-encyclopedia-1234861220/ Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia]", referring to how Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter a year ago and renamed it X, which is now valued at about $19 billion. Wikipedian [[Depths of Wikipedia|Annie Rauwerda]] is quoted at length, saying for example "Frankly, I have been sick of thinking about Elon Musk for years and I do not think his tweets about Wikipedia are all that novel. I mean, "Dickipedia" isn't even the first disparaging nickname for Wikipedia he's touted this year." Rolling Stone also mentions Stephen Harrison's [https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/elon-musk-wikipedia-page.html May 2022 article] in [[Slate (magazine)|''Slate'']], about how the article about Musk had become controversial and difficult to edit.
Line 78:
*Miscellaneous sites [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8]
*Neither X, nor Twitter made the cut [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVRsseRMPiI – No cartoon, no caption – bonus track] – {{small|[[User:Smallbones|S]]}}
===Does Wikipedia's Gaza coverage show an anti-Israel bias?===
''[[The Spectator|The Spectator Australia]]'', a conservative magazine, [https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/11/wikipedia-at-war/ criticizes] the English Wikipedia's coverage of the [[2023 Israel–Hamas war]] as biased. The (paywalled) article examines two existing articles that recently were thrust into the news limelight by the conflict, focusing in particular on the neutrality of their [[WP:LEDE|lead sections]] ("when read time is primarily the first two to three paragraphs on any page, those paragraphs need to include a variety of sources"):
{{Signpost inline quote
|1=[In the article [[Gaza Strip]],] the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all. To find any mention of the word terrorist (of which there are only two mentions) the reader needs to navigate through over 11,000 words down to near bottom of the page. The word terrorism is not mentioned once despite reference to Hamas control of Gaza since 2007, and sources are predominately from the United Nations which is known for its [https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/ anti-Israel bias] or from the post-Zionist writings of the ‘New Israeli Historians’ [see [[New Historians]]].}}
(While it may seem reasonable to ask if the article creates a misleading impression for readers without any background knowledge about Hamas, the author does not seem to be aware of [[MOS:TERRORIST|Wikipedia's general guidelines discouraging the use of terms like "terrorist"]], and also doesn't mention that the article about [[Hamas]] itself contains ample mention of it being described as a terrorist organization by various entities.)
The author's second "timely example of Wikipedia distortion" is the article about Palestinian activist [[Ahed Tamimi]] (which has had [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status since 2019):
{{Signpost inline quote
|1=The introductory section gives three references about Ahed portraying her as a Palestinian activist, two sources from ''Haaretz'', and one from the ''Guardian''. Haaretz is an Israeli news source known for its left-wing and liberal stances as is the Guardian – even a search on Wikipedia itself tells you this. There is no counter stance provided about [https://www.jns.org/ahed-tamimis-terrorism-runs-in-the-family/ Ahed’s alleged family connection to terror]. In the section ''Early Life'' there is no mention about her parents encouraging Palestinians to throw stones at Israeli soldiers and berate them. There is no mention of her unrepentant aunt, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH1CS9PGI4Q Ahlam Tamimi], one of the convicted masterminds behind the 2001 Sbarro Pizzeria suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed and wounded hundreds of Israeli civilians.
[... T]he page is seriously lacking in context and sourcing and is a detriment to the reader. [https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-771102 The recent vanishing of Ahed Tamimi’s Instagram account following her alleged post stating Israeli settlers should be slaughtered and referencing the Holocaust and Hitler], is nowhere to be mentioned (to date). It is not known if she deleted the Instagram account or if it was suspended. In fact, since I have recently become a Wikipedia editor, here is the discussion on why it is not included [excerpting [[Talk:Ahed_Tamimi#Instagram_account_suspended_following_call_to_butcher_civilians|this talk page section]]]. [...] The battle between editors over arguments of sources on Ahed’s page is illustrative of the dominance some editors have over others.}}
The author, who identifies as "an advocate for the '[https://chat.whatsapp.com/C3EPa6oX87GEHREuynVAm6 Deleting their Lies]' campaign – a group dedicated to tracking and reporting hate speech on social media", concludes: "With [https://global100.adl.org/map/ growing anti-Semitism] worldwide, Wikipedia has become an increasingly risky source on these topics as readers cannot exercise critical thinking with the limited information presented. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one such area highlighting this. Currently, it is unwise to blindly trust the Wiki crowd and it should be paramount for Wikipedia editors, new and old, to note all sides of the debate [...]."
The article also contains some general remarks about Wikipedia's importance and alleged ideological bias. As evidence for the latter, it cites two somewhat dated studies by Greenstein and Zhu (see our previous coverage in ''Recent research'': [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-25/Recent_research#Other recent publications|2015]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#Language analysis finds Wikipedia's political bias moving from left to right|2012]]), Wikipedia's own article [[Ideological bias on Wikipedia]], and criticism by [[Larry Sanger]] that had attained media attention in 2021 ("Sanger highlighted the Covid vaccine and the Hunter Biden scandal as examples of topics with left-leaning bias and little debate", see also our coverage at the time: "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-07-25/In_the_media#Larry_Sanger_on_bias_in_Wikipedia_–_with_opinion_orthodoxy%2C_truth_becomes_more_elusive|Larry Sanger on bias in Wikipedia – with opinion orthodoxy, truth becomes more elusive]]"). –
{{small|[[User:HaeB|H]]}}
===In brief===
|
Revision as of 02:31, 5 November 2023
This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
|
Stuff a sock in it, Elon
Optional: Give a short WP:LEAD-like introduction statement here.
A Musky smell
A tweet from the world's richest man and leading tweeter, Elon Musk, said that Wikipedia should change its name to "Dickypedia," offering Wikipedia a billion dollars to do so, "in the interests of accuracy". The tweet mockingly referred to a screenshot of a Wikipedia fundraising banner ("Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales").
An explosion of articles in the press about Wikipedia followed.
- The Guardian opines that Wikipedia's very existence offends him and compares the "good internet" (Wikipedia) to the "bad internet" (Facebook and X, the website formerly known as Twitter).
- Rolling Stone writes that "Elon Musk Offers to Also Ruin Wikipedia", referring to how Musk paid $44 billion for Twitter a year ago and renamed it X, which is now valued at about $19 billion. Wikipedian Annie Rauwerda is quoted at length, saying for example "Frankly, I have been sick of thinking about Elon Musk for years and I do not think his tweets about Wikipedia are all that novel. I mean, "Dickipedia" isn't even the first disparaging nickname for Wikipedia he's touted this year." Rolling Stone also mentions Stephen Harrison's May 2022 article in Slate, about how the article about Musk had become controversial and difficult to edit.
- Harrison's new article in Slate, Wikipedia Is Covering the War in Israel and Gaza Better Than X focuses on how X is spreading misinformation about the war and how changes Musk has made only make matters worse. Musk has been focusing more on criticism from Wales, "trolling" Wales rather than addressing his specific points.
- Noam Cohen is the dean of the small group of journalists who specialize in covering Wikipedia. His opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, Elon Musk’s hate for Wikipedia reveals his true views on free speech focuses on the weaknesses of Musk's arguments against Wikipedia's accuracy. Musk's main tool is ridicule. Wikipedia's main tool is good-faith collaboration. Wikipedia is now on Musk's "roster of A-list enemies".
- The Hill added context by describing a back-and-forth Tweet-fest between Musk, Jimmy Wales and others. It highlights how a tweet where Musk questioned Wikipedia's fundraising propriety ("Have you ever wondered why the Wikimedia Foundation wants so much money? It certainly isn’t needed to operate Wikipedia [...]") was undercut by X's own "Community Notes" weighing in providing facts that undercut Musk's arguments.
Wikipedians can be grateful for the support of all these journalists when we are under attack from the world's richest man. They all, in their own way, attest to the quality of our website and the power of collaborative editing. But they have individual views on the faults of Musk and X. Wikipedia's basic quality is almost universally recognized, but views on Musk's mistakes are as controversial as they are widespread.
In fact, the "Wikipedia is not for sale" fundraising banner that Musk mocked in his tweet had itself already been inspired by an earlier Musk-related Twitter controversy and the observation that it had generated a lot of public support for Wikipedia. As detailed by Jimmy Wales when he proposed using the "not for sale" wording in fundraising appeals back in December 2022:
"I saw a tweet from a New York Post journalist saying to Elon Musk (who had complained to his fans creating a silly "scandal" about a routine deletion debate) "I wonder how much Wikipedia would cost?" I responded in a quote tweet with a dry "Not for sale". [see also Signpost coverage] This got an extremely positive response (at this moment over 220,000 likes!) from people including many who said that they hadn't donated before but would donate now. I paid close attention to the negative responses but they were mostly from the sorts of people who claim that that community is basically full of CIA agents, etc.
This gave me an idea - people do love it about us that we are not like other websites. Wikimedia is a nonprofit, a charity, and therefore isn't subject to the kinds of risks and pressures that other major websites have. [...] So I propose this banner message, and welcome open testing of variants. [...] --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Other news outlets that have covered this story include NDTV, PC Magazine, Livemint, Vice, Bloomberg, euro.news and Yahoo!. – S, H
U.K. Shadow Chancellor accused of plagiarizing Wikipedia in her new book
The Financial Times in "New book from UK shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves lifts from Wikipedia" accuses Rachel Reeves of wholesale plagiarizing from Wikipedia in The Women Who Made Modern Economics. There were lesser amounts of unattributed copying from The Guardian and several other sources. The Guardian reported that
Basic Books, the publisher, said some sentences should have been "rewritten and properly referenced" and pledged to review all sources in the book, but added that “at no point did Rachel seek to present these facts as original research”.
Reeves told the BBC that some sentences "were not properly referenced", but would be corrected in future reprints. She also told the BBC
I'm the author of that book, I hold my hands up and say, I should have done better....Obviously, I had research assistants on the book, but I take responsibility for everything that is in that book.
But for me, what I wanted to do is to bring together the stories of these women. And if I'm guilty of copying and pasting some facts about some amazing women and turning it into a book that gets read, then I'm really proud of that
Both The Guardian and the Financial Times highlighted the irony "that one of the themes of the book was the failure to properly acknowledge the work of female economists."
Other media covering the story include The Telegraph, The Independent, The Times, and i. – S, H
Websites are music
The New Yorker cartoonist Triana Muñoz draws websites (here) as if they were musical styles and gives the styles names in the captions. Not to ruin your viewing pleasure, we list the websites and give music to fit the captions.
- Google [1]
- Rotten Tomatoes [2]
- Yahoo [3]
- Buzzfeed [4]
- Weather Channel [5]
- Wikipedia [6]
- Miscellaneous sites [7]
- Neither X, nor Twitter made the cut – No cartoon, no caption – bonus track – S
Does Wikipedia's Gaza coverage show an anti-Israel bias?
The Spectator Australia, a conservative magazine, criticizes the English Wikipedia's coverage of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as biased. The (paywalled) article examines two existing articles that recently were thrust into the news limelight by the conflict, focusing in particular on the neutrality of their lead sections ("when read time is primarily the first two to three paragraphs on any page, those paragraphs need to include a variety of sources"):
[In the article Gaza Strip,] the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all. To find any mention of the word terrorist (of which there are only two mentions) the reader needs to navigate through over 11,000 words down to near bottom of the page. The word terrorism is not mentioned once despite reference to Hamas control of Gaza since 2007, and sources are predominately from the United Nations which is known for its anti-Israel bias or from the post-Zionist writings of the ‘New Israeli Historians’ [see New Historians].
(While it may seem reasonable to ask if the article creates a misleading impression for readers without any background knowledge about Hamas, the author does not seem to be aware of Wikipedia's general guidelines discouraging the use of terms like "terrorist", and also doesn't mention that the article about Hamas itself contains ample mention of it being described as a terrorist organization by various entities.)
The author's second "timely example of Wikipedia distortion" is the article about Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi (which has had Good Article status since 2019):
The introductory section gives three references about Ahed portraying her as a Palestinian activist, two sources from Haaretz, and one from the Guardian. Haaretz is an Israeli news source known for its left-wing and liberal stances as is the Guardian – even a search on Wikipedia itself tells you this. There is no counter stance provided about Ahed’s alleged family connection to terror. In the section Early Life there is no mention about her parents encouraging Palestinians to throw stones at Israeli soldiers and berate them. There is no mention of her unrepentant aunt, Ahlam Tamimi, one of the convicted masterminds behind the 2001 Sbarro Pizzeria suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed and wounded hundreds of Israeli civilians.
[... T]he page is seriously lacking in context and sourcing and is a detriment to the reader. The recent vanishing of Ahed Tamimi’s Instagram account following her alleged post stating Israeli settlers should be slaughtered and referencing the Holocaust and Hitler, is nowhere to be mentioned (to date). It is not known if she deleted the Instagram account or if it was suspended. In fact, since I have recently become a Wikipedia editor, here is the discussion on why it is not included [excerpting this talk page section]. [...] The battle between editors over arguments of sources on Ahed’s page is illustrative of the dominance some editors have over others.
The author, who identifies as "an advocate for the 'Deleting their Lies' campaign – a group dedicated to tracking and reporting hate speech on social media", concludes: "With growing anti-Semitism worldwide, Wikipedia has become an increasingly risky source on these topics as readers cannot exercise critical thinking with the limited information presented. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one such area highlighting this. Currently, it is unwise to blindly trust the Wiki crowd and it should be paramount for Wikipedia editors, new and old, to note all sides of the debate [...]."
The article also contains some general remarks about Wikipedia's importance and alleged ideological bias. As evidence for the latter, it cites two somewhat dated studies by Greenstein and Zhu (see our previous coverage in Recent research: 2015, 2012), Wikipedia's own article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, and criticism by Larry Sanger that had attained media attention in 2021 ("Sanger highlighted the Covid vaccine and the Hunter Biden scandal as examples of topics with left-leaning bias and little debate", see also our coverage at the time: "Larry Sanger on bias in Wikipedia – with opinion orthodoxy, truth becomes more elusive"). – H
In brief
- Who is Mike Johnson?: Johnson (R-LA) is the newly elected Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Not just another candidate for the post, but the actually elected Speaker, second in the line of succession for the presidency. Politico asked European and Canadian politicos, who they diplomatically granted anonymity, who he is. They were at an embarrassing loss for words until an Irish government advisor was found. He had looked up Johnson on Wikipedia.
- Maher steps up: Al Jazeera reports that former WMF CEO Katherine Maher replaced former Web Summit CEO Paddy Cosgrave who had spoken too much about the Israeli-Gaza conflict, according to some of the conference's corporate sponsors. "In recent weeks Web Summit has been at the centre of the conversation, rather than the host. Its purpose was overshadowed by the personal comments of the event’s founder and former CEO, Paddy Cosgrave," according to Maher.
- Alleged antisemitism on Wikipedia: In February, Dr. Shira Klein will present a lecture on this subject at the USC Shoah Foundation (Shoah is Hebrew for The Holocaust). Earlier this year, Klein, together with Polish-Canadian historian Jan Grabowski, published an academic paper titled "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust", causing a significant amount of media coverage and on-wiki controversy, and prompting a re-opening of the long running arbitration case on "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland". See previous Signpost coverage in In the media (February 20, March 9, April 26, May 22), Recent research (March 9) and Arbitration report (May 22).
- Wikipedia pages deliver malware: Security Week describes a new "Wiki-Slack attack" that exploits a formatting glitch in Slack as "essentially a numbers game, meaning that the attacker needs to modify as many Wikipedia pages as they can and register domains for them, to ensure they can eventually infect a target of interest." TechRadar said that "sharing a Wikipedia link on Slack could be a serious security no-no".
- Sport records are "only interesting for Wikipedia"...says race team CEO: Mercedes' Formula One team boss Toto Wolff said team records are "only interesting for Wikipedia, which nobody reads anyway". Three-time Formula One world champion driver Max Verstappen (not driving for Mercedes) had other opinions. (ESPN)
This page is a draft for the next issue of the Signpost. Below is some helpful code that will help you write and format a Signpost draft. If it's blank, you can fill out a template by copy-pasting this in and pressing 'publish changes': {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}}
Images and Galleries
|
---|
To put an image in your article, use the following template (link): This will create the file on the right. Keep the 300px in most cases. If writing a 'full width' article, change
Placing (link) will instead create an inline image like below The significant thing is feeling, as such, quite apart from the environment in which it is called forth.
To create a gallery, use the following Each line inside the tags should be formatted like
If you want it centered, remove t |
Quotes
| |||
---|---|---|---|
To insert a framed quote like the one on the right, use this template (link): If writing a 'full width' article, change
To insert a pull quote like
use this template (link):
To insert a long inline quote like
use this template (link): |
Side frames
|
---|
Side frames help put content in sidebar vignettes. For instance, this one (link): gives the frame on the right. This is useful when you want to insert non-standard images, quotes, graphs, and the like.
For example, to insert the {{Graph:Chart}} generated by in a frame, simple put the graph code in to get the framed Graph:Chart on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change |
Two-column vs full width styles
|
---|
If you keep the 'normal' preloaded draft and work from there, you will be using the two-column style. This is perfectly fine in most cases and you don't need to do anything. However, every time you have a However, you can also fine-tune which style is used at which point in an article. To switch from two-column → full width style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. To switch from full width → two-column style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. |
Article series
|
---|
To add a series of 'related articles' your article, use the following code or will create the sidebar on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change Alternatively, you can use at the end of an article to create
If you think a topic would make a good series, but you don't see a tag for it, or that all the articles in a series seem 'old', ask for help at the WT:NEWSROOM. Many more tags exist, but they haven't been documented yet. |
Links and such
|
---|
By the way, the template that you're reading right now is {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue}} (edit). A list of the preload templates for Signpost articles can be found here. |
Discuss this story
I think that most readers will not understand the first part of the headline. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In discussing Elon Musk here and in this month's Signpost opinion column, where I've added an "Open Comment to Elon Musk" in the discussion section, maybe let's WP:Assume good faith to his purposely low-brow but humorous and unique way of getting his point across that Wikipedia could possibly use a bit more balance on some current topic pages. No matter what is said, done, or implied, Musk is a friend of Wikipedia given his foundation's past donations. Assuming good faith should ideally include assuming it both within and outside of Wikipedia's project boundaries. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"spoken too much about the Israeli-Gaza conflict" is an odd way to describe what got Paddy Cosgrave in trouble. Lots of people have said a lot about the conflict; the real issue is that Cosgrave seemed to be speaking on the side of the terrorists. Starting on October 7, he posted and liked dozens of anti-Israel tweets, including liking this post - of the Palestinian flag - on the day itself. I think he didn't say anything bad about Hamas or their actions until about a week later. Yaron K. (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other news, Ahed Tamimi (mentioned in the Spectator section) was arrested today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think Wales & Musk got to boasting about their -- er -- extracurricular activities, Musk came off second best, & decided to get back at Wales by trash-talking Wikipedia. (I doubt this did happen, but knowing a little about both men, I think it's plausible.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strange enough I take the rant of Musk as a compliment. It proves that what we are doing is sufficiently neutral.
The Banner talk 18:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
F1 in the signpost also Toto Wolff being angry will never get old https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/15/x-being-overrun-by-trolls-and-lunatics-after-musk-takeover-wikipedia-founder.html he fire back •Cyberwolf• 18:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo didn't cover that. Complex covered that. There is nothing I like less[citation needed] than attributing a syndicated story to the publication that merely reprinted it. Nardog (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up on the Spectator-piece: Is it possible to save Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore them they are clearly high on some strong shit •Cyberwolf•talk? 18:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- At least O'Sullivan's First Law is a redirect to something. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a short, lighthearted breather from a certain social media platform's leader, Tumblr's CEO said he would be open to a meeting of the minds with the Foundation. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]