The Signpost

In the media

Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited page

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Eddie891

Wikipedia in Turkey

Turkish Wikipedia

According to Turkish newspaper Hürriyet, the country's İyi Party has made Wikipedia access a campaign issue, promising to restore access if elected. This announcement came a day after the one year anniversary of the 2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey, which began on 29 April. (Reported by The Verge) The Wikimedia Foundation has also published a video on the occasion, promoting its #WeMissTurkey campaign.

The block began as a result of Turkish Law No. 5651, when in the English Wikipedia's article on state-sponsored terrorism, Turkey was described as a sponsor country for ISIS and Al-Qaeda. In a 27 January interview with Hürriyet, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher, stated "We are not sure why there is still a ban on Wikipedia. The Turkish authorities may not have examined the latest versions of [this] content."

Most cited on Wikipedia

World Köppen Classification

The most cited work on Wikipedia (see a Wikimedia blog post) was revealed to be an updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, which was cited 2,830,341 times – more than 130 times the count of the second most cited study.

The findings were widely reported with mentions also appearing in The Guardian, Wired and South China Morning Post. The authors of the paper themselves were completely unaware about the use of their research, with one writing "Those numbers blew me away, none of us had any idea about this. We didn't know Wikipedia collected this information or anything about it."

The Köppen-Geiger climate classification was first proposed by climatologist Wladimir Köppen in 1884, after being revised several times, including in 1918 and 1936. Rudolf Geiger worked with Köppen in 1954 and 1961. The system they created, used for climate classification, divides climates into five main climate groups, with each group being divided based on seasonal precipitation and temperature patterns. The five main groups are A (tropical), B (dry), C (temperate), D (continental), and E (polar). Each group and subgroup is represented by a letter. All climates are assigned a main group (the first letter). All climates except for those in the E group are assigned a seasonal precipitation subgroup (the second letter). The authors of the study used the same system, and applied it to the current world.

In brief

Contributions from Smallbones and Bri

The monkey selfie that has generated such a fundamental discussion



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 leave a tip on the suggestions page.
S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

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.
As for Artnet, how is this news? Piper wrote her own version in October 2013 or earlier. Did Artnet just happen to discover it from an unrelated inquiry? Nevermind that her version is based on that August 2013 mishmosh that we originally deleted/TNT'd as beyond redemption (no attribution, either, but was it copyvio to begin with?) and simply adds paragraphs of unsourced and primary sourced material that we would never include on Wikipedia. "Artist disputes Wikipedia and writes own encyclopedia article" is not a catchy headline, however, and the real subtext is Artnet trying to position Piper's reaction within her artistic practice of institutional critique. czar 20:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Is "Piper was/is able" supposed to read "Piper was/is not able"? If so, and you fix it, please feel free to also redact this post along with it. I thinking the answer is "yes", since I have difficulty getting your meaning in that sentence without the "not".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Rephrased) Piper was and remains able to contest inaccuracies, especially when they have direct references. My hunch is that her disagreements reside in the original source material and not the Wikipedia paraphrase, as it has been with every BLP I've discussed with its subject. czar 03:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and fwiw, Piper didn't rewrite "from scratch": the bulk of the article (i.e., the directly sourced parts) is lifted directly from the now-deleted WP article czar 14:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]





       

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