- 1 isn't is ridiculous: COMMUNICATIONS chairperson with no active talk page?
- 2 ComCom/Notify page locked
- 3 Essjay controversy
- 4 Southampton controversy
- 5 Newsweek article
- 6 Errors in Newsday Article
- 7 126.96.36.199/Barry Bonds
- 8 Indian Grand Prix
- 9 OTRS ticket number 2006082710007408
- 10 Wikipedia incorrectly mentioned.
- 11 Block of CBS
- 12 Vandalism concerning articles on members of the British Government
- 13 OTRS
- 14 Error in AlterNet article
- 15 Media errors.
- 16 Other.
isn't is ridiculous: COMMUNICATIONS chairperson with no active talk page?
isn't is ridiculous: COMMUNICATIONS chairperson with no active talk page? Tobias Conradi 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
ComCom/Notify page locked
why is the notification page locked?
- Because Tobias Conradi kept vandalising it. See the page history. Angela 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- thank you very much. It is really bad if people vandalise. Is there no anti-vandal unit here? Or a page with more info about vandalism? Definition, causes etc.
The above statement by w:Angela Beeslay is a false claim, or maybe even a lie, made in an attempt to defame Tobias Conradi. She herself was removing and censoring content on the ComCom notify page. She seems to have a problem with truth and transparency, but seems not to have one with corruption. Is she covering corruption within the Wikimedia Foundation? Tobias Conradi 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Several of us have become a touch perturbed by inaccuracies in the media coverage of the Essjay brouhaha. Articles such as Catherine Elsworth's in the Telegraph say that Essjay "contributed to an estimated 20,000 Wikipedia entries." A moment's inquiry with Interiot's edit-counter tool shows how severely this misrepresents the facts. Yes, he made roughly 20,000 total edits, but only 1400 of them were to actual articles (as opposed to Talk pages, AfD and so forth). Furthermore, even counting non-article pages, his edits touched less than 6,000 pages, and only three articles received ten or more edits apiece.
The Associated Press has run a widely distributed article which says, in part,
- In addition to contributing thousands of articles to the sprawling Web encyclopedia, Jordan had recently been promoted to arbitrator, a position for trusted members of the community. Arbitrators can overrule an edit made by another volunteer or block people who abuse the site.
Not only does this repeat the "thousands of articles" confusion, it also shows ignorance of what administrators and Arbitration Committee members actually do, not to mention muddling the basic facts of Wikipedian editing practices. Any user can "overrule an edit made by another volunteer"; blocking is the function reserved for administrators. It is foolish to expect any news reporter — even one whose "beat" is the software world — to know such facts offhand, but any competent investigation should reveal them post-haste.
I, personally, am not concerned with "clearing Jordan's name". It's the shoddy reporting of what should be basic facts which gets me.
— Blake Stacey, editing from 188.8.131.52 03:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message; as expected, there have, inevitably, been many media inaccuracies in the recent press coverage. The press people (the vast majority who are all volunteers) have been working tirelessly to contact the authors and have the errors and misleading statements corrected, and several articles have already been fixed. I believe both the Associated Press and Reuters, primary news sources, have already been contacted, and we're in the process of setting up a system with Reuters for the future, I think. Thanks again for taking the time to point this out; we're completely in agreement with you about the inaccuracies. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
On Wikipedia's Southampton, Houston, Texas article - A small controversy has brewed over the removal of a blog link.
Please cite some of the reasons why editors removed the blog link.
The news story is at http://www.examinernews.com/articles/2007/03/07/west_university/news/news05.txt. - WhisperToMe
- There's a similar post at Communications committee/Notifications#Please respond to local Houston controversy about a Wikipedia article, where I've commented. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the inaccuracies in this article, which states Wikipedia has 2.6 billion articles and that Jimbo Wales only has three staffers. I think the ComCom should inform them of the facts. Messedrocker 03:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- There probably were only 3 staffers in 2006-01-09. Another mistake: "foundation made registration mandatory for contributors", which should include "who wish to create brand new articles". -- Jeandré, 2007-03-23t19:33z
Errors in Newsday Article
Newsday in its April 17, 2007 issue focused on saying Wikipedia was wrong about Long Island in various articles. I just spot checked one of them which was the Montauk Point Lighthouse and Newsday is wrong in saying Wikipedia reported that the lighthouse in 1792. The articles through all their iterations have correctly placed the date as 1796. This is a huge error that is very embarrassing to Newsday's point -- especially since Newsday via its reporter and SIX contributors tried to say Wikipedia was getting it wrong in the description of what is probably the most iconic structure on Long Island.
- Williams, Stephen, "Consider the source As a matter of fact, Wikipedia isn't always right on LI", Newsday, Tribune Company, April 17, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
- Article by Williams and six contributors about errors in Wikipedia on coverage of Long Island. The article mentions the rise of Citizendium. The sidebar discusses specific problems with Wikipedia articles on Long Island. Among the mistakes cited was Montauk Point Lighthouse which the article says Wikipedia lists "having been completed in 1792, which Newsday stories show was finished in 1796." A review of the The Montauk Point Lighthouse Wikipedia history shows that the Wikipedia article has always correctly reported the 1796 date and that Newsday is incorrect in the assertion.
184.108.40.206 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
220.127.116.11 has repeatedly vandalized en:Barry Bonds today. The IP belongs to the Texas Legislative Council, which appears to be an official arm of the Texas Legislature. Uncertain of the proper action to take since it appears to be governmental, I blocked the IP for 15 minutes for the time being (even though I would have ordinarily blocked for 24 hours). Please provide guidance on en:User talk:Nlu. Thanks. (Will be cross-posted to en:WP:ANI. --Nlu 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Indian Grand Prix
"The first Formula One race in India will be in 2009"
This statement has not been confirmed and the article has been posted as if it is. The cited link also mentions "the possibility" and not surety of India hosting a Formula 1 race. The content is still in the air as nothing is on paper. As of May 14th 2007, India is not on the official F1 roster for 2009.
OTRS ticket number 2006082710007408
An image was tagged for speedy deletion over at the English Wikipedia because it was a non-free image with no fair use rationale, and because the content on the image could be replaceable. However, I noticed on the talk page, w:Image talk:Victoria falls.jpg, that there was a mention that the image has proper use permission on record with Wikimedia under OTRS ticket number 2006082710007408. I am writing to confirm that and to see if any licensing tags for the image need to be changed based on this information. I am skeptical because the site http://www.seebeforeyoudie.net doesn't seem plausibly the copyright holder. Thanks for any help in this matter.-Andrew c 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia incorrectly mentioned.
Refugee tribunal hit for relying on Wikipedia, The Australian, 2007-07-20. The story is about Armeniapedia, which runs MediaWiki, but so far as I can tell, is not related to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. I sent in a correction, but perhaps the communications committee would like to do so as well. Grendelkhan 20:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Block of CBS
I've blocked en:User:18.104.22.168, an IP registered to CBS Inc. for vandalism on Lou Dobbs. The block lenght is 1 month due to the number of previous blocks. I did not block account creation due to a a previous entry in the block log, indicating that that was removed in an earlier block due to OTRS Ticket#:2007080110018229. Mr.Z-man 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism concerning articles on members of the British Government
The Sun newspaper, the paper with the largest circulation in the UK, printed an article on 24 August about vandalism to articles: . It says that "False criminal records were inserted into MPs’ pen portraits — along with claims of drug abuse, alcoholism and links to unpopular causes" but I've looked at the articles' edit histories and cannot find anything of this sort. The article also says the source of the vandalism is from one of the government departments itself. Grateful if someone could look into this further and send a letter to their editor if necessary. Yours, a friend
Hi, I've just spent the last twenty minutes or so trying to figure out how to submit something to OTRS, asserting licensing for a specific picture. Can somebody enlighten me? And, isn't there a way this can be documented more prominently (say, at w:WP:OTRS?) -Peteforsyth 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Error in AlterNet article
I was given the link to the following article: Will Unethical Editing Destroy Wikipedia's Credibility?. One basis for the author's premise is that Wikipedia's NPOV will be ensured by "undisputed facts equal neutrality which leads to truth." I am not sure if this is something you would want to "correct" since the author appears to have deliberately ignored the true foundation for NPOV, and how that policy interacts with the other policies. Just a heads up. --22.214.171.124 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Attribution: Wikimedia images in Vogue Knitting
Hi, I was delighted and grateful to see that Vogue Knitting International, perhaps the premier knitting magazine, took notice of our Wikipedia articles in their latest issue; see en:Wikipedia:Press_coverage#October for a few more details. It was a relatively small mention in a relatively small article (roughly 1/4 of page 12), but it was thrilling nonetheless. :)
The fly in the ointment is that two images from the Commons were used to illustrate the article without attribution or repetition of the GFDL license, Image:Knitting.jpg and Image:Pink knitting in front of pink sweatshirt.JPG. Is that sort of thing customary? I wouldn't want to upset anything, but it doesn't seem quite fair not to credit the people who made those images. I looked to see if maybe they credited them elsewhere in the magazine, but I haven't found it as yet. :( Anyway, I thought you all would know what was customary and how to deal with something like this better than me; thanks! WillowW 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you don't get any response from ComCom, you may wish to bring this up on the public Wikimedia Commons mailing list: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l. Cbrown1023 talk 03:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Benton County Record erroneously cites Wikipedia
I ran across a December 3, 2007 article in the Benton County Daily Record (an Arkansas newspaper) that cites Wikipedia in the following paragraph:
- "Paganism can be traced to the Romani people, an ethnic group living in many communities all over the world, according to Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia states that the Roma are among the best known ethnic groups that appear in literature and folklore and are often referred to as gypsies. The Roma originally traveled the globe, spreading their beliefs and conducting what are today known as tarot and palm readings."
The second sentence and most of the third are taken directly from en:Romani people, but the first is nowhere to be found in either that article or en:Paganism (and thank the gods, because it strikes me as wildly inaccurate). I ran through the articles and can't even find a reference to Paganism in the Romani people article, or a reference to the Roma in Paganism. I have no idea where the journalist found this tidbit, but if it was on Wikipedia I'd really like to know where it is so I can fix it. (en:User:AdelaMae)
BBC confuses foundation and Wikia.
"Mr Wales reiterated his commitment to keeping the Wikimedia Foundation free of corporate sponsorship, and of major donors who might want control of online information. [...] The foundation is, however, expanding into the search function, with July's announcement of the Wikia search facility" -- Coleman, Alistair. 2007-12-07. Students 'should use Wikipedia'
The Economist claims 1,000 elite Wikipedians control article deletions
"...decisions whether to keep or delete articles are made after deliberations by Wikipedia's most ardent editors and administrators (the 1,000 or so most active Wikipedia contributors). Imagine you have just created a new entry, consisting of a few words. If a member of the Wikipedia elite believes that your submission fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, it may be nominated for “speedy” deletion—in other words, removed right away—or “regular” deletion, which means the entry is removed after five days if nobody objects. (To avoid deletion or vandalism, many highly controversial articles, such as the entries on the Holocaust, Islam, terrorism or Mr Bush, can be “locked” to prevent editing or removal.)
"If your article is selected for deletion, you may choose to contest the decision, in which case you may be asked to provide further information. There is also a higher authority with the ultimate power to rule in controversial cases: the Arbitration Committee, which settles disputes that the administrators cannot resolve."
Financial Post disparages Wikipedia editors
An article on the Financial Post Comment page suggests that some Wikipedia editors intentionally trivialize content in order to advance partisan positions. Examples of deliberately fraudulent statements are given, and the FP states that this appears to be intentional in order to advance an opinion or point of view. It is reported that scientists who are misquoted or misrepresented are not permitted to correct the misrepresentations by Wikipedia editors
"Financial Post; Comment", 2008-04-28, p. FP19. .
The report also states that Wikipedia editors advancing a point of view are organized to rapidly delete dissenting comments. 126.96.36.199 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Did ComCom request the deletion of en:Image:Giveit.jpg (and related images)? It's being claimed this was the case, and the suggestion of foundation involvement in intervening against users in good standing being allowed to express themselves on their userpages is something that should probably be responded to. Random832 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Two ComCom members have already told you that they were doing it on behalf of ComCom. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Are you serious? There's nothing to do with "expressing themselves on their userpages". You have an image that links to the donate page, using words like "us" and "We" (purporting to be from the foundation) saying "Give us your fucking money." That's absolutely unacceptable for anyone to undermine the foundation's fundraising efforts, or to portray the foundation in a bad light like that. Swatjester 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)