Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-06-05

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2023-06-05. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information dissed again (6,593 bytes · 💬)

So your defense to accusations of unreliability is...they sometimes get things wrong too? Wow, that is very pathetic and discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanoflaw049 (talk • contribs)

On which story? jp×g 01:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My guess is § Have we already covered this enough?. Nowhere is it a defense, plus whether or not there is bias regarding Poland is still under controversy. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The last paragraph of § Have we already covered this enough? can easily enough be read this way. I don't know that we were defending any particular editor from accusations of unreliability (maybe @Levivich:?) But it does seem like the OCR article was saying that the "Polish side" was responsible for more errors than the "Jewish side". I do think that both sides should accept the possibility that much of what we want to know will never be known. And with millions of deaths on each side, the emotions run very high on each side - perhaps to the extent that nobody will be willing to accept that the other side could be partially right. There are some problems that Wikipedia (as a whole) can not be expected to solve. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I must say I'm pleasantly surprised that the deletion log of Meryl Streep seagull incident (disambiguation) is currently empty. I thought about WP:BEANS but I figure this page is internal enough... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Just you wait until someone turns it into a redirect into this Signpost article... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Until we have that, enjoy Mark_Carwardine#Last_Chance_to_See_kakapo_incident. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice roundup! Very entertaining. Jane (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

On "In fact, the relevant law was repealed later in 2018, after widespread international criticism." It seems that according to WP, the law wasn't repealed, it was revised. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The criminal sentencing part was repealed, and this article says criminal law, so it’s true. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Article 55a was repealed in 2018, about half a year after it was created. The current version of the entire Act is here. This erroneous statement, that "Those ideas are baked into Polish law, which since 2018 has criminalized accusing Poland of complicity with the Nazi regime", appears in half a dozen outlets. It's very hard to believe Grabowski and Klein don't know the statement to be untrue. ("Criminal penalties of the law were ultimately removed as part of a diplomatic settlement with Israel and mounting international pressure including from the United States, though civil avenues to prosecute those who mischaracterize the Polish role in World War II remain on the books." pp. 206–207.) Andreas JN466 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• The study does made one small mistake that I can see which is that conduct disputes should be reported at WP:ANI not WP:AN Lightoil (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, a subpart of it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• While its good to hear that we have overcome fringe here on enwiki, I cannot help but comment on the example cited therein. Too often when dealing with controversial or extreme topics I find a fixation on the lead in the vein of a crusading language either filled with too many descriptives (e.g. anti-12x labels) or labelling the main subject of the article outright without actually explaining what it infact purports to be. Making such articles look less encyclopedic. Gotitbro (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Andreas JN466 11:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• • Years ago the intro to Cat became a battleground between editors who wanted to use the paragraph about the acuity of feline senses as evidence of God's providence, and those who wanted it to demonstrate random mutation and differential reproduction. It took a while but eventually I argued them out of using the intro for any such purpose, after which both sides lost all interest in discussing it in any of the sections including the one about feline senses. From which I concluded that those who argue most passionately usually think least deeply, no matter whether they be right or wrong. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea (21,887 bytes · 💬)

• I love how Medeyko tries to frame this as an issue of reliable sources and coverage, when anyone with a brain is aware that the actual issue is that the articles don't lie about ongoing events with the Russian government. Pure propaganda nonsense. Silverseren^C 01:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd like to personally thank those Russian Wikipedians who have stood up for the values of the Wikipedia community. Stas is just one, but I know there are many others. It's not an easy time to be a Russian, but those who have stood up to the powers-that-be can walk proudly after this is all over. I'd also like to thank those who have stayed "neutral" during this time. Even staying neutral can be dangerous in this situation, and does not add to the problems of others. And ordinary non-Wikipedian Russians deserve a pat on the back as well. Why doesn't the Russian government simply close down Wikipedia without the rigamarole? Because they know there would be a large outcry if they did. These folks are all doing what they can. Thank you, thank you all. So what are the authorities doing all these forks for? Just to fool the public into thinking that they aren't planning to close Wikipedia. It's a sleight of hand trick. Plain dishonesty. Any Wikipedian who participates in the new fork should be ashamed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to personally thank those Russian Wikipedians who have stood up for the values of the Wikipedia community. +1, they deserve a lot of respect. In this kind of situation it's obviously much harder to do that than for most of us in other countries. But it's also especially valuable.

Regarding your theory about the Russian authorities though, they don't really seem to try very hard to to fool the public into thinking that they aren't planning to close Wikipedia - there have been several recent statements to the contrary, e.g. by Valery Fadeyev:

"'My opinion on Wikipedia is that it should be shut down. (...) There is no alternative now. It is necessary to create an alternative as soon as possible and close Wikipedia - this is my position,' said the head of the HRC [ Human Rights Council ]."
— lenta.ru/news/2023/04/04/matveychev/, Google Translate

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's nice to agree on things. +1 form me too, for the record. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks. We have a very harsh times now and keeping Wikipedia values is very difficult and dangerous. -- ssr (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fadeyev is not one who influences decisions like that. He may say anything, it is not any indication of real plans and intentions of those who really make decisions. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Mr. Medeyko is mainly interested in money. For many years, they tried to disrupt WLM competition in Russia, where I am one of the organizers, because they had some sponsors and wanted to use the sponsor money for WLM to get themselves a fraction of these. He also had a huge crowd of his paid editor friends. It is of course does not help that he openly supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but he has been net negative for the Wikimedia movement since at least mid-2000s. Just nobody wanted to listen to us. Now he realized that sponsors in Russia will not give him money just for his position in Wikimedia.ru, and he made a fork to get the sponsors' money. As simple as that. Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Zooming out a bit from individual people's failings: We weren't able to cover that angle in the Signpost story (and it would probably be premature anyway), but from the ruwiki village pump discussions, it seems that there are some concerns and questions about the chapter's financial transparency in recent years (and also about its collection of personal data, through Medeyko). At m:Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal/Reports, Wikimedia RU is currently flagged as past due for both its activity and financial reports (the most recent one dates from 2020 in both cases), and on May 31 it received a "Notification of Affiliate Expiration - Renewal pending submission of reporting". This kind of organizational transparency in financial and other matters often tends to be viewed as a boring formality - until it suddenly isn't. The aforementioned notification indicates that failings in that regard at least do not go entirely unnoticed. But one may wonder if more effective and timely enforcement could help chapters who are at the risk of drifting off into situations like the one that the remaining WMRU members apparently have to repair now. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Wikimedia.ru was designated by the WMF as "ineligible for funding" in smth like 2012 due to persistent lack of delivering activity reports in time. And the situation with reporting was apparently bad all the way down, but this did not lead to any consequences. Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you didn't reach me for comments. I thought it would be interesting to have first-hand explanations from a long-term wikimedian. :)

What Mr. Blanter writes about me above is a lie. I'm not "mainly interested in money". Wikimedia RU was never a great source of money, I was getting much more money as a professional programmer and analyst. After 22.02.2022 Wikimedia RU lost any prospects of getting grants, universities stopped to accept our lecturers, partners rejected or postponed contests... It became impossible to promote free knowledge with a link to Wikipedia in Russia. Last months the only reliable source of money for Wikimedia RU was my personal salaries from sources absolutely unrelated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement. As for Wikimedia RU reporting - I agree that my reporting is poor; but please take in account that activities that I was making at Wikimedia RU are normally divided between several professionals - accountants, lawyers, programmers, system administrators, translators, writers, couriers, etc; any faults are agressively criticised, this is quite demotivating and forcing a procrastination; and that I asked colleagues for help with preparing the report but got little help; I was wishing to step down for years, but it was clear that no one wished to take my shoes. However, I'm still going to help colleagues in Wikimedia RU to the extent they and I wish and can. I wish the colleagues success!

The statement "he openly supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine" is another lie. I understand that I know too few about real causes and circumstances of the actions to take any side, and so have never expressed a support for any side.

The statement about claimed Wikimedia RU ineligibility due to lack of reporting is untrue too, to my best knowledge. Wikimedia RU has never received or requested funding from WMF (the personal travel grants to Wikimedia Summit and CEE Meeting are not counted). It seems that Mr. Blanter mixed up with ineligibility for annual grants due to absense of record of specific projects grants (which Wikimedia RU simply has never asked for too, that's why there was no records).

There's a lot of other lies. I still hope that you are interested in truth, not hoaxes. So your questions are welcome! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing anything in you. You are not a user in good standing. I hope T&S will take care of your global account soon. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

My message was not addressed to you. Also I would mention that harassment is prohibited towards the user in any standing. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 14:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Which indeed happened yesterday. Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drbug: I did ping you at the time but received no reply. I guess I could have emailed ... apologies. It was a busy week. This said, I quoted a lengthy part of your statement advertising the new site on habr.com. Regards, Andreas JN466 22:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't like to reply to people, especially on telephone, that's why many people came to not liking him. -- ssr (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, great! I'm happy that the question was asked indeed, and it was my fault not yours that I didn't notice the ping. And your professionalism meets my expectations, I'm no more surprised! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

One question I have is – do you feel that the Russian Wikipedia has a NPOV problem, with official Russian views not adequately represented?

One thing I have often thought about is that free knowledge by and large seems to follow (or be reverting to) the same patterns that existed fifty years ago: political blocs with separate knowledge cultures that are relatively homogeneous internally, but quite divergent from other such cultures.

Looking at online encyclopedias, we see this most clearly with China, which has its own huge online encyclopedias, but is absolutely resistant to Wikipedia. Russia might be going the same way, it seems to me. I could see India going that way too at some point over the next decade (see above article).

When I first heard of the NPOV idea, almost 20 years ago, I imagined a source where you can read truth claims from all major sides: a source that would tell me what Chinese people are being told is true by their media, what people in the US are told by their media (though I feel that the Western media landscape is considerably freer and more diverse), what Russians are told by their media, and so forth. All attributed of course: stated not as fact, but as the truth claim of the American, Russian, Chinese, Indian etc. sources in question.

Now over the years it has become clear that Wikipedia is not that project. Neutrally reporting an ideological opponent's speech that one firmly believes to be propaganda, or a lie, just seems to go against people's grain – it goes against the grain of people everywhere. But the cost of having your own view prevail is that people will eventually go off and do their own thing. And this kind of seems to me to be what is happening here.

So maybe we are destined to have political blocs, each with its own monoculture, much like we did 50 years ago. The Chinese have their encyclopedias, the Russians will have theirs, and the rest of the world has Wikipedia (until someone gets big and powerful enough to split off and do their own thing). Does any of this resonate, or do you see something else happening entirely? Either way, I'd be interested in your views. Cheers, Andreas JN466 23:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a very, very interesting question. It is complex, so it's hard to answer in a few words, but I will however try :).

Wikipedia is not perfect by its very nature, so there have always been some deviations from the NPOV from the very beginning, and there always will be.

But NPOV still is a great idea, and it works greatly to a certain extent.

You are absolutely right that it is very hard for editors to handle the opponents' positions neutrally. However, NPOV often work even with passionate edtiors when there are a significant mass of neutral editors, who don't have strong feelings for or against any side.

It is not the case in the Russian edition of Wikipedia regarding the Russo-Ukrainian situation. The West is obviously involved in at least an information warfare, the topic is very acute and affects many users closely, so there are quite few neutral editors. In particular, the so-called mediators are not sufficiently neutral, most of they are not able to consider the topic in cold blood (most of them have a strong view of the situation, some even used harsh derogatory words against Putin). Russian-speaking editors from Africa or South America would probably help, but unfortunately they are not numerous in Russian edition of Wikipedia. Therefore the systemic bias is a bit more tangible in this case. I feel the deviations are mostly materialized not in omissions of some facts (but sometimes that happens too), but in the wording that that over-emphasizes the one side's political agenda in the situations when it is not necessary (and there're no such harsh wording and overexposure of failures even in articles about sentenced Nazi criminals).

I agree, I think you are right, we live in a time when the world is dividing, but in the way different that in the Cold War era. Unlike those times, it's pretty hard to cut off the flow of information almost completely now. But each side would try to support its own information sources.

And maybe that's a good thing for people, for readers in particular: a monopoly is often a problem, even if it is a bona fide benevolent monopoly... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Drbug: Thanks. The idea of a single source representing all viewpoints sounds appealing on one level. (In a discussion on Hacker News, someone once said to me that such a source might well present more lies to its readers, but would unquestionably also contain more truth. I often think about that comment. )

This said, the resulting monopoly of such a source – if it could ever exist – would instantly represent a huge weakness. (I wrote about this aspect once here in the Signpost, years ago, in the context of Wikidata.)

So speaking generally, I agree that it is good to have a pluralist landscape, with multiple sources presenting different viewpoints accessible side by side.

Good luck with the project! Regards, Andreas JN466 16:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• For people interested in the U4CBC I will be posting updates about it here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Quite perplexed by the reporting on the Foundation India maps story. The story says "...the Foundation meticulously identified twelve maps of India that required attention. These maps...notably lacked any indication of the border dispute in their visual representation or accompanying captions...", and illustrates this with a map which is captioned "One of the maps of India identified as requiring attention", and yet that map very plainly includes visual representation of the border dispute. Another one of the meticulously identified maps has an in-image legend explaining the dispute! CMD (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The first disputed India-centric map uses grey for disputed territories, which appears as an independent foreign country rather than contested Indian territory, because the colour and border style are all the same as for countries like Nepal, Bhutan. Note that the map at India infobox isn't in the list, as it uses dark green for India, and light green for disputed territories, grey for other foreign countries. In the maps you listed, disputed territories share the same colour with other countries. I believe make the disputed territory light grey (closer to white used for rest of India), with stripes denoting the country of conflict, and that's what is asked. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  The reporting specifically says "notably lacked any indication of the border dispute in their visual representation", not used a particular colour and border style that the Indian Government and/or WMF didn't agree with. CMD (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at any images, but the traditional Commons policy is that in the case of real-world border disputes, maps can be uploaded reflecting either side's claims, and then the individual Wikimedia projects (language Wikipedias etc) decide locally which images are useful for them... AnonMoos (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• It's well known that India is involved in long-term border demarcation disputes with several neighbouring countries. It's also common practice for publishers of maps of India to include a suitably worded disclaimer on such maps pointing out that the borders shown on the relevant map are not intended to be authoritative. India also has laws addressing what maps can depict. Against that background, it seems entirely reasonable for the Indian government to make complaints about specific maps on Commons and ask that the maps be changed. The issue is not a trivial one, and the Indian government's complaint is not frivolous. Perhaps the way forward is for someone to invite the Indian government to provide drafts of modified maps depicting the modifications it wants, so that they can be discussed by the Wikimedia community. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, laws about which version of (political) reality maps are allowed to show, and attempts to pressure Commons with a threat of preventing access to Wikipedia, are, in my view, fundamentally unreasonable. Maybe Pakistan or China can now get in on the act too, then perhaps every map depicting a disputed border will have to be surrounded by disclaimers - regardless of whether they have anything to do with the focus of the article.

  If the border is shown in an article for its political relevance, then it may improve clarity for the dispute to be indicated; let the community sort it out, but this government ministry opening with threats gives me a bad taste in my mouth. CharredShorthand.talk; 13:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  We're free to disregard the threats as we see fit, but we might as well at least understand what the dispute is about first. Out of interest, is there any community discussion taking place on this issue yet? It's the first time I'm hearing about it...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, there's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  That link was in the article for a while then got lost/removed during editing. Oh well. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's the first link in the article. I'll edit the description to make it a bit clearer. Andreas JN466 16:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Many congratulations to Prasan Shrestha for winning the contest! This was the first time I've ever taken part in the voting process, and I've got to say the list was full of unbelievably wonderful pictures. Well done everybody! Oltrepier (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• As we say in the 'hood, forks come and go, Wikipedia stays. Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 16:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Bible for AfI. Hmmm. Gotitbro (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye (2,094 bytes · 💬)

"Thankfully still a redhead"?! — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker: I think it's a joke at the expense of the people complaining about casting a black actress as Ariel. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.4% of all FPs.} 12:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I assumed as much, it just felt… weird. It could be read as endorsing those complaints just as much as belittling the complaints, I'd suggest. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No endorsement here, never saw a problem with a black mermaid, and was only noting that for all the bad changes those remakes have they didn't try to remove Ariel's glorious red hair. igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; then sorry for casting aspersions 😅 OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Fast X

Because the list is only 10 items long, reference to #21 is a bit confusing. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, it is referring to Fast & Furious. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)