The Washington Post, the most widely circulated newspaper in the U.S. capital, published several insightful pieces about Wikipedia in the space of a few days.
Gebelhoff acknowledged that Wikipedia does suffer at times from the "mean-spiritedness seen in the darker corners of the Internet" (likeFacebook andTwitter), but focused on the benefits that can accrue when ideologically opposed Wikipedia editors talk through their differences as they construct articles. He observed that while Wikipedia does not strive to be an "experiment in democracy", it has an "essentially democratic" characteristic. (Oct. 19)
Chris Alcantara of theWashington Post described Wikipedia editors' efforts to select the best images to depict U.S. presidential nominees.
Chris Alcantara dove into the particulars in yet another piece, "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates’ Wikipedia pages." Describing Wikipedia as producing what amounts to an "election guide", Alcantara summarized Wikipedia editors' efforts to choose the most appropriate photos to illustrate articles on U.S. presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and presented graphics summarizing the frequency of edits to a number of presidential candidates' Wikipedia biographies, in several election cycles. The article featured interviews with several Wikipedia editors.
Hillary Clinton article vandalized more than usual: Aswidelyreportedin the media, the article onHillary Clinton (as well as the one onBill Clinton) was briefly vandalized on October 13. Though the vandalism was reverted within minutes (according to an official Wikipedia statement), and subsequently oversighted, the fact that it contained female nudity and text saying her election would mean nuclear war caught wide attention. (Oct 13)
Not so neutral!:The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank,posted an article on the same day as the firstWashington Post piece above calling Wikipedia "broken, biased, and corrupt". Their primary concern appears to be editing disputes over the Institute's own article, which is part of a long-running debate. (Oct 19)
Are you ready for some football?: Englishfootball magazineFourFourTwohighlighted four Wikipedia editors who keep football (soccer to Americans) pages up to date. (Oct 19)
Wikipedia is not Wikileaks: Democratic member of CongressSheila Jackson Leemistakenlyblamed Wikipedia instead ofWikiLeaks for the recent release ofemails from the Hillary Clinton campaign. The two organizations are completely unrelated, as one can see from reading the WikiLeaks article. Just a regular slip of the tongue, it appears. (Oct. 22)
Area politician article vandalized: Unlike the Hillary Clinton article, where vandalism was quickly reverted, a New York state legislator's article was vandalized to say he "has been on the public dole for more than three decades", and this edit was not caught for almost three days, asreported by local media. (Seediff.) The article appears to average only50 views per day, so the delay in being caught, though regrettable, does not seem surprising. (Oct 22).
Paid editing to go:The Registerspotted a car in London with full-coverage advertising for paid BLP reputation services. (Oct 24)
Anonymous edits from political staffers: In Australia, "The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has ordered the heads of the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health, Agriculture and Parliamentary Services departments to urgently investigate possible breaches of government IT policy and report back in a week."An investigation was launched after discovery that public servants and staffers had made "tens of thousands" of Wikipedia edits. Some were mildly amusing or otherwise innocuous, but others were offensive and potentially embarrassing to public officials. (Oct. 26)
Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in theNewsroom or contact theeditor.
The photos of both candidates were chosen for the Clinton and Trump biographies; theWashington Post reprinted them (among others) in order to highlight why these ones were chosen. We republished the same ones, not to make our own independent editorial judgment, but to represent what has been chosen (thus far) by Wikipedians. As of now, the same lead photos remain on both bios, suggesting some stability. -Pete Forsyth (talk)03:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope Trump gets a better photo when he takes office. Of course the intention will be to give him a dignified portrait, but I can't picture how that will look at this point.—Vchimpanzee • talk •contributions •20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article onHillary Clinton was also vandalized earlier although I have seen no comment on it in the previous Signpost or anywhere else. I saw it on my cell phone right after midnight (US-EST), after the VP debate, which was Oct. 4. The article was obscured by a slick image (I could see the list of languages faintly underneath it.) It showed a pornographic image of a woman having a device applied to her. There was some text attacking gay and transgender people, referred to in offensive terms. Then an exhortation to aid the Trump campaign.SeoMac (talk)05:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost is written by editors like you –join in!
.jpg)
