Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media
 Article display preview: | 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!
| ||||
.jpg)
Saved by Gen Z
Optional: write a lede — not necessarily a WP:LEAD. Interesting > encyclopedic.
Gen Z can save Wikipedia from its "existential crisis", Stephen Harrison says
[edit]
Wikipedia beat reporter Stephen Harrison, who is best known for his articles in Slate, has recently been busy promoting his debut novel, The Editors, focused on a fictionalized version of the platform (named "Infopendium") that is suddenly caught up in global cyberwarfare during the COVID-19 pandemic — see previous coverage from the Signpost here and here.
Now, though, he has written an article for The Guardian detailing his view on the future of Wikipedia, which is subtitled "The world's most important knowledge platform needs young editors to rescue it from chatbots – and its own tired practices". Harrison says Wikipedia is currently facing an "existential crisis" due to the emergence of AI applications and large language models, which could potentially undermine the platform's visibility. According to Harrison himself, Gen Z editors are the best-equipped to help Wikipedia survive and, possibly, even thrive in this new context: he pointed out at a 2022 survey reporting that about 20% of Wikipedia editors were between the ages of 18 and 24, while also noting the role of young contributors in recent debates on the incorporation of chatbot-generated content on the encyclopedia. The article notably includes a short interview to a very prominent Gen Z editor: the latest Wikimedian of the Year, Hannah Clover.
As for those "tired old practices", Harrison has his say about the sometimes inflexible norms and normalizing institutions of Wikipedia, not to mention mobile-unfriendly editing interface, which he calls "issues that dissuade the younger generation from joining the cause". For instance, he says that the tasks taken on by new editors from a decade ago – ones letting them dip their toes in the editing experience in a low-risk, low-consequence environment – are now more highly automated, leaving a lack of "clear entry points". This in turn may lead today's new editors to unknowingly get into contentious topics where they experience off-putting "harsh feedback" from the more established editors. Harrison left unsaid that there are more contentious topics and areas under sanctions than ever before (see prior Signpost coverage that noted "policies of closure and the formalization of boundaries, rules and routines").
Whether the new generation can adapt to, or reform the tired Wiki, and eventually make it their own as they become the normies, or whether they abandon it for something new, only time can tell. – O, B
India high court demands name disclosure
[edit]As reported here in July, India's Asian News International (ANI) has brought Wikimedia Foundation to the courts over what they alleged to be defamatory content on the article about themselves, which currently stated that they "[had] been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions." The Wikimedia Foundation is now being compelled by the courts to give personal information of some editors who have edited the article, according to Livemint [1] and The Hindu [2]. The next hearing will be on 25 October 2024. ANI as a source was determined in 2021 RfC that for general reporting, it is between marginally reliable and generally unreliable; it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims; and generally unreliable and questionable for its coverage of domestic and international politics, and other topics that the Government of India has a stake due to reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda. (WP:RSPANI) – rs
India high court demands name removal
[edit]Unrelated to India's courts demanding the name of Wikipedia editors, in another case, India's courts demand the removal of the name of a victim of a crime. The general circumstance is that a high profile crime occurred in Kolkata, India in August 2024. Some national and local media outlets in India reported the name of the victim, as did various international media sources. However, in India, the law prohibits the media from mentioning the names of victims in some especially heinous crimes.
Wikipedia editors created the Wikipedia article covering the crime within a day of the media reporting the incident, and within days, editors began debating whether to mention the victim's name. The debate on Wikipedia greatly increased in importance on 16 September when the Supreme Court of India ordered Wikipedia to remove the name. Sources including The Free Press Journal [3], The Hindu [4], and The Times of India [5] are among the media sources which reported on the court's order to Wikipedia, and established Wikipedia itself as part of the story of the crime.
In response to the court decision, the Legal Team of the Wikimedia Foundation posted a notice on the talk page of the article stating that they are not now asserting editorial power or court enforcement over the content of the Wikipedia article, and encouraged Wikipedia editors to deliberate on the issue and "explain clearly why you feel the balance of interests lies one way or the other, in order to reach consensus accordingly."
Trigger warning: contains disturbing details
|
|---|
|
The article is 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, and it begins, "On 9 August 2024, a 31-year-old female postgraduate trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, was raped and murdered in a college building." One set of arguments about the name relates to victim's rights and women's rights. The argument in favor of naming the victim is that her story becomes known and enables activism to reduce violence against women. The argument opposed is that in some cases, and this case in particular, naming the victim greatly endangers and disturbs their family, social network, colleagues, and supporters. Another set of arguments relates to censorship of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's own WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The argument in favor of publishing the name is that maximal freedom in publishing is the preferred position. The argument opposed is that naming the victim is not a censorship issue, as Wikipedia will definitely have an article on the crime, and that article does not benefit significantly by including the name of the victim. Another set of arguments is about following the lead of what other media outlets do. Arguments in favor of publishing the name point to seeming WP:Reliable sources and reputable journalists who are publishing the name. Arguments opposed to publishing the name make various claims, including that sources publishing the name are mistaken, or that they have since removed the name, or that the higher quality sources do not publish the name while lower quality sources do. Wikipedia editor User:Fowler&fowler checked various sources and reported which ones do not publish the name. A final set of arguments is on the practicality of collaboration between Wikipedia and the government of India. The argument in favor of publishing the name assumes that other arguments establish that Wikipedia editors should publish the name, and in that context, it is best for Wikipedia as an international media source outside the jurisdiction of Indian government control to disregard the government request. Arguments opposed to publishing the name include respect for the expertise of those courts, respect for national decision making to know what is best for local culture, anticipation of a good future of peaceful collaboration with the government of India by granting this request, and concern for the burden on Wikipedia editors in India if they bear the responsibility of an online global decision including non-Indian Wikipedia editors. |
– BR
Giving away 25 million euros
[edit]Joshua Yaffa in The New Yorker explains (paywalled) the difficulties Marlene Engelhorn had in giving away 25 million euros through the Guter Rat für Rückverteilung (Good Council for Redistribution). Engelhorn had inherited her money from a fortune that started with the founding of BASF and later grew with the Boehringer Mannheim pharmaceutical company. She felt that she should give away most of the inheritance to reduce wealth inequality in Austria and as a learning experience to guide others who have the same goal. Engelhorn was keeping about 10% of her money and about €3 million was spent in the process of deciding where the money would go. The process included the use of moderators who "wield huge power" according to an academic who studies this area. They have "an emphasis on getting things done ... it can all mean that, in the moment, you take away the possibility for improvisation or dissent.” Eighty organizations were chosen to receive the funds by a group of 50 ordinary people, an average of €312,500 for each organization. "Wikipedia" (as they called the Wikimedia Foundation) turned out to be the most controversial choice, ultimately getting €50,000.
Thanks Marlene! – Sb
In brief
[edit]_2.jpg)
- Can You Trust Dr. Wikipedia?: the Office for Science and Society of McGill University discusses the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content and how difficult it is to address the question. What's your purpose in studying "accuracy"? Which language version are you interested in? When was your sample of articles taken? Despite a horrifying lede invoking toasters (see previous Signpost coverage) and John Seigenthaler, the authors conclude that it is "useful and fast" for many purposes, including for medical students studying for their licensing exams. They also praise WikiProject Medicine and the use of classes that teach health science students to edit Wikipedia.
- Problems in Iran: Pejman Amiri reports in NewsBlaze that the Iranian government is manipulating and censoring the Farsi Wikipedia. While much of this report is very difficult for The Signpost to verify, see previous Signpost coverage of a global ban possibly linked to actions of the regime.
- Do it, or else: An individual who has received an award from the President of Azerbaijan for social media work in favor of the state "threatened to send the personal information of those who deleted [Wikipedia] articles to the Azerbaijani State Security Service" (Open Caucasus Media)
- Bias in religion/ethnicity related articles?...: Many sources looked at potential bias and reliability in articles relating to Judaism:
- "Wikipedia defines Zionism as 'colonialism', sparking outrage" Israel Hayom via Jewish News Syndicate
- "War over Wikipedia's Definition of Zionism Pits Provoked Users Against Biased Editors" The Jewish Press
- "Wikipedia blasted for 'wildly inaccurate' change to entry on Zionism: 'Downright antisemitic'" (Washington Examiner)
- "From Bias to Balance: Jewish Editors on Wikipedia" (Times of Israel blogs)
- "Wikipedia has an antisemitism problem" – opinion, The Jerusalem Post
- "Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias is a feature, not a bug" - The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles Comment: They mention there was an attempt at RS/N to downgrade The Jewish Chronicle in May – note that The Jewish Chronicle is just now in the middle of a huge scandal around fabricated news stories and opaque ownership; Israeli sources first sounded the alarm—see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The Jewish Chronicle
- Libel case dismissed: High Court throws out Swiss lawyer’s libel claim over Wikipedia page; Matthew Parish sued the WMF for libel, because the article about him (correctly) noted his fraud and time in prison. The case was dismissed by Karen Steyn.
- Paid editing saga involving Portland commissioner Rene Gonzales continues: The Oregonian
- Wikipedia responsibly: Whilst being best known as an actor and the the firstborn son of Brad Hall and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Henry Hall is also a musician. Back in August, he released his second studio album, Stop Doing Funny Stuff, which contains the single "Wikipedia-ing Poison Snakes", a solemn-sounding testimony from a terminally online man who keeps going down rabbit holes on Wikipedia, ranging from predictive text to Booksmart, in order to distract himself from "his own head, his own bed, every word he's ever [freaking] said". If you feel like this song is too relatable, just know we're in this together (and many of us need some help).
- Subtitle: Text text text.
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):  I understand the primacy of pure feeling in creative art. 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 |
.jpg)
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.
A caption
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. |
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
(This allows for greater visibility of discussions, makes archiving easier, and prevents discussions becoming disconnected from articles during the publication process)