Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/In the media

← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

• Wow, this seems like a lot more news stories about Wikipedia than in a standard month. I find it interesting to read journalists/readers' perspective on the project because it can be so different from an editor's point-of-view. Elements that frustrate, perplex or challenge us on a daily basis are invisible to those who write about Wikipedia. Still, sometimes they can offer a big picture, forest viewpoint that is hard to see down here in the weeds.
  Thanks for pulling this together, Signpost gurus, I always enjoy scanning the news stories you compile each month for this column. And it also serves to remind me that Boing Boing still exists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, there was a lot of news this month! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Great work on the expanded paper. Great to see the story on Coffman!! scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comma: "Perhaps the most interesting section is how Bomis, his internet startup suddenly started": comma required after "startup". deisenbe (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've edited the page to fix the typo. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• But Kontactu says — "Kotaku". FTFY. (Literally.) 😉 -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Cool, I started Catherine Nakalembe (mentioned above). IP:s tried to add her name to her husbands page without BLP-good refs. At the time I couldn't find a ref for them being married, but I did find refs for an article about her. And later I started one for the award she won. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, not all the Washington Post's facts are accurate: "former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who since taking the reins of the organization in 2014 had grown Wikipedia into one of the world’s most widely cited sources of information." - make that 2016 (initially as temp stand-in), & this was not I think the period when WP became "one of the world’s most widely cited sources of information" (a rather odd way of putting it), nor a period of very "rapid growth". Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have noted before that WP is a difficult topic for journalists. Which make sense, since it can be a difficult topic for Wikipedians too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Congrats to K.e.coffman for being the subject of the excellent Wired piece. A good piece of reporting by the journalist IMO. Has anyone played Neurocracy? It sounds really interesting. I'm immediately a fan of anything that might get casual readers to realise there's a page history for Wikipedia articles, a good place from which to go down the rabbithole and discover how much there is behind the scenes (and how much you can do to help!). — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• For the WMF's decision on Chinese Wikipedia, there are actually far more media coverage (in different languages) than listed above, see this page on zh.wiki. (Some listed in the page are not reliable sources but they might still be worth mentioning here.) Actually, most of the news coverage did not notice that not all the banned or desysopped users were from mainland China. Sun8908 _Talk 01:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)