Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

Is The Signpost a reliable source?

This was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Larry Sanger: Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

I wonder if anybody has the courage to summarize this perspective that will draw the ire of the activists swarming on this site for the past years. 2601:602:9200:1310:59AF:2871:B4E0:1D8A (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We're gonna get absolutely dogpiled, but I agree. Although I take a dim view of pseudoscience I agree Wikipedia has become left-biased. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How so? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science" -- so if we're going to balance opinionated sources, we can start with his and just say that Sanger is acting like a Trumper (if it's not a simple case of sour grapes). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I don’t like Sanger, but saying abortion isn’t one of the safest medical procedures makes him a “Trumper”? Or decrying the hagiography of Barack Obama, which mentions none of his scandals, which isn’t NPOV. Unfortunately, Sanger is right, and it’s embarrassing how much Wikipedia doesn’t even hide, just flaunts its liberal agenda and disregards it’s own NPOV. An article should definitely be written up about how NPOV has been abandoned. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wow, I don’t like Sanger, but saying abortion isn’t one of the safest medical procedures makes him a “Trumper”?" I wouldn't use that terminology, but yes, actually. No medical procedure is safe. The only reason to single out abortion is politics. 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I could point out about 1 or 2 areas on Wikipedia, where NPOV isn't accepted. But, I'm not interested in being reported to ANI or Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sanger is promoting his latest attempt to compete with wikipedia, and one should assume that when and if it starts it will try to differentiate itself from Wikipedia on the issue of neutrality and where it lies. Given the surprisingly long duration of Conservapedia, which I think has outlived Citizendium and all Sanger's other projects, I can see the marketing logic in going for a more rightwing ethos as his way of differentiating from us. However re his comment "their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine" we are biased towards academic sources, haven't we always been? Wasn't that part of our DNA even when Sanger was here? That means that our articles on religions are not written from the perspective of those religions; Our coverage of alternative health is not from the perspective of those who reject modern medicine, and I dread to think where he is going re minority opinions on science, but I suspect his new project could have very different articles on climate change, evolution and one wonders what else. One problem he is going to have is that once you move away from wikipedia's NPOV how do you limit that? Minority perspectives on science and Medicine from within academia are one thing, there are areas where serious scientists disagree, and Wikipedia's articles can and should reflect that. Minority perspectives on science and medicine from outside academia would range from anti vaxxers and climate change deniers to flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers. I will be interested to see where Sanger draws the line on that one, and how he does so without having his new site spiralling into fruitloopery - surely we all have some "minority perspective" that we wouldn't want to be associated with. As for those who take his charge seriously, yes Wikipedia has imperfections, but are they as great as they were in the past? ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Related: CZ is shutting down. – SJ + 08:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

He lost me at "Obamagate." Muttnick (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem I see is the attempts to lump together wackos who are anti-vaccination and moon landing deniers with people who are of a right with perspective in general, so trumps article gets filled with hate, Obama’s with love, and they claim it’s “balanced”. GW Bushs article mentions his drunk driving, Obama’s presidencies many scandals (as all presidencies have) are not even mentioned and it’s a Featured Article. And on climate change, anything that goes against consensus is treated as witchcraft, not even to be considered. Wikipedia needs to realize that to the general public, as this is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, mainstream right wing, Christian, and new climate change research is not the same as holocaust deniers and flat earthers, and should get equal treatment in articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Imagine using CNN or secondary sources with links to CNN? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How do we differentiate between Flat Earthers and climate change deniers? I'm in the UK, so where I am "mainstream right wing" is not the same as in the USA or Saudi Arabia. "Traditional religiosity" also varies a lot around the world. We do get problems with religious conservatives who resent our having pictures of Muhammed in the article Muhammad, even though those pictures are centuries old pictures by muslims. Even if we narrowed "Traditional religiosity" to Christianity as per Judgesurreal, there are huge differences among Christians. Even sayings like "love thy neighbour", "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the peacemakers" and "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven" that Christianity attributes to Jesus Christ are not at the heart of some forms of Christianity. I get that many religious people would want Wikipedia to cover their religion from that religion's perspective, but would they be so comfortable extending that favour to other religions? Wikipedia is a General Interest Encyclopaedia, that means we write for a general audience, but we are writing an encyclopaedia, and that means we write what is verifiable in reliable sources, not what is popularly believed. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

But that’s the big joke, it’s all written from an American Liberalism perspective, and it’s so dominant and pervasive in places like this that you don’t even realize there is a climate change debate at all, there’s just “The Truth” and “Truth Deniers” like it’s a religion. There are no new discoveries or policy developments from flat earthers, but there is certainly a climate change debate that is going on all over the world. How much will it change? How quickly? How much is mankind contributing? But you would never know there was any alternate hypothesis or science going on here! And if you do deny what others have declared “The Truth”, your a “denier”, like any religious fundamentalist would do. And that’s not science. And it’s just one of many examples of how Wikipedia has been overrun by people so ideological they don’t even realize their are biased. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? Climate change? We should reject the views of 97% of climate scientists in favour of "neutrality"? Wikipedia sticks to the science. The reason science has a left wing bias is because to be right wing these days you have to reject it. Serendi^podous 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Science is not a popularity contest, it wouldn’t be any less true or false if 100% stated their opinions either way. And this is another example of how the science is not discussed or respected, it’s a kind of oppressive groupthink. You disagree? You’re not a person with another opinion, you’re a “non thinker” who has “rejected science”. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

When rigorous scientific analysis has determined something to be true, and you refuse to believe it anyway, you are indeed "rejecting science." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, science is very much a popularity contest. It deliberately makes going against the mainstream opinion VERY VERY HARD, so that, should you push an idea that the mainstream doesn't accept, you must provide a mountain of evidence to support it, and have it survive peer review again and again, thus ensuring that no single cranks wet dreams make it into serious discourse. Serendi^podous 21:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I see that the Sanger piece will be sent down the memory hole, and I am not going to keep preaching to deaf ears. Everyone in leadership at the Foundation is already a part of the Progressive Movement, and that won’t change either. I will end with this one thought: you can either be propagandists for the progressive movement, or be an Encyclopedia, you cannot be both. And if you look at the Big American States, the Boy Scouts, and the NFL, you would know that everything this movement touches dies with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm. Apparently Jimmy Wales, a self-confessed Ayn Randian objectivist, is a progressive. Who knew? Serendi^podous 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Serendipodous, as you say, it boggles the mind. I don't know what Sanger's politics are, but he has become a promoter of conspiracy theories (a deep state/COVID truther) so perhaps less is more. – SJ + 07:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's other founder once said, "What Wikipedia won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't." —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Re: "we are biased towards academic sources", see User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Square Enix

Has no Stubs, no Lists, no Starts, and a majority of our articles are now Good Articles and Featured Articles and Featured Lists. I don’t know of any other wiki project that has ever accomplished this. This could definitely be a good profile and a “good news” feature. Not all is dark on Wikipedia, and great things are still being accomplished! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix
• Square Enix
• Square (video game company)
• Enix

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes @Guy Macon:, those are articles from our project, three B level articles I can see. But we will have accomplished all the things I listed above, and it has been seven years since our project was last highlighted, and in light of our tremendous accomplishments, it seems fitting that a profile/interview piece be done on the project, don’t you think? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a topic for the WikiProject Report? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Rebranding

No article on the current struggle over rebranding with the community and wmf apparently at odds again?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah. We just wait until they rename themselves Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia is an attempt to get more donations, then they buy new letterheads and redo all of the domain names, then multiple admins and maybe a few board and arbcom members resign in protest over them making money off of our good name, then they apologize and undo everything. Nothing else will have any effect. It's the Wikimedia Foundation Way. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about a news article here to inform Wikipedians on the current state of affairs and not about speculations what wmf might or might not do.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. The Signpost loves to cover every phase of the latest example of the WMF attempting to do something without consulting anyone, the shit hitting the fan on Wikipedia, and the WMF backing down. It's the Signpost way. (And that's a Good Thing!) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: After a straw poll in the past and the current flawed surveyby the WMF, there is now an open letter to the board:

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

CURRENTVERSION

Just came across the use of {{CURRENTVERSION}} at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Technology report - that magic variable shows the version as of whenever the page is loaded, not the version at the time of writing, and should have been substituted. Not sure how widely its used currently for tech reports, but at some point it would be a project to go back and fix the historical uses to reflect the version intended at the time. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility on The Signpost

As always, thanks for your work in making a readable and generally good-looking publication; I know that takes a lot of effort. Unfortunately, I have seen some unacceptable practices when it comes to accessibility here and I hope that I can provide some constructive feedback. To use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Arbitration report as an example, I edited this page to add some semantics to the table (note that I am not even clear on what are rows here... this should probably not be a table at all or just reconfigured entirely), removed misapplications of <small>...</small> (this is for "fine print", not just making some text smaller--if you want to do that, please use {{small}}), and frankly, the most egregious I changed the color on the poll to be more readable. I genuinely liked the monochrome gradient that it made but that was far too little contrast. I'm not an expert and I make errors myself, but I really try to prioritize accessibility in my edits. I propose that Singpost editors please take a day or two to ping someone who is knowledgeable on this topic to review your work before it goes out to print, e.g. via posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility or WT:ACCESSIBLE. Since I want this paper to have a broad audience, I also want it to be accessible to that audience. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

While I fully agree with making The Signpost more accessible, and without expressing any opinion on whether the particular issues you list are actual accessibility issues, we should make all pages accessible. not just The Signpost.

Please bring your concerns up at Help talk:HTML in wikitext. That page currently says "{{small}} is recommended over <small> since not all browsers render small text the same" with no mention of accessibility.

Then please go to Wikipedia talk:HTML 5 and propose a section on writing HTML for increased accessibility.

Finally, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and ask if they can do something to make it so that those of us who do the checking do a better job of catching and fixing accessibility errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Done. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, having written for this publication for over 2 years now, I can say that we appreciate help from anyone willing to offer it. You're always welcome to check the articles before they're published and fix accessibility issues. The page I linked also has a countdown clock which shows the writing deadline day and expected publication date. Generally, everything should be ready to do accessibility checks on when the writing clock is at 0 and the publishing clock is at 1, unless it's by me, in which case it will inevitably be submitted in a 90% finished form within hours of publication. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

pythoncoder, I'm happy to do a once-over if you will ping me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

...Could Koavf get those notifications automatically by simply watching a list of pahes where Signpost articles are assembled prior to publication? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Feature request: ping a named group, like @newsroom or @copyeditors or @columnists ☆ Bri (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bri: {{Ping project}}? --Yair rand (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I could but there is no way that I can keep up with the flood of edits that goes into making these. The best I can do is a once-over a few days before publication. This has to be more of a pull than a push on my part. I've tried to work with The Signpost in a more deliberate way in the past but got overextended and just failed. If someone here is willing to put forth the effort, I'll be happy to be included in the publication's workflow. And again, there's no reason this has to be personality-based: anyone could do this but I am just a little more knowledgeable than most and explicitly offering my services. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this ok?

I'm really not gonna bother much with markup here. Sorry, I'm too tired to care. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour&diff=885668498&oldid=885667368

This is over a year old, but it still has unanswered relevant questions.

Why was this ever published in the first place?

Why was it blanked, but not nuked?

Why were there no punishments for the editors who published it, or the editor of The Signpost who allowed it? Surely it constitutes a personal attack on every single trans editor here. If I were to go onto any cis person's page here and start talking about how I hate cis people and think they're subhuman """SJWs""", I would get a block.

What is Wikipedia doing to ensure that content like this never makes it to The Signpost again?

What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? An environment where "don't treat trans people like subhumans" is seen as censorship?

Apologies if this isn't the right place, but I have no idea where else to post this.

Wikipedia clearly has a problem with transphobia, and nothing is being done about it. Why? Is everything okay if I call it "comedy"? Hurt is hurt, abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter if you find it funny, being a shithead is still being a shithead.

Also, apologies for not being more "well-spoken". I have no energy and I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've only been paying attention here for about a week and it's clear the transphobia issue here is terrible. Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that.

You have created the world's biggest repository of information. It is your responsibility to make sure people are safe here.

Finally, I do not care about the vote to delete it. As I said, you have fostered an environment of transphobia. Of course it isn't gonna get deleted if you take a vote, the people here are biased whether they admit it or not. It should never have been published, and that alone should be enough of a case for a nuking. The entire "don't delete" argument is "muh censorship". If you think it's censorship to treat people with basic human dignity, boy howdy do I have news for you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Sorry for the ping, but I know if I don't ping anyone, this will never get answered. I chose ANI because this was a question for all the admins here, not for singpost discussion. Would you be able to answer my questions or point me to someone I can ping who will? 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of a very long discussion was "keep and blank". Wikipedia runs on consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are not going to read what I wrote, please do not respond, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Twas funneh. I suppose I’m a shithead though :( – ².O.^Boxing 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

3nk1namshub, you asked a question ("Why was it blanked, but not nuked?"), you got an answer, and you responded with a totally uncalled for snarky comment. You give the appearance of being someone who is trying to pick a fight about your favorite hobbyhorse.

Here is my answer to your questions. Don't like it? Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to Wikipedia Signpost articles, and especially nobody is forcing you to dig through the history to read and respond to deleted Wikipedia Signpost articles. If you are offended or feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)