Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

In the media

Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

This Signpost "In the media" report covers media primarily from 19 February to 17 March.

Is Garfield male? Only the Creator knows. A silly edit war erupts.

In one of the more silly Wikipedia editing disputes of all time, an "edit war" over whether the comic strip character Garfield is really male received major press coverage. As evidenced at Garfield's talk page, a semi-well known internet troll found a 2014 interview with Garfield's creator Jim Davis, that said "Garfield is very universal. By virtue of being a cat, really, he’s not really male or female or any particular race or nationality, young or old." This springboarded a war over whether Garfield's gender in his infobox should be "none." The whole thing was chronicled in a number of lighthearted press stories, including this one in the Washington Post (which I am partial to because it ends with a dumb quote from me). The faux edit-war was put to a complete end, however, when Davis told the Post: "Garfield is male." (Heat Street (February 27); Washington Post (March 1); Mashable (March 1); New York Magazine (March 1); New York Daily News (March 2); Zet Chilli (March 3, in Polish); NTDTV (March 3, in Chinese); Helsingborgs Dagblad (March 5, in Swedish); Süddeutsche Zeitung (March 9, in German); El Nuevo Diario (March 13, in Spanish); and many more)

In brief

Editathons all over

The Daily Mail's answer to whether it has been treated unfairly by Wikipedia.

The battle for stubs: Slate published an op-ed by WMF Trustee Dariusz Jemielniak (speaking only on his own behalf) about how Wikipedia treats short articles in its deletion processes, in a follow-up to Andrea James' piece in Boing Boing covered in our last column. (Slate, March 7)
All-Women edit corps in Mangalore: The Hindu reported on a 47-team of all women editors from Mangalore who have created over 300 articles in the Kannada, Tulu, and Konkani language Wikipedias. (March 8).
Detroit edit city A women in the arts edit-a-thon was held in Detroit, Michigan on March 11 as part of the international campaign by Art + Feminism. (Detroit Free Press, March 9)
Everwhere edit city: Other planned women focused edit-a-thons also received coverage: Windsor, Ontario (CBC, March 10); Luxembourg, (Delano, March 10); Cambridge, UK (Varsity, March 10); New Haven, Connecticut, (New Haven Independent, March 9); Washington D.C. , (Washington City Paper, March 15); and more.
For women architects, too: The Sydney Morning Herald highlighted a group in Australia working to increase the coverage of female architects on Wikipedia. (Sydney Morning Herald, March 17)
The Daily Mail at war: The Daily Mail continues to chafe at its reduced status as a Wikipedia citation source (see last issue's In the media), publishing a long story tilted towards proving unfair treatment. (Daily Mail, March 3)
Wikipedia printouts considered not reliable in court: A case against a torrent site proxy operator in the UK was dismissed, in part because the judge was apparently not happy at the prosecution relying on printouts from Wikipedia to explain what a reverse proxy actually is. (Torrent Freak, March 7)
Right to forget watch: A bill introduced to the New York State Assembly would attempt to secure a "right to be forgotten" that would require censorship of Wikipedia and other sites. Writing on his Volokh Conspiracy blog, law professor Eugene Volokh concludes that the bill is unconstitutional on its face. (Washington Post, March 15)
Vandal watch: Among the usual press coverage of recent vandalism on the articles of public figures, the Houston Chronicle noted recent trolling of U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert's article. (Houston Chronicle, March 17) Another source described the vandal edits as a "hack", which is no doubt a sexy word to use in a headline, although Wikipedia editors know that malicious edits required no hacking skills or really any skills whatsoever, aside from the occasional creative flair seen in Garfieldgate. (Roll Call, March 15)
My BLP is awesome if I say so myself: Utah State Representative Mike Winder has been reported to have used multiple Wikipedia accounts to create and primp up his own biography. (Salt Lake Tribune, March 14)
Response to Wikipedia has cancer: A popular Reddit thread reviewed Guy's provocative Signpost editorial from February, raising concerns about Wikimedia's spending growth. That thread, and a similar review published in Quartz, concluded that Wikimedia is healthy for a non-profit, and remains efficient compared to libraries and publishers. (Quartz, May 8)

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or contact the editor.

← Previous "In the media"

Next "In the media" →

In this issue

9 June 2017 (all comments)

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.

The naming of this article after a transphobic and anti-feminist meme leaves a sour taste, especially given the English Wikipedia's history of hostility to trans people. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe your user name could be offensive to people without arms or hearts. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I share Arms & Hearts's concern. Even aside from the fact that this particular meme is rather distasteful, internet culture is hyper-transient and hardly universal, meaning that meme references may not be the best choice for Signpost stories. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also disappointed by the tone-deaf headline used here. You can do better. 75.12.90.111 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Arms & Hearts, Josh Milburn, and the IP: As the author of the title here, I must confess I had no idea it could have negative implications. I certainly only meant it to be humorous; my knowledge of the term comes from a sarcastic teenage son. I'll try to Google better next time (and consider Josh's point about adapting memes).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Wikipedia has cancer : the response is ludicrous: Wikipedia is not about "profit margins" indeed WMF does not have "profits" it has excess of income over expenditure. And despite Guy's (not unreasonable) concern that the expenditure line may cross the income line at some point, the main concern, I think, its that the money is used well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

A distinction without a difference. We all agree that the WMF has too much money, has wasted money already, and will likely waste more in the future. Money can be very corrupting. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Wikipedia history by browsing The Signpost archives.

Home

About