Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-12/In the media: Difference between revisions
Smallbones (talk | contribs) →In brief: why doesn't "Bill Ackman on X" stay put? |
Smallbones (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
{{highlight|'''Optional''': write a lede — not necessarily a [[WP:LEAD]]. Interesting > encyclopedic.}} |
{{highlight|'''Optional''': write a lede — not necessarily a [[WP:LEAD]]. Interesting > encyclopedic.}} |
||
=== |
==="As biased as the BBC"=== |
||
The UK [[Telegraph (newspaper)|Telegraph]] [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/27/wikipedia-biased-bbc-how-left-took-platform/ analyzes] David Rozado's paper [https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased ''Is Wikipedia Politically Biased?''] which can be viewed as answering with a qualified "yes". The study was covered in ''The Signpost'' on July 4 by Tilman Bayer, who answered the same question with a qualified "perhaps". The Telegraph respectfully(word choice?) cites Bayer's article, but that's as close as they get to a neutral point of view. |
|||
[[De finibus bonorum et malorum|Sed ut perspiciatis]], unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam eaque ipsa, quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt, explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem, quia voluptas sit, aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos, qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt, neque porro quisquam est, qui do<nowiki/>[[lorem ipsum]], quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit. |
|||
Much of the rest of the article quotes UK conservatives on why they think that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. [[Toby Young]] says |
|||
{{Signpost inline quote |
|||
| text = "My own Wikipedia entry looks like it’s been written by [Left-wing commentator] Owen Jones," says Toby Young, the director of the [[Free Speech Union]]. "I used to check it from time to time and painstakingly remove all the inaccuracies that had been introduced since the last time I’d looked, but I’ve now given up." |
|||
| by = |
|||
| source = |
|||
}} |
|||
Tory [[Jacob Rees-Mogg]] says he is "not surprised" by Rozado's results, "I have always thought of Wikipedia as if it were the BBC: often useful but not impartial." |
|||
[[Nigel Farage]] of [[Reform UK]] is quoted saying "There’s an inherent liberal bias in all of these sites. Whether it’s old-fashioned stuff like Wikipedia or newer sites like ChatGPT, it all has a huge bias – and that’s why it’s an absolute joy that Elon Musk’s bought X to give it a bit of balance." |
|||
work in progress. Include othr article? |
|||
=== Institutional capture from organized editing groups and other problems noted with genocide articles, again === |
=== Institutional capture from organized editing groups and other problems noted with genocide articles, again === |
||
Revision as of 21:25, 29 November 2024
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE
Optional: write a lede — not necessarily a WP:LEAD. Interesting > encyclopedic.
"As biased as the BBC"
The UK Telegraph analyzes David Rozado's paper Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? which can be viewed as answering with a qualified "yes". The study was covered in The Signpost on July 4 by Tilman Bayer, who answered the same question with a qualified "perhaps". The Telegraph respectfully(word choice?) cites Bayer's article, but that's as close as they get to a neutral point of view.
Much of the rest of the article quotes UK conservatives on why they think that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Toby Young says
"My own Wikipedia entry looks like it’s been written by [Left-wing commentator] Owen Jones," says Toby Young, the director of the Free Speech Union. "I used to check it from time to time and painstakingly remove all the inaccuracies that had been introduced since the last time I’d looked, but I’ve now given up."
Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "not surprised" by Rozado's results, "I have always thought of Wikipedia as if it were the BBC: often useful but not impartial."
Nigel Farage of Reform UK is quoted saying "There’s an inherent liberal bias in all of these sites. Whether it’s old-fashioned stuff like Wikipedia or newer sites like ChatGPT, it all has a huge bias – and that’s why it’s an absolute joy that Elon Musk’s bought X to give it a bit of balance."
work in progress. Include othr article?
Institutional capture from organized editing groups and other problems noted with genocide articles, again
- See prior Signpost coverage links: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-09-04/In the media#In brief, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-08-14/In the media#Conservative Jewish media criticize Wikipedia and Wikimedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/In the media
"Wikipedia editors include Palestine in genocide of indigenous peoples article": A report by The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles includes the editing of at least one editor who is a party to the new Israel-Palestine case opened by Arbcom, which we reported on in issue 16.
In a National Post op-ed by Neil Seeman and Jeff Ballabon titled Wikipedia has it out for Israel, and we've got the data to prove it", the authors say their data-driven analysis found biases [that] contradict the spirit of a "wiki" — an ethos of bottom-up collaboration and respect expressed toward all its volunteer editors. These biases include: elite theory bias, that is, a preference for academic sources over grassroots knowledge; high-contributor frequency bias (disproportionate influence of frequent editors); citation gaming (strategic use of citations to push particular viewpoints); temporal bias (over-representation of recent events or perspectives); institutional capture systematic bias (from organized editing groups); language complexity bias (use of complex language to obscure bias); and source selectivity bias (selective choice of sources to support particular views).
– B
In brief
- Art models life training art, imitating life: Infinite Craft, a sandbox game, allows the creation of an in-game "Wikipedia" (Game Rant [1]). In an odd bit of life imitating art recursion, the game is based on a Meta's Llama large language model, and Llama was in turn trained on Wikipedia.
- The US politics-driven vandalism is just beginning: A vandalism edit that lived for all of one minute was reported on by Live Mint: [2]. Bill Ackman, who had trouble with the meaning of "plagiarism", took the one minute example of potty-talk as enough evidence to post on X
Wikipedia is a disaster. It purports to be an objective source of the world’s knowledge, and in reality it is a propaganda machine funded by unwitting citizen donors.
Let’s bring back the Encyclopedia Britannica.
— Bill Ackman on X
- Actually, Bill, Encyclopedia Britannica has never gone away. You can access it at Britannica.com. It costs less than $75 per year.
- WikiEd–Mellon collab: Look It Up: Humanities Students are Filling Wikipedia’s Content Gaps, Mellon Foundation
- Subtitle: [more on article manipulation from EU Reporter I might withdraw this, something looks funny regarding the article Donald Trump and fascism "published six days before the US elections" and ...
- Fourteen reading rollercoasters: Comic Sands summarizes a Reddit thread about Wikipedia articles that take you on a rollercoaster. The top 14 were Colonel Sanders, Jerrie Cobb, Jack Parsons, Shi Pei Pu, Michael Angelo Aquino, Juan Pujol García, Julie d'Aubigny, Arthur Rimbaud, Northern Calloway, Jake Weber, and Tarrare, 1904 Olympic marathon, Jim Thorpe (the world's greatest athlete, not the borough), and Roy Sullivan. What's a reading rollercoaster, you ask? All of the biographies have lots of ups and downs and will occasionally turn your stomach. Text text text.
- Subtitle: Text text text.
- Subtitle: Text text text.
- Subtitle: Text text text.
- Subtitle: Text text text.
This page is a draft for the next issue of the Signpost. Below is some helpful code that will help you write and format a Signpost draft. If it's blank, you can fill out a template by copy-pasting this in and pressing 'publish changes': {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}}
Images and Galleries
|
|---|
To put an image in your article, use the following template (link):  I understand the primacy of pure feeling in creative art. This will create the file on the right. Keep the 300px in most cases. If writing a 'full width' article, change
Placing (link) will instead create an inline image like below  The significant thing is feeling, as such, quite apart from the environment in which it is called forth.
To create a gallery, use the following Each line inside the tags should be formatted like
If you want it centered, remove t |
.jpg)
Quotes
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
To insert a framed quote like the one on the right, use this template (link): If writing a 'full width' article, change
To insert a pull quote like
use this template (link):
To insert a long inline quote like
use this template (link): |
Side frames
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Side frames help put content in sidebar vignettes. For instance, this one (link): gives the frame on the right. This is useful when you want to insert non-standard images, quotes, graphs, and the like.
A caption
For example, to insert the {{Graph:Chart}} generated by in a frame, simple put the graph code in to get the framed Graph:Chart on the right. If writing a 'full width' article, change |
Two-column vs full width styles
|
|---|
|
If you keep the 'normal' preloaded draft and work from there, you will be using the two-column style. This is perfectly fine in most cases and you don't need to do anything. However, every time you have a However, you can also fine-tune which style is used at which point in an article. To switch from two-column → full width style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. To switch from full width → two-column style midway in an article, insert where you want the switch to happen. |
Links and such
|
|---|
By the way, the template that you're reading right now is {{Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue}} (edit). A list of the preload templates for Signpost articles can be found here. |
Discuss this story
As the title is a quote from a politician with an agenda, it should not be in WP’s voice. With out it in quote marks, with appropriate inline attribution, or choose a different title. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]It was not really in The Signpost's voice since it was in quotes.It definitely was not in Wikipedia's voice. To tell you the truth, I more or less agree with the quote: Wikipedia is very useful, and if folks want to say that we have a bias something like the BBC's, that's ok with me. Everybody has some "bias" and if ours is comparable to the BBC's, we've done a pretty good job minimizing bias.Since I am being mentioned: I think this Signpost story could have been a bit clearer in summarizing what the Telegraph and GB News were citing me/the Signpost for, namely as leveling "accusations of bias" against Rozado's report itself - although that's also not quite what I actually said in the review:
As laid out in the review, I think it's worth taking the report seriously, but also - like with various other research that is being perceived as showing incontrovertible evidence of Wikipedia being biased against various groups (like conservatives here) - one may want to retain some healthy skepticism about causality claims. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC) (Tilman)[reply]
Describing people who deny science, reality, and facts as denying science, reality, and facts is not bias. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"DataStax and WMDE"