Women's history month

In the media

Women's history month

An explosion of women's history

During March's Women's History Month articles on Wikipedia's role in recording this history exploded in the press. We can only give a sample:

Fighting against gender bias The magazine Smithsonian highlighted prosopographies (the "study of the individuals in a group of people within a specific context and their relationships"), obscure collections of biographical materials, that can be used to fight Wikipedia's gender bias. Alison Booth, a professor at the University of Virginia has created an online database of more than 7,500 women chronicled in such collections.
BAME scientists the journal Nature explains the importance of an edit-a-thon about black, Asian and minority ethnic scientists.
Female scientist Jess Wade was profiled in TNW for her work as Jesswade88, creating over 500 biographies of female scientists
The CBC covers an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon on women and non-binary people from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Edit-a-thons included those held at the University of Arizona, Cornell University, the University of Connecticut, the Corning Museum of Glass, Ohio State University, the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the National Museum of Women in the Arts

Continuing coverage

Mike Pompeo in Vietnam in 2019

Slate's Stephen Harrison discusses the gender gap's relation to Wikipedia's notability standards. Are the standards written in a way that allows the sexism of past generations to exclude articles on women?

Earlier this month Harrison wrote that Wikipedia has a citogenesis problem — websites copy uncited information from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors then cite those websites for the same information. Harrison notes that our list of citogenesis incidents includes the "facts" that Jar'Edo Wens is an Australian aboriginal god and that Mike Pompeo served in the U.S. military during the war in Vietnam.

In January Harrison wrote 'Wikipedia's Medical Content Is Superior' highlighting Doc James.

We look forward to Harrison's continuing series, Source Notes, which features Wikipedia. – R, S

Mike Vago's long-running Wiki Wormhole is a quirky column on some of Wikipedia's most quirky articles. Last week's column featured The Langley Schools Music Project about a 1976 elementary school band recording, re-released in 2001. What could be so fascinating about that? Listen to the linked YouTube video of Desperado. Vago claims the Wormhole will be a 5,664,405-week series.

Declared paid editing

Ashley Feinberg at the Huffington Post reports that "Facebook, Axios and NBC" used a declared paid editor, Ed Sussman (BC1278) from the firm WhiteHatWiki, to 'whitewash' their pages. Nevertheless she appeared to stop short of claiming that Sussman broke any Wikipedia rules, except perhaps that he badgered volunteer editors with "walls of text."

Breitbart News – which is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia – repeated much of Feinberg's story and added some Wikipedia-bashing. A follow-up, which was written by banned editor The Devil's Advocate, adds some interesting details and takes a run at another declared paid editor, WWB. Breitbart links are not allowed on Wikipedia, but Donald Trump, Jr. has thoughtfully provided a link on Twitter.

In brief

Wikipedia's page views follow the Baltimore oriole's migration

Community: /r/IAmA hosted a front page Reddit interview on 23 February with the Wikipedia community's own Ser Amantio di Nicolao. The conversation centered on his many Wikipedia edits and followed previous news coverage summarized in our January issue.
Media archives: The Times of Israel reported on the uploading of 28,000 photos by Wikimedia Israel of life in the region before the modern state of Israel was formally established in 1948. The images are in the public domain as their copyright expired after fifty years. The Association of Israeli Archivists criticized Wikimedia for the move, saying that "Wikimedia's 'sting' operation involves a variety of legal and professional offenses, including concern of infringement of intellectual and property rights, breach of signed agreements with donors, blatant failure to give credit, and erasure of the archival context."
Scientific American's 60-second science describes how Animal Migrations Track with Wikipedia Searches. The underlying academic article is A season for all things: Phenological imprints in Wikipedia usage and their relevance to conservation in PLOS Biology.
The New Scientist reports on how 'Wikipedia's civil wars show how we can heal ideological divides online'.

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next month's edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.

← Previous "In the media"

Next "In the media" →

In this issue

In the media

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

A disscussion that took place on the Huffington Post article about paid editing can be found here on the Administrators' noticeboard. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 16:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it April Fools' or did The Signpost just in all seriousness link out to a Breitbart article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GorillaWarfare: The article mentions that it isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what Breitbart is, but I would think that the link is for context about what that website's claim is, not that it is a reliable claim/website. Clovermoss (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GorillaWarfare: My understanding is that it did so mostly on the basis that the writer of that article was a banned Wikipedia editor, and that the Breitbart piece has been making some waves in certain circles. Not because the Signpost agrees with anything said there in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GorillaWarfare: @Headbomb: It also appears that the link is a wikilink to the English wikipedia article about Breitbart, not Breitbart itself. I'm going to read it now, since I'm curious. Clovermoss (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Beware, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you comes to mind here. You're about to dig in one of the worst 'news' organization of the American far-right there is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Clovermoss: I was referring to the link to Trump Jr.'s tweet, which in turn links to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Headbomb: Does The Signpost usually make a habit of providing a platform for banned users? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @GorillaWarfare: I can't say that I know if it's a habit or not, but I'd say it falls squarely within the realm of editorial discretion. You could see it as given them a platform, but the story is already out there, being circulated by much bigger platform than the Signpost: the Breitbart Network and Donald Trump Jr. Should Wikipedians be kept in the dark about this? Reporting on it keeps us informed, and lets us stay aware of what's being said about us, even if it mostly falls within the realms of disgruntled sour grapes peddling conspiracy theories. Is there an argument for WP:DENY too? There is. Which is stronger? I don't really know. But I'd argue that as a newspaper with a mission to inform, The Signpost should err on the side of reporting, rather than burying, at least when it comes to stories which make headlines in widely read outlets, even if those outlets are not themselves reliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        As I mention below, it's not the unreliability of Breitbart that concerns me here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: - Thanks for bringing this up. It's me you need to discuss this with. I wrote the paragraph and included breitbart because I think it's important to identify all sources on paid editing. There are a lot of stories on paid editing from non-reliable sources and they express a very different view than most others (e.g. "this is something every business needs, and here's how to get around the rules") I hope to be able to continue showing these views. In the first draft I ended this something like "Breitbart claims the article was written by banned user The Devil's Advocate. Please consider the source in evaluating this information." I was unhappy with this and ask for feedback in the Newsroom, but didn't get any. The last sentence seems like I'm telling the reader what to think. TDA contacted me on Meta and said it was written by him and gave me the DT Jr link. That did seem fair to everybody involved, but I forgot the declared editor target, who I did inform after publication when I saw it again. I don't expect to link even indirectly to Breitbart ever again, but may do other blacklisted links from time to time. Please let me know via email if there is anything else I should do here, or any steps I should take going forward. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: If The Daily Stormer wrote an article about paid editing on Wikipedia, would you link there? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: You must admit that The Daily Stormer is an extreme example. Breitbart is not quit as extreme - there's even an argument to be made that it is fairly mainstream now (I wouldn't agree) because the former editor worked as a strategic advisor in the White House. Sad times I know. And the link wasn't made to Breitbart it was made to the President's son's Twitter.

But let's put aside the arguments and concentrate on what to do now. Should the link now be deleted? In future editions would you recommend not linking to any blacklisted sites? I'm sure you know policy on this better than I do (I essentially found nothing on a search in the day before deadline). Could you give me the links? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a range of websites that fall between "not as extreme as The Daily Stormer" and "a reasonable website to direct readers to," and I would argue that Breitbart News falls between the two. I don't know of any explicit policy saying The Signpost can't circuitously link to Breitbart News, but linking to Trump Jr.'s Twitter to evade a URL blacklist to direct readers to an extremist website seems, at best, poor judgment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's keep the reasons that Breitbart News is blacklisted in mind: "The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories." We blacklist it to protect Wikipedia articles from these falsehoods, conspiracy theories, misleading stories from being presented as fact. Things are quite different when Breitbart News is the story. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)Thanks, GW. Going forward, I'll leave the link in for now - any real damage has already been done. I'll consider your arguments before the next issue and reconsider before indirectly linking to a blacklisted site. If you have further thoughts on this, please do email me. I've been thinking a lot about how Wikipedia's rules apply to The Signpost, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-03-31/From_the_editors. As far as I can tell, traditionally it's just been more-or-less a "hands off, we all know how newspapers are supposed to work." That changed with an ArbCom case about an April Fools' Day joke by Gamilele (sp). I think it may have been your 1st case. As near as I can tell now, it's considered something like a WikiProject talk page, or maybe Jimbo's talk page: rules about articles (OR, NPOV, etc.) don't apply in the same way, but more general rules (e.g. BLP, PA, harassment) do. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about linking to sites that publish harassment, BLP violations, etc.? Possibly more concerning, to extremist sites which aim to radicalize readers? On a completely separate tack (and one I'm not sure I really agree with, but it's food for thought), I've seen less objectionable links removed from Jimbotalk and other discussion venues, citing WP:BADSITES. The argument for removal in those situations is often that posters on the site have engaged in the behavior outlined at WP:BADSITES, such as doxxing and other harassment, and so links to the site should be removed even if the directly linked content does not contain that behavior. In this case, the author of the Breitbart piece has engaged in that kind of behavior (against myself, actually), so it's a bit discouraging to see him amplified here. Furthermore, the piece itself "takes a run" at specific Wikipedians, as stated in this page.

To be clear (and to reply to Headbomb, my concern with linking to Breitbart is not that it's been declared an unreliable source. I'm well aware of the reasons behind it being declared an unusable source, and that that decision just means it can't be used to support claims in mainspace Wikipedia articles. The list of blacklisted and deprecated sources is fairly short, and although it overlaps with websites I think should not be linked from Wikipedia, it also contains websites that I wouldn't care about links to, and doesn't contain websites that I would. To use my above example, The Daily Stormer is not included there, but I'd still object if someone linked to it in a Signpost piece.

Not that it really matters, but just to correct the record, Gamaliel wasn't my first case. I'd been on the Arbitration Committee for two years by then, and I recused on the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I agree there's a general concern with linking to harassment/defamation, especially harassment of other editors. But this also has to be balanced against journalistic considerations when a such a story becomes part of the wider American national discourse. I freely admit I don't really know how to balance let's not link to general nonsense / gross character assassination / whatever against we need to report on these prominant political figures / media figures which have said general nonsense / made gross character assasinations / whatever except to do in based on my gut feeling. I suspect most of the American media are still struggling with that question as well, save for an increased reliance on their EiC to make a judgement call in those situations. I also suspect this is what Smallbones did here, but they can speak for themselves. However, it'd be worth investigating how other media outlets (the good ones at least) deal with those stories, and if they have developed guidelines for this beyond the 'gut feeling' approach.

For the record, I haven't read the Breitbart piece myself, mostly because there's nothing TDA has ever said that ever interested me much in the first place, and I didn't feel like giving Jr or Breitbart the traffic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a few run-ins with TDA and RA myself and can understand why even the mention of his name might be hurtful. I didn't think the paragraph in any way validated what he wrote. Rather the opposite. I'll leave it there for now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I look at this in the only way I think appropriate to an encyclopedia (or a newspaper ) : the way to show that sources are unreliable is to show the sources, in context. I might of course feel differently if it were I the bad sources were attacking. Our refusal to link to link to sources like Breitbart does not harm them, but it does harm our usefulness as a way to get further information., and it does let those who hate us make the (greatly exaggerated) claim we have political bias. I know that the standard rebuttal to this, is that our bias is for the truth. But you can't distinguish truth from falsehood without being aware of falsehood. Yes, it's dangerous--people might misunderstand. Trying to help people find the truth for themselves will always be dangerous DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "Vago claims the Wormhole will be a 5,664,405-week series" ? That's more than 100,000 years, according to my maccalculator. Color me skeptical! – Athaenara ✉ 02:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... before Israel??? My first thought was "thousands of years ago" but that made no sense in context. It would've been better to say "before the modern state of Israel" or something similar. Yes, the context is clear, but if it made me a do a double-take, it probably did the same to other readers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article in The Times of Israel, I can see that the Wikimedia Foundation presumes that it has sole rights to the high moral ground. I am very moved by the photographs displayed in the Times article, bringing to life the sweat equity and the joy that made modern Israel and sustain it today. – Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About