The Signpost

A Wikimania 2014 attendee
No one ever asked my opinion.
Edward Zalta at Wikimania 2015
What may be history's first photobomb was found in this 1853 photograph in the National Library of Wales
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story


Way to go, Vox. While not a copy-paste job you still managed to remake a story you linked to later in your work. Now this makes me wonder if this Phil Edwards frequents Wikipedia or be an editor here even. GamerPro64 21:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not sure what the issue is with Phil Edwards story here. While it is frustrating as a researcher to have to chase stories back through a bunch of "re-bloggers", there is nothing wrong with the repetition of a story from another source. Indeed newspapers have traditionally relied on specialist press as a source for stories. Edwards gives credit to Ed's blog, which is really all we can ask for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    • Maybe its a bit of bias from myself. Not an overall fan of Vox. Something about it bothers me. GamerPro64 22:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The stone in the tooth is the original was written by a volunteer and the simulacrum by a paid journalist. -- GreenC 02:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As a professional photographer and animal rights activist I was intrigued by the "monkey selfies" article. I wrote a response discussing my perspective on the legal and ethical issues. Funcrunch (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PETA is actually big into the anti-factory farming chickens, cows and pigs (not sure about fishes - who will speak for the fish). -- GreenC 02:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm against all animal farming, not just "factory" farming. Regardless, PETA's messaging is very inconsistent, tailored to whoever will give them the most money. Funcrunch (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's a detailed legal analysis of the claims. It stresses some complicated points of law regarding jurisdiction -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google results

I for one wish Google would downplay Wikipedia in its search results, particularly with pages that are not high-trafficked or whose high-traffic appears to be the results of someone gaming the system. I could also accept search engines giving a boost to articles that, over time, maintain "important topic" and/or "Featured/Good/A-class" or possibly even "B-class" status over several months, as long as there is no sign of the article being hijacked by editors engaged in "search engine optimization" tactics. Take away the "Wikipedia Search-engine-optimization bonus" and commercially-motivated Wikipedia-SEO abuse will be less attractive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0