Talk:Katherine Maher/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notable

Resolved

Hoi, the executive director of the WMF IS notable. GerardM (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let it hang here for a week, I am sure the sources will be forthcoming. Nobody can delete a PROD before, and this is not a speedy material.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

the ED of WMF is notable (borderline, depending on their achievements), but an "Interim" ED is NOT..--Stemoc 11:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think by the end of next week the will be enough publications about her so that she would be notable according to WP:GNG. Either way, the article will not be deleted within the next seven days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think this article is notable, best to comment at the AfD page. At this moment, it appears to be heading towards a snowball delete, the victim of a deletionist looking to add another notch to their belt. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"known as Kate"

Resolved

I am not editing this article as I work with Katherine. However, I can assure you that Katherine does not go by "Kate" - she goes by "Katherine" - even in casual settings. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 12:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed--Ymblanter (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you!! --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 14:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Updated title

Not going to update the article directly as I'm an employee, but should her professional title be updated to "chief executive officer and executive director" per the announcement to Wikimedia-l in February? 198.73.209.241 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My Opinion why Finally Wikipedia is an End for me

The Way Wikipedia is : 1. Someone brings a simple correct Information 2. Come a senior Editor with `powers' and revert 3. User try to explain and to rewrite the simple phrase 4. The User has own opinion of what is Constructive or not. Then commonly in Wikipedia, reverts again and comes with personal threats, Warnings Banning and Blocking the Contributor.

Why should senior editor own opinion be imperative and not having a back ? Why in Wikipedia is just one side from senior editors and do not allow people to help ? What Wikipedia really wants, just a bunch of few people as adm contributing ? This is one reason why after several talks people do not trust in this encyclopedia anymore, neither is accurate or updated. It is a neighbourhood of Administrators with most not knowing better, in opposite, they are common people with less experience about the theme written and studied. Administrator and senior users are very arrogant, thinking his own mentality is the only one constructive in Wiki. Why Wikipedia is so ? It is time to Administrators rethink the Way Wikipedia is, because many information is just lost and good contributors are lost from people acting like those guys, imposing own desire how things should be. Of course the simpler users defend themselves. But Wikipedia are an untouchable Kings ? no, all people in wiki is equal editors, a way why wikipedia simply does not work, never will ! --90.186.219.21 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Resisting Internet Censorship: Katherine Maher of Access at SHARE Beirut

There's an interview on YouTube with a CC BY license, if you want it for the article I could upload it to commons (WEBM, 21 MB, created by Wamda). Be..anyone (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Added as ordinary {{cite web}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Layout

I am wondering why it was said to be better[1] with a one-sentence paragraph and section when one-sentence paragraphs are not desired.[2] Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's standard to separate education from career in a biography. The education will change to early life and education shortly when her family origins and year and place of birth are reported in reliable sources so it won't be short for long. That's the way bios expand in my view. The separation also triggers the table of contents, making the article more navigable. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I often prefer short articles to not have a table of contents, but thanks for your logic. I think I tend to combine them here if short. I won't revert and will leave to others. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Some articles are naturally short, in which everything is in one run with no duplication. Given the context this one is probably going to be longer in which case we have a proper lead that summarises material in the rest of the article and a series of expandable sections. That's how I do them anyway. Of course I might be wrong. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Alt Text

Just continuing a conversation that started over here, how does everyone feel about what level of detail alt text should be used at? I've argued for my interpretation of MOS:ALT in that alt text should be used to precisely explain every important detail of a image, and should be added to every image (within reason). I've also seen this arguement in a lot of featured articles discussions... and even once as (part of) a basis to not promote a article to featured status (see here). I raise this question at this page because the conversation as to if it should be used started with my edit here which was reverted on the grounds of "not being very useful." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAwesomeHwyh (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But in any case, I wont be editing it back as I don't want to get into a edit war. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Maher dispels the darkness of our minds

Newly published, seemingly interminable interview (To be continued…) "Katherine Maher, CEO and Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation" begins: When you find out Wikipedia is the most visited website in the world, it just makes sense. Oh, really? Someone should insert [citation needed]. Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Baidu beg to differ. NedFausa (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please I need help with editing the article on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Obiosa Onyema2moro2008 (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Resigned from FAPB

Hiya, it's Katherine, subject of the article. Just wanted to note I am no longer on the State Department FAPB, effective Jan 23rd: I resigned in order to accept the NPR CEO designee role. Not sure that will be reported out somewhere, so may not have an appropriate source to cite, but thought I'd flag it. Maherkr (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Background expository

“Quotations from Chairman Maher”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/quotations-from-chairman-maher

“NPR’s new CEO exemplifies the ideological capture of America’s institutions.”

‘As CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, Maher made censorship a critical part of her policy, under the guise of fighting “disinformation.” In a speech to the Atlantic Council, an organization with extensive ties to U.S. intelligence services, she explained that she “took a very active approach to disinformation,” coordinated censorship “through conversations with government,” and suppressed dissenting opinions related to the pandemic and the 2020 election.’ 89.240.195.132 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Was there a question here? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Quite a promotional/CV-like article

This article feels quite promotional and written like her CV?

For example at age 25 (i.e. 2007) she joins UNICEF where She worked to promote the use of technology to improve people's lives. She traveled extensively to work on issues related to maternal health, HIV/AIDS prevention, and youth participation in technology. That is a very embellished job description for a 25-year old UNICEF employee? 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yup and the article keeps crediting her for things that can’t be directly attributed to her. 2600:1001:A110:146C:A409:2D61:303D:31CD (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

which part are you referring to? I added stuff recently to flesh out her role at Wikipedia a bit more. I'm surprised it's so sparse. Tonymetz 💬 19:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree this article reads like a PR piece and is missing a lot of content. let's improve it Tonymetz 💬 19:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is clearly PR written. I believe it warrants taking a look at the edits, frequency, and IPs used. This is very much astroturfed.

Some of the "accomplishemnts", like membership in the Oxford Union when Mrs. Maher only participated in one exchange is resune embellishment. Mrs. Maher didn't even attent Oxford. There is undue weight to what amounts to an extended CV.

Moreover, why is this article still missing the explosive left-wing bias in her work and editorial content? Is WP protecting her due to her personal relationship with Jimbo Wales (as proudly showcased in pictures in this article)?

Here are some very relevant, recent sources talking about her left-wing bias and her suspending award-winning journalist Uri Berliner for calling her out. None of this is shown here on this protected and carefully manicured article.

Sources to consider:NYT[3], NYT[4], NYT[5], NPR[6], USA Today[7], RCP[8]

Note: I am not including the many other relevant and valid sources from Fox, NYPost, etc since they are not allowed by WP Editors. This being a "protected" and manicured article, I am just sending a curated list of "allowed" sources.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:D00D:73CE:7CD8:2141 (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I just added stuff and I’m a normal bloke. I recommend fixing it . Just BEBOLD and add quality content that you think is DUE

If there is a conspiracy then you can raise a dispute here or escalate it Tonymetz 💬 16:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that this article reads like a PR piece and is missing a lot of content, as Tonymetz put it. Also, per another note here above, there needs to be more coverage on her views, as shown in the aforementioned sources. Al83tito (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Bill Maher piece

As per [9] and others, Bill Maher ran a deep piece on Katherine Maher (no relation) yesterday where he pointed out that under Maher's tenure at NPR "...of the 87 people working in editorial positions there, 87 are Democrats. Even if you're a Democrat, you can't think this is good." Moreover, "Maher then knocked his "namesake" NPR CEO for her woke social media posts."

Additionally, "She's a ‘Portlandia’ character," Maher quipped. "She says things like ‘I mean, sure, looting is counterproductive. But it’s founded on treating people's ancestors as private property.' I mean, c'mon man. A long time ago. She says 'I suffer with cis-White mobility privilege.' I mean it's kind of White woman who says she's Beyoncé's spirit animal."

Some of this should be featured in this still very manicured article. It hurts WP's neutrality to have this not be covered. There seems to be strong inaction from some very active in adjacent topics admins here. It seems her tenure at Wikimedia insulates her from any criticism. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:AECF:C89:3304:EF6 (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the "democrat" thing is not outlandish to mention, in a "Bill Maher said" form, we can cite his show (where I assume he said it). However, Bill Maher is among other things a comedian. Was he entirely right/serious or was he (only) being funny? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

He was being very serious. It was a longer piece and not just a quip. Here's another source [10].

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but this by The Hill may be a usable source, I haven't watched it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a great source direct from The Hill! Awesome find that should be reflected on this carefully manicured article.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång All the posts by this ip seem to be to talk pages to complain that Wikipedia is left wing. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

And it seems all of the sudden an admin is checking every comment I've made due to being annoyed at a request to add a source on one of your watchlisted articles?

See [11]. Even within WP there is a recognized political bias. It seems I am being baited into breaking some arcane law by a very experienced admin so I can be banned.

If you check my comments I always strive to use good, reliable sources and I dont engage in spamming or abuse if any sorts. I am afraid I dont see you engaging in anything Ive written but only with me. It seems personalized and I hope I am wrong about your intentions.

I am afraid you will be watchlisting this IP to check for the slightest infraction to rapidly ban me.

I would like to request for another admin, who doesnt share edits or topics with you, to check my comments, including the ones here, for any possible rule violation, spam or disruptive editing. If they find none, I would like to respectfully ask you to not engage with me or my rules-abiding comments. Does this seem fair?

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please quote where the IP editor has "complained that Wikipedia is left wing"? I see an assortment of commentary about the ideological leanings of the subject of this article, and about the issue of ideological bias on WP, which isn't exactly 'breaking news'. I also see references to Ms. Maher's outspoken claims of working with government to police speech on WP while at the helm here, which seems blatantly contrary to the spirit, ethos, and mission of WP - and which deserves a broader investigation. I'd certainly like to know when WP began collaborating with government on content and censorship.

On the other hand, for the IP editor, I suggest chilling out on the accusations of this article itself being 'carefully manicured', implying that the egregious matters above are being supressed. They aren't. It is only since the Uri Berliner kerfluffle that Ms. Maher has attracted attention wrt to these matters; it takes time to craft an article fairly and neutrally, while also considering the gravity of this being a biography of a living person. Several changes have already taken place documenting this in the barely one week since these matters 'broke'. Please be patient. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining things. I apologize if I seem too eager. My intentions are not to disrupt.

My concerns with astroturfing stem from the inherently slow process of WP when experienced editors and admins are not active on a particulst article (which might not be a bad thing) and the large number of primary sources this article had before Mrs. Maher helmed NPR. This doesnt mean that feeling is right.

Thanks again and Ill be on the sides for a while.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider WP:REGISTER, then you can edit this article yourself after awhile. Of course, what you edit, other people can edit again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is probably the view of perhaps not quite 50% of the US population. What can you do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible addition RE WP and Govt censorship?

As has been discussed before on this talk page, Mrs. Maher admitted herself in interviews and a TED talk that she coordinated with the US Govt. to censor WP. This ostensibly to combat misinformation. This is a very serious topic that should be included. Here is a very good source on this: RCP[12] There are plenty more but are not considered RS by WP.

A suggested addition would be "Katherine Maher admitted to previously coordinating with the US government to censor misinformation on Wikipedia during her tenure as the CEO of Wikimedia. She mentioned the complexities and challenges of managing public information and combating falsehoods, emphasizing collaboration with different government bodies to maintain accuracy and trust."

I think the above is neutral and factual. RCP is a good source and has reported on what she admitted.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:210:D52:67A9:4DF0 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The above is bullshit. Katherine Maher never had any tools to censor WP, even if she wanted to. Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This makes it even more interesting. Perhaps a sentence or two added ti the article explainig how she falsely claimed to be able to censor WP as CEO of Wikimedia. Surely this is important enough to make it to her article vis-a-vis the long list of conference attendances and personal achievements that read like a resume that this article has. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4EDA:7E1:56F0:93C7 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP co-founder calls for Katherine Maher's firing

Yet again, very relevant news regarding this very well-kept and majoritly primary sourced article that are not being included here. This article and its extended protection while refusing to edit it seems to be a very high level of gatekeeping to protect Katherine Maher due to her very partisan policies.

Here [13] and here [14] we see Larry Sanger, WP co-founder, stating "NPR should let her go right away". Further explaining that "It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore because they’re not being hypocritical. They’re actually saying it out loud: “We don’t really believe in this freedom stuff anyway.”

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Larry Sanger says a lot of stuff. It's rarely WP:PROPORTIONate to add anywhere, except possibly at Larry Sanger. And on WP, just because something is in the news now, it doesn't follow it has to be in an article now. We can wait a week or 5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO that's GOSSIP and not DUE . Looking at your above posts, I think you have a good gut feeling that there is missing content, but I recommend spending more time to collect RS and try to assemble content that is encyclopedia worthy.

If you want to improve the article, I would dig into her 5+ year tenure at WP and cover her contributions. try to find RS that goes into more detail of her positive & negative impact .

If in fact there is a bias , it should be revealed by her legacy . Tonymetz 💬 00:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we should have WP:LARRYSANGER to make clear were not obligated to quote him every time he spouts off on something. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:LARRYSANGER mostly works. Sometimes WP:LARRYSANGER applies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

color me contrarian, but there needs to be more space for contrarian points of view. something akin to factions or parties. Like Chicago vs Austrian schools of economics. Tonymetz 💬 14:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

a positive example is inclusionist vs Exclusionist Tonymetz 💬 15:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a shortcut already for that, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet another dismissal of opposing points of view. Tonymetz 💬 19:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No it's a clarification of how NPOV works. Wikipedia relies not on the biases of its editors but what external reliable sources state. If those sources aren't in your opinion neutral then neither is Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

Maher has a bit of media coverage atm, [15] from The Federalist. The WP-article may get some attention because of it. Afaict, "It was under Maher’s tenure that Wikipedia tried to eliminate The Federalist’s online entry." is incorrect. For the interested, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thefederalist.com, it's long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising. I also opened a Village Pump(WMF) request for PR attention on the controversy. Tonymetz 💬 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The wording is technically true, but not broadly. Maher was Chief Comms officer from Apr 2014 to Mar 2016; The article was up for deletion in Sep 2014; and all content of Wikipedia is the sum of its users, so 'it was under Maher's tenure' that "Wikipedia" 'tried to eliminate The Federalist's online entry'. Sort of falls into the synthesis arguments the occur here on the regular. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, IMO per the "Maher served as CEO of Wikimedia Foundation from March 2016 to April 2021 ... It was under Maher’s tenure that Wikipedia tried to eliminate..." wording, they don't get it right enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

For the joy of all, Andrew Orlowski is on the case:[16] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Fred Zepelin's edit

Apologies for calling out your name. No harm intended. I cant edit the article myself and dont want to get into a edit war. More edits might come through before somebody decides on this.

The aforementionsd editor deleted a sourced mention of Katherine Maher's statements that Donald Trump was a "deranged racist sociopath". This deletion was based on the source being the NYP. I'd like to offer some alternative sources so that the article can retain her strong vitriol.

Possible sources of the statement: RCP[17], NR[18], Deadline[19], NYSun[20], WashingtonExaminer[21], DailyMail[22], TheGazette[23], and Heritage[24]

Surely one of the above must be good enough to include her statements from her official Twitter handle. That should be enough third-party media coverage, no?

Thanks.

Note: I am not accusing Fred Zepelin of cleaning or caring for this article or even protecting Katherine Maher. But given WPs neutral point-of-view stance[25], it seemed fair that deleting sentences due to their sources should be accompanied by at least trying to find other acceptable sources first.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4EDA:7E1:56F0:93C7 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Question completely unrelated to your comment - but I ask you because your comment indicates a strong understanding of Wikipedia, which I myself don’t have. In her TED Talk - something that is on YouTube for all the world to see, but doesn’t seem to have been covered by WP acceptable news organizations - Katherine Maher said, “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground.”

she is now the head of NPR. Her comment seems to me to be dead-on about her opinion of pursuing truth. So, if no acceptable media organizations cover that quote, it can’t be on her page? Thank you for your time. Feel free to ignore. Asking earnestly. SoulAtHazard (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I barely know how to post here but I totally get you. WP is a very convoluted place filled with arcane rules that only very experienced editors can wade through. It is *very* unfriendly to beginners and many (not all ofc) of the older editors have fiefdoms they patrol and control. No two articles are alike so if a couple of experienced editors formed a consensus in a random talk page to use or not use a certain tone, voice, sources, etc then it doesnt readily apply to another page.

Your example can be extended further. This article uses Katherine Maher's Wikimedia page and even her own LinkedIn as a source yet we can't use a TED Talk she gave unless *reliable sources* cover it. But wait, her LinkedIn is not a reliable source, right? No idea whats going on.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4EDA:7E1:56F0:93C7 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The linkedin ref should not be used as currently used, it's part of the "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources." thing. Linkedin can be a reasonable WP:ABOUTSELF source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with KM's impact on Wikipedia while Director / CEO

Given her tenure at Wikipedia, the article could benefit from more clarity on what she actually did while Director/CEO. that would also help to temper some of the more controversial edits coming as a result of the twitter controversy.

Can someone help find proper sources ? I made an attempt see SPS content but it was WP:SPS :

cc Endwise Tonymetz 💬 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the problem - she herself in her TED talk and in tweets and such stated in no uncertain terms her thoughts on truth being secondary to finding common ground, her actions/beliefs at the helm of Wikipedia, and so on… BUT because no WP-approved news sources reported on it, those comments/beliefs/actions are safe from entry into her page. SoulAtHazard (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

She's talking about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in the TED talk, not a personal philosophy. I'm curious if Breitbart, NY Post, etc. even point to any evidence at all of any effect she had on Wikipedia apart from inference based on what she says (i.e. "she made X changes to Wikipedia policy, she changed Y article to say something different, she banned Z users for their point of view" or whatnot, as opposed to "she said something about truth, therefore wikipedia must not be true"). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

that's one component of the article, but there's a lot we can improve while better sources are revealed.

The article would look a lot more complete and neutral if her administration at Wikipedia was covered fully. Tonymetz 💬 05:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

COI edit request: Early life

Hey, I'm not close friends with Katherine but we've met a few times so I'm doing an edit request rather than editing directly. I'm unhappy with the current "Early life" section because it implies her mother is dead. Also, her father's obituary (which was the only source for the info about her parents) mentions four firms where he worked (Astra, Goldman Sachs, UBS, and Castleton Commodities) so instead of saying "was a Goldman Sachs executive" I find it more fitting to say he worked in finance. I'd like to replace the second sentence of the "Early life and education" section with the following:

"Her father, Gordon Roberts Maher, worked in finance in New York City and witnessed the September 11 attacks. He died in 2020.[26] Her mother, Ceci Maher, is a former non-profit executive who was elected to the Connecticut State Senate in 2022.[27] Katherine has two younger brothers.[28]" Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging a few people who have been here recently and might be able to help: @Tonymetz @Rhododendrites @Alaexis @Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you I did see your request and it seems like good content. I haven't had much luck with my edits on this article and many have been reverted. Let's see if more confident editors are willing to help. @Hemiauchenia here's a constructive project for you. Tonymetz 💬 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that merely meeting someone a few times makes for a COI. I've met Katherine several times myself, as I'm sure have many other Wikipedians who have attended Wikimania and other events. Funcrunch (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, I figured as much but I get spooked whenever I see people face serious scrutiny for relatively minor (IMO) COI infractions! I try to always be safe rather than sorry. Perhaps I was being too safe! :-) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

This is the sum diff since April 15. Observing the addition of multiple primary sources with no secondary sources to provide any WP:WEIGHT. I'm referring to the two Atlantic Council citations. If there are reliable sources which fell for the Breitbart/Rufo/Fox misleading characterization of that video, those need to be included to establish WP:WEIGHT, and otherwise they should be removed. Also, are NY Sun and The Center Square really considered RS? That would be surprising, but I may be wrong. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

There is also this City Journal article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That piece, written by Rufo for a right-wing think tank, is in that "Breitbart/Rufo/Fox" group I was referring to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Only a couple of sentences about her views expressed in the Atlantic Council speech have been added to the article. I think that this is enough to keep this information in the article.

I'm not sure what you mean by "misleading characterization" but in case there are RS that reached these conclusions, we should definitely add them to the article. Unfortunately the NYT has been more interested in where she got her burritos rather than in analysing how her views may have impacted the most important online source of information. Alaexis_¿question? 06:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That NYT article you cited is from nearly a year ago, well before the current issue at hand. A much more recent NYT article (published April 15) regarding the criticism of Maher is already cited in this article as of now. Funcrunch (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It is ok that City Journal is WP:PARTISAN . Can you try to put as much effort into helping discover sources as you are trying to disqualify them? There are many aspects of the article that could use more sources. Tonymetz 💬 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Only a couple of sentences about her views expressed in the Atlantic Council speech have been added to the article. I think that this is enough to keep this information in the article. - We need WP:WEIGHT established. To select quotes from a larger primary source without a basis in reliable source coverage is WP:OR and WP:POV.
I'm not sure what you mean by "misleading characterization" - See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#What's_going_on.
It is ok that City Journal is WP:PARTISAN - Partisan sources can be reliable. In this case, this very article would be evidence against it being considered reliable. Regardless, the problem with borderline reliable partisan sources is that they just don't carry much WP:WEIGHT. If we had some better sources to justify inclusion of an aspect of the subject to begin with, it would be easier to justify pull from partisan and/or opinion content to add to that. There was a discussion of City Journal last year at RSN which looks like it was never formally closed. Looks like I mainly talked about the conundrum of what to do with content that isn't reliable for statements of fact there, too.
Can you try to put as much effort into helping discover sources as you are trying to disqualify them? - This strikes me as backwards. We find reliable sources and summarize them in the article. If you're starting from a position of "I found a claim in unreliable sources -- we should find a way to include it" that's how we get POV articles. Given the quality of the claims, it would be shocking to see a source we typically consider to be reliable to pick it up. (to be clear, this whole comment is about the "first amendment" and "truth" clips, not about Berliner and not about her various tweets about biden/harris/trump). I think I've said about as much as I want to say about this, as I'm starting to feel a little repetitive, so I will leave it to others now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

. Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works understands Wikimedia Foundation management play no role in how articles are written

Wikimedia organizational and user rights hierarchy

WMF has admin influence according to WP:ADMINH. And it's the crux of the question about KM's statements like "[WMF] having very active role ... during covid19". See also WP:FRAMGATE Tonymetz 💬 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WMF intervenes on behavioral issues, not content issues. Yes, when they take action against someone for harassment, stalking, etc. I suppose that has an indirect effect on the articles that banned person would've edited, but nobody is getting banned by the WMF for the way they wrote an article. I will look forward to findings of what RS say the WMF did to Wikipedia articles on COVID (as would, I'm sure, everybody at WikiProject Medicine). WMF certainly communicated about covid and the work volunteers were doing and used it to raise lots and lots of money, and they did fund some volunteers' activities to improve COVID articles (for example, a hundred bucks or so out of a WMF grant to WikiNYC went to pay for the streaming platform we used in a Symposium on COVID-19 and Wikipedia back in 2020). KM's statements like "[WMF] having very active role ... during covid19" - This is your own determination to see a scandal where one doesn't exist. There is nothing in that statement that implies "we" is the WMF. In fact, throughout that interview she uses "we" to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. Putting a finer point on it, the "we" is really a whole lot of volunteers who actually write the articles the articles the WMF fundraises for. If you want a "scandal", it's that the world attributes the successes of this project to the WMF because it's our fundraising arm, its leaders are much more publicly visible, and they use first person plural pronouns as such (to be clear, I think Maher is a good ambassador for Wikipedia and does a good job of explaining the importance of this project to the world -- but I can see where it would be confusing for someone who sees Twitter trolls and Breitbart as providing credible frames for the clips they link to). I will leave it to others now - f'reals this time, sorry. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a scandal and I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I'm helping to clarify blanket & condescending statements like Anyone who knows the bare minimum about how Wikipedia works... . I want editors to understand that wikipedia is indeed a bureaucracy (in some ways) . I don't consider WMF influence over editors controversial surprising. If there was/is WMF influence on content , directly or via conduct enforcement, it should be made clear when and how. Tonymetz 💬 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you're adding valuable context to the conversation. Speaking as a Wikipedian with over 15 years tenure, I agree with your analysis both on this talk page and at the Village Pump. Funcrunch (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that my efforts here are WP:DGF . The conservative pundits out there are making money/fame by shredding WP's reputation. I'm here making an effort and receiving a lot of attention pushback in order to get the comms team to (a) confront the bad PR , (b) defend the editors' efforts on wikipedia and (c) clarify any truth that may be found there.

I've appreciated your efforts to help summarize. But where we disagree is over blanket generalizations like "WMF doesn't have any influence" or (paraphrasing) "there's nothing to see here". That's possibly true but not very likely. And given all of the recent evidence, it's worthwhile to have a more formal review of the relationship between WMF & WP. If it is true, it will be easy to clarify and everyone will be the better for it.

WMF does get paid (something like $175m / year) to support the editors. Comms is just as important a function as hosting & engineering efforts are. From what I can tell, they are not doing very much right now, particularly because the editors are not being vocal enough. Tonymetz 💬 16:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering Maher's affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation ended a full three years ago, I don't see why the WMF should make responding to this (IMO) manufactured outrage a priority. Funcrunch (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Need to add “Political Views” section.

Her support of Democrats is well-documented, as is her support of the 2020 riots. SoulAtHazard (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}? but sounds like you have some biases of your own. Jeremyb (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

can you try to collect some citations . let's make sure they are well sourced and relevant to her career. Here are a couple citations to start with [29][30] Tonymetz 💬 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

As "Elon Musk" has a prominent section of "Personal views and Twitter usage," you'd think this entry has a similar section, particularly given her career has been largely funded by public money (at least from Wikipedia part), and even more so as NPR CEO. But given the way of Wikipedia led by this "outstanding" CEO for its "free and open" policy, let's wait and see if any such thing would be ever added to this entry. Tuskla (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

“Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground.” From her ted talk. Not sure if that go towards politics or mental health. SoulAtHazard (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Very true. Katherine Maher is also against the idea of an objective truth, against a free and open Internet, and sees the First Amendment as an impediment to censorship, see here[31], here[32],

and here[33]

She even says explicitly that she worked with governments to suppress “misinformation” on Wikipedia.

And yet none of this is featured on this article. Gatekeeping and protecting the former CEO of Wikimedia seems to be the mission of some very powerful people here.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Naturally Reliable sources have been slow to report , but they are starting to trickle out. Can you add candidates for citation here so we can improve coverage? Tonymetz 💬 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia Talk/edits. So I ask genuinely - is a link to a YouTube Ted talk that she gave a reliable source. SoulAtHazard (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends upon what the material is that the youtube video is supporting. I can support direct quotes from her, but, for example, if during the video she said how much she likes pizza, it couldn't be used to support a claim that "Maher is an expert in pizza". Terrible example, but the point is, it is effectively a primary source, so just cherry-picking quotes from it then using the video as a source isn't adequate. The contentions must be via secondary sources that commented upon her Ted talk. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response.

To answer your question, what “the material is” is from her YouTube TED Talk. She states:

“Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that’s getting in the way of finding common ground.”

Does quoting that portion of her YouTube’ed TED Talk wuakify as a reliable source?

Thanks. SoulAtHazard (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A youtube by the subject would be considered Wikipedia:Primary source or Wikipedia:Self-published sources . we woudlD need to find WP:Secondary source to use as a citation. i.e. a WP:RS that has summarized the content Tonymetz 💬 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, I’m not good at this. I’m not sure what is necessary or what a secondary source is.

If Katherine Mayer does a TED Talk and it is on YouTube, are her words acceptable for her Wikipedia page

I ask because it seems the answer is “no”. And that’s fine but I don’t know what to link past that

thanks SoulAtHazard (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

TED isn't specifically in WP:RSP, but youtube is. TED does provide editorial oversight, but the content of the talks aren't held to a journalistic / editorial standard afaik.

IMO you would need to find WP:RS that review the TED talk and summarize the content. Something similar to [34] but from a WP:RSP (nypost is too right-wing for Wikipedia) Tonymetz 💬 01:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t pretend to be smart enough to understand this conversation. Is anyone else reading this conversation? SoulAtHazard (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that . To help summarize: you would need to find reliable sources online , something like a nytimes story, that reviews / summarizes the TED talk . Assuming that it is suitable for the article, you can update the article and then review to that content.

If you need help editing the article, you can start by doing some work to find those sources. If the content is relevant I'm happy to help integrate it into the article. That way we can partner together. Tonymetz 💬 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn’t realize the person’s own words weren’t enough on Wikipedia. That helps. SoulAtHazard (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This next question is a two-parter. If someone says, “Trump is a racist,” is that considered a political opinion, and - if so - is The New York Times a WP-accepted source for the same? TIA SoulAtHazard (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Daily reminder that if WP-approved sources don’t report on it - even though the WP subject says in no uncertain terms that the pursuit of truth is not as important as “finding common ground” - that the WP page for THE HEAD OF NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO is safe from the stain. Can’t make this up. Take a shot every time an elder strips Katherine Maher’s Politics section. SoulAtHazard (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Still not touching the article with the requisite long pole, but do you need a demonstration of the concept of "quote mining"? Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@SoulAtHazard WP:BLP applies to talk pages too not just the article. you need to quote the whole context of the quote you're referring to (so that we're all clear about exactly which words we're discussing) and provide a citation for a place where we can read or listen to said quote. Jeremyb (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Some say the cucumber tastes better pickled. SoulAtHazard (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Very nice to hear from a user with 13 edits. I will follow up at their talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC , not the editor Tonymetz 💬 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Did not know that 13 edits was important. SoulAtHazard (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong to suggest a political views section. Apologies. The CEO of National Public Radio should not have a political views section. NPR is too insignificant to warrant a Political Views section for its CEO. SoulAtHazard (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Censorship on the article

Why is anything critical about this person being censored in this article. She made a lot of controversial statements. The article should reflect this, instead of being a PR piece full of primary sources. I am starting to think that the accusations of Wikipedia being biased are true. --Afus199620 (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You've made over 17,000 edits to this website but have made almost no edits to talkspace. That shows in your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please FOC not the editor. Tonymetz 💬 17:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Why do you feel the need to assume things and turn the conversation to Ad Hominem. Clearly you lack an understanding of Wikipedia policy. Please respect others. Alexysun (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow! What an ad-hominem. This is truly sad since you're not contributing to the article at all.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4DA1:5E74:99BD:3FB1 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: That's a ridiculous non sequitur. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

IP users are second class citizens on this website. You are not a respected contributor, so I do not care for or respect your opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly recommend you refresh your understanding of 'Assume good faith'. Blanket characterizations such as "IP users are second class citizens on this website" are unsupportable and offensive. Certainly, a large proportion of vandalism, soapboxing, and other indiscretions derive from IP editors; stating that an editor - IP or otherwise - is "not a respected contributor" is untenable. Please stop. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We could use your help finding more secondary sources and helping flesh out some of the career gaps, particularly around Wikipedia experience. Tonymetz 💬 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Im not good at the Wikis. Best I can tell someone is criticizing you for making 17,000 edits.

scroll up and you’ll see I’ve been criticized for making thirteen edits. the gatekeepers remind us this is a group effort. SoulAtHazard (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus on this page. The critical reception Katherine Maher has received for the many controversial statements she made should clearly be included in the article.

For example: Why can't this Fox article about her not used: https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-blasts-successor-katherine-maher-says-npr-let-go-right-away

It's not strictly about politics, so it should be allowed to use Fox as a source here. City Journal doesn't seem to be explicitly forbidden as a source, as far as I know. Biased sources are used here all the time. There are no completely unbiased sources anyway.

It smells very fishy to me that some editors seem to be "using" Wikipedia rules here arbitrarily as an instrument to whitewash this person's Wiki page.--Afus199620 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course this is about politics, since it talks about "left-wing bias". There is a good reason why using Fox News in these situations is not allowed. Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is mostly about what Larry Sanger had to say about Katherine Maher. Biased sources are used all the time like this. If she had made right leaning controversial statements, a third of her Wiki article would be about these statements, sourced from the left leaning press. This argument just shows the double standards on Wikipedia today.--Afus199620 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Afus199620 Exactly. It's such a shame. Alexysun (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And using CNN and MSNBC to talk about "right-wing bias" is okay? Alexysun (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: There is a good reason why using Fox News in these situations is not allowed. Which is? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For this reason the better time investment is fleshing out her tenure at Wikipedia. There are big gaps in the article on the most significant part of her career so far. And it will be less controversial than focusing on the current attention being given to her NPR appointment. Tonymetz 💬 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I made the most recent revert. There was past consensus here on this talk page that it was WP:UNDUE to include Sanger's remarks, and my revert was mostly procedural. That said, I agree with the past consensus. The remarks do not seem to have been picked up by the mainstream press, with the partial exception of Fox News (and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS appears to apply). The magazine arm of a conservative think tank is in particular not a great source for a contentious statement about a living person; while it is not listed at WP:RSP, concerns have been expresssed in past discussion at WP:RSN [35]. If you want to include news written from a center-right perspective, the Wall Street Journal has covered the story here [36]. (It is more similar to the NYTimes coverage [37] than it is to City Journal, however.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe I find it very interesting that all Fox News is deemed yellow or red. Even the general news is deemed yellow. This is not acceptable in my opinion. Alexysun (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care about Fox the same way I don't care about CNN. But longterm WP editors have consistently voted for binning Fox and enshrining CNN. Remember WP has a decidedly left-wing bias[38][39][40][41] and it keeps showing it by burying sources they don't like. Long-time editors will even prevent editorials from the WSJ to be used in contentious articles since, apparently, the WSJ is "center-right". Not a single "center-right" or "right-wing" source is allowed as a RS on all topics, yet CNN reigns supreme.

Now we have plenty of sources/people complaining about the former CEO of WP being avowedly left-wing and anti-truth and, just look, the most manicured article ever! Full of self-published sources and even referencing her LinkedIn! But not a single drop of criticisms! There's so much more out there on KM but I don't even dare mention them here unless a "good enough" source mentions it for fear of being banned. And look at long time editors threatening people here! They don't contribute but do police the article and revert everything that is not curated by them.

For funsies, google what RFK Jr had to say on X/Twitter about KM. I bet if you try and post about it here, on the talk page, you'll get banned immediately. <___<

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4DA1:5E74:99BD:3FB1 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

KM declining to provide testimony to Congress

Sources:[42] and [43], also an NPR Correspondent posted KMs official statement here [44].

At the very least this article should factually mention that "Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Virginia Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, and Ohio Rep. Bob Lotta invited Maher to testify before Congress late last month, expressing concern over allegations of progressive liberal bias at NPR." It can also add that "NPR noted Maher was already scheduled to attend a meeting on Wednesday May 8, the same day Maher was invited to testify before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee."

The facts, as referenced by good sources, are that KM has been summoned by Congress due to "...concerns about the direction in which NPR may be headed under past and present leadership...concerned that your personal views and opinions on matters of public interest heavily influence your decision making at NPR and may cloud objective reporting of the news at NPR".[45]

Here is the full letter as sent by the US Congress.[46]

Let's see if this article's gatekeepers will ignore it until their preferred sources mention it. Of note, the NYT covered it here [47]. Here's PBS live as of now[48].

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:4DA1:5E74:99BD:3FB1 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You added that material yourself, so it appears you know that your statement "Let's see if this article's gatekeepers will ignore it until their preferred sources mention it" is just your attempt to be provocative. Of note, that attitude will likely hamper your ability to edit Wikipedia, not help it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Besides the personal commentary, thoughts on his/her sources? Asking because I’m trying to learn which sources are acceptable. Thanks. SoulAtHazard (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're a new editor, you should start learning about which sources are acceptable at a less controversial article than this one. If you're not a new editor... well, in that hypothetical universe, an editor already knows why they should stop trying to pretend they're new. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, some more media coverage

Conservatives trashed NPR's new CEO for being 'woke.' But the truth is far more complex., USA Today Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece from a non-notable USA Today writer. Not sure what's compelling enough in there to include in an encyclopedia. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there some rule I'm unaware of where coverage needs to be from "notable" [sic] writers? jp×g🗯️ 05:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think that this falls under WP:RSOPINION. OTOH, it probably does represent the conventional wisdom on the topic. I take Gråbergs Gråa Sång as having pointed it out for this latter role, rather than suggesting we use it directly in the article (as they did not). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not, but I don't think it would be outlandish to use it as a source, something WP:PROPORTIONate in-text attributed (depending on how we use it) as USA Today opinion. I have no actual content-suggestion atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)