Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-12-24

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2024-12-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Wikipedia article intensifies (628 bytes · 💬)

• Very funny article and I love it. Anyways, wishing e'rybody happy holidays. Volten001 ^☎ 07:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Wish you all a Happy Christmas and an even Happier New Year. That's to another year of the Signpost! Oltrepier (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case (1,124 bytes · 💬)

Isn't the Annie Rauwerda entry just a repost of the Asterisk Mag interview from November? (Come to think of it, was that ever reported on?) Arcorann (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Why did they block those search engines other than Google? Google harvests more data than any other search engine. Qwant should have been offered. This is a total mistake by the schools. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Herald's article ends with a quote from the councilmember that gives a clear intention/reason, I think - However, the site does offer a wide range of topics, some which may not be appropriate for all age groups. We have suspended access to Wikipedia at present while we undertake a further comprehensive review. They seem to be bumping up against WP:NOTCENSORED. FifthFive (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" (1,168 bytes · 💬)

• Fifth freedom? Most of the Google hits are about commercial aviation. I am failing to see the connection; perhaps in the present context it means something else. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Apparently there are two well known Fifth Freedoms. Air travel is the other one. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Jim.henderson: You're right! Communia reported in a previous article (which is also linked in the quote up above) that the European Council aimed to introduce a "fifth freedom" within the Single market framework for research, innovation, knowledge, and education. Oltrepier (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything (16,397 bytes · 💬)

• If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. Mhm. When I see a group of people talking bad about me, I'm totally going to join the hostile group to make my point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's hard to take criticisms seriously when they do so off site, considering we don't ban or block folks for criticizing anybody here. So long as it doesn't escalate to harassment anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  So, like most sentences in paragraph, this was not meant to be taken in isolation, unconnected from the rest of the paragraph it is part of. The very next sentence is If you don't want to do that, your remaining option is to let it go, not to start attacking them on-wiki. I would think we could agree on that? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is that better? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the whole point of that section is that WP and WPO operate under entirely different rules. I don't engage in the name calling or any of that, but it does happen. By and large there's nothing WP can do about it, so your remaining options would appear to be to engage over there to defend yourself, or just ignore it. What you shouldn't do is dirsupt WP over it, as certain persons rather noisily did late last year. If there's some other option, I'd love to hear it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think anyone who engages on a site that actively participates in doxxing and harassment ought to be blocked, but I recognize that's an outlier position. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Asserting that anyone who posts there de facto endorses every other post there is just as ridiculous as asserting that anyone who edits here agress with every other edit htta has ever been made. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, you're misunderstanding the argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies for neutrality, verifiability and against incivility. These policies are generally enforced pretty strongly; the community regularly excludes people who consistently ignore the policies. Wikipediocracy has no working enforced policy against malicious behavior that would lead to quick blocks and bans here. Associating oneself with Wikipedia by being active there and telling others about one's activities there is fine because Wikipedia is well-known for positive reasons. Associating oneself with Wikipediocracy by being active there and telling others about one's activities there does create an association with many negative behaviors that are prohibited in the Wikipedia community. You do not just participate there, you actively advocate for Wikipediocracy here on Wikipedia and repeatedly imply it's not as bad as others think and others should join it instead of criticizing it (for example using the words I quoted above). You contribute to the problem and deny responsibility, and you currently receive justified criticism in the place where you did so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  This, exactly. You articulated it miles better than I think I could. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't engage in the name calling or any of that, but it does happen. And do you push back against that and try to stop it? Or do you come here and write apologia about it? -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like this seriously downplays the doxxing and harassment that comes from WPO. They're so casual about dropping real life information that helps to identify users, particularly administrators, that they feel are not doing a good job or who they disagree with. While the site may have had good intentions to start with, it's a toxic tire fire that can't be taken seriously as a "criticism site" when it allows such conduct. By allowing such conduct the admins and mods on the site and endorsing said behaviour, and that's entirely not okay. Their actions and harassment have forced folks off the site, a notable recent example being GeneralNotability, the now former arb. Downplaying it is inappropriate when the main person who does so is protected and reports on the site go absolutely nowhere. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• I tried to write a few things, but reconsidered. I'll leave it simple: Beeblebrox, why did you think this was a good idea? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that Liliana has in the past, and very recently, been personally attacked on the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hence my comment. Beeblebrox enabled those people. I have no sympathy at all for him. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• So, a person might say something on WPO that they would never say here, because it would be outside policy to do so. This is not a crime, although in some extreme cases it could and should lead to on-wiki sanctions. That may be so, but those who wish to say such things on WPO should consider how it might affect community trust here. They should also know that the so-called "hidden forum" is anything but. Anything that might be pushed into the "hidden forum" should probably be kept to themselves if they want to maintain the community's trust. If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. I disagree with this statement. If an editor is going to an external forum specifically to bypass WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS in their criticism (which based on my observations seems to be a big reason people flock to WPO in the first place), it should absolutely be made known to the larger Wikipedian community. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's laughable behaviour that makes you the subject of a joke if you can't post your criticism on site considering we don't ban or block folks for criticism. They typically just want an echo chamber to complain based on feels. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons that an editor might want to take their criticism to WPO rather than Wikipedia, but I have yet to think of any. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  The legitimate reasons are typically they're indeffed for valid reasons or want an echo chamber. Those are, I suppose, valid reasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I suppose you're right, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the idea of editors in good standing, including admins, willingly associating themselves with the site. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out previously, ArbCom did not and cannot revoke someone's VRT access. The VRT administrators make their own decisions. There was no request made to the VRT admins to do anything about that access and so Beeblebrox claiming ArbCom revoked it remains incorrect. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Serious question: Then why is it that I can't log in? Somebody has to have done something, right? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

My entire point is that I don't know why you can't login because it had nothing to do with ArbCom. Ask the VRT admins. They're the ones who have the tools to have done something and so they would know how it came about. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede the point even though I can't imagine how their isn't some connection.

If I don't have access to the queues I used to, I'm not sure it's worth my trouble as all I could do is clear out the spam queue. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• A loss of trust is a loss of trust. If an editor were elected to a high-trust position, and followed up by not only breaching that trust, but by breaching it to divulge confidential information (even if not PII) to a den of indeffed hyenas who revel in harassment, then trust is breached in all forms, in all places. It's the same reasoning behind all the blacklisted sources at RSP: if the source posts fake news too many times, it's deprecated as a whole - never mind if it has a 100% accuracy while reporting the weather. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 02:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Natural justice says dispute resolvers must be unbiased and be perceived as being unbiased. Otherwise, editors feeling biased-against won't accept the Arbitration Committee's decisions. This is incompatible with full transparency, if you're being transparent about which editors you dislike. It is a higher standard than most editors, but is one the committee has made clear to you. You're a good editor, I voted for you in the past, and your actions don't conflict with being part of the Wikipedia community. But you can't be a committee member and say what you say. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Lol. Lmao, even. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Not entirely sure whether this is an apologetic on behalf of the author or others (or both). Either way, unfocused and distracted to the detriment of the essay, and as no real new argument was presented, this is a fairly low-quality op-ed, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wrote it as a user space essay several months ago. The Signpost asked if they could use it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Great op-ed, Beeblebrox. It was certainly worth saying. Not sure sure what all the subsequent apologetnika is about though. --SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 15:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• On the last section, Arbcom had ruled prior to your removal that misusing one functionary tool can lead to the removal of all functionary tools. Quoting from your support vote: "Being a functionary is a position of the utmost trust, and I simply do not trust their judgement anymore." II feel this applies in your case. Atavoidirc (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• For the record: I wrote this as a userspace essay back in October. The Signpost approached me and asked if they could publish it. I assumed this would be noted but was not watching it because I've been ill the last five days or so. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  If I was asked about the publication of one of my essays in the Signpost, I'd consider saying "no" if the essay was no longer something I'd publish in the Signpost with my name above it. Or if it hadn't been suitable nor meant for wider publication in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Then I applaud the Signpost for bringing this essay to light. The more eyes are drawn to the WPO issue, the better. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's been a very quiet issue that nobody knew about until today. Nobody has repeatedly made an incredible fuss about it, to the point where they needed to be sanctioned for their over-the-top hysterical behavior about it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that Signpost thinks this "people were mean to me when I was being a dick" rubbish is worthy of posting under their masthead. The discussions on WPO are often bullying, abusive and can include doxxing and even posting of pornographic images for the lolz. That anyone engaged in that thinks it should not affect how they are perceived and trusted here is frankly ludicrous; of course anyone involved in that sort of behaviour should lose their functionary privileges. That they seem to think people should be expected to go and run the gauntlet of that abuse rather than expect action to be taken against their abusers under the UCoC (and its predecessors) seems to me to be arrogant, self-centred privilege. One might say the same of this essay, frankly. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• RE: and even posting of pornographic images for the lolz — this in contradistinction to Commons, which posts pornographic images for science. El_C 04:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject (1,139 bytes · 💬)

Very thoughtful, thank you! Valereee (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I missed your re-admin vote, which I would have surely voted for, not that it would have made a difference. --rogerd (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I admire the author's thoughtful perspective on their experience. Not many people would admit to their own faults. Brave also to link to the Wikipediocracy forum topic, which gets sort of rough as it progresses.→StaniStani 10:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with above this was very thoughtful, and agree with Graham that copyediting should come right out of the Newcomer tasks given the issues it raises and how poorly _targeted it is. CMD (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent research: "Wikipedia editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality (401 bytes · 💬)

surely it would've been better as the Principedia Mathematica? Rexo (talk | contributions) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Traffic report: Was a long and dark December (1,428 bytes · 💬)

• How are people who were 8 months old when the Syrian Civil War began old enough to use Wikipedia? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • They'd be some 14-15 years old which is plenty old enough to edit constructively. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can use Wikipedia ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 02:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it not a serious BLP issue to call Mangione a murderer without a conviction? Sincerely, Dilettante 14:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I IAR changed the piece despite it already being published per BLPCRIME. Pinging User:Igordebraga, User:CanonNi, User:Shuipzv3, User:Vestrian24Bio, User:DementiaGaming, User:CAWylie. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)