Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2018

"Coverage about Wikipedia itself"

Hello, fellow editors. About the scope of this page. IMO, currently only the Haaretz and Tablet articles are actually "about Wikipedia itself", the rest doesn´t really belong, they are just passing mentions. Thoughts on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thought may be right. But as I reviewed the stories there's one important thing too. The line between news about Wikipedia itself and news about Wikipedia is blurry and almost impossible to strictly define, because almost any news piece about say " certain article" can both be rightly classified in "news about Wikipedia" and "news about Wikipedia content". Am I missing something? –Ammarpad (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is/will be grey areas with plenty of room for editorial discretion. Actually "Tablet" doesn´t really focus on WP, but IMO there´s "enough" WP in it. As a reader, I want more than "CNN mentioned us!" or "James Warren used WP as a simile!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the items on this page should go beyond mere mentions. Slightly off topic, but I think the WP:GNG spirit of demanding more than passing mention is applicable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed those I thought should be removed:[1][2][3][4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is WP:NOENG ok here?

Started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2017. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hellraiser/February, does it fit scope?

Darkknight2149 added "Review: 'Hellraiser: Judgment' Plays Like The Low-Budget 'Spawn' Reboot We've Been Promised"

I removed it, ES "removing this since it only mentions WP in passing"

He restored it, ES "Seems to meet the criteria on the main page. Also, the Wikipedia content serves as a reference to everything that entire paragraph, which can hardly be called a "passing reference". I'm not sure if "criteria on the main page" means "coverage about Wikipedia itself".

As I see it, this review is about the film, and the only thing about WP is one sentence, "Once you read the movie's Wikipedia page, which I presume was written by the filmmakers themselves, it's clear Tunnicliffe came up with a much larger mythology than he was able to fully convey onscreen", followed by a long quote from the WP-article. Therefore it doesn´t belong here, there´s to little about WP in it. I think it fits well on article-talk, though. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

An entire lengthy paragraph was devoted to the Wikipedia article, which informed the information in the review that followed. I would say that most definitely counts as coverage, which is what this page is for. DarkKnight2149 17:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Social Science Computer Review at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017

(Writing here since it involves both 2017 and 2018)

A few days ago, I came across Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Nice_writeup_on_editing_to_Circadian_rhythm_and_Circadian_clock_in_journal and thought it a good thing to add to "Press coverage". It's not the usual news article/news-coverage we see on these pages, but IMO scholarly/academic press fits well here too. Nature has occasionally made an appearance on these pages.

Soon I had found several journal-articles about WP from 2017-2018. The journals all had WP-articles that didn't raise any alarms with me, so I added them.

Two articles where from Social Science Computer Review (for those interested in such things, impact factor 2.293. Nature has 40.137 (2016)). One of those [5] was by Brian Martin (social scientist), who wrote about that time he wanted to edit the WP-article about himself. I haven't looked into the details, but apparently he encountered Guy/JzG who I imagine was firmly in favor of relevant WP-policies.

Shortly after my edits, this appeared: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JzG_should_be_topic-banned_from_any_mention_of_Brian_Martin. After that, Guy removed the Brian Martin article[6], ES "not news coverage". I asked him to reconsider, but he didn't buy my arguments. User_talk:JzG#Social_Science_Computer_Review_at_Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2017

Which brings us here, interested editors. I didn't buy his either: "It's not a news article, it's a non-news article in a minor journal, written by a subject complaining about editors of his article. We shouldn't really include that (for any value of article subject) unless there's wider coverage."

Guy is correct, but IMO it fits anyway since it's scholarly/academic press. It is indeed "written by a subject complaining about editors of his article". It may also be a crappy piece of scholarship, but as I see it the important point is that Social Science Computer Review thought it was good enough to publish.

No wider coverage is a weakness, though IMO not a fatal one (funnily enough, here's an article from The New Yorker that mentions both WP and Martin [7]). On the Press Coverage pages we have a Daily Mail article about WP:DAILYMAIL, and a Breitbart article about that WP/Facebook thing in April. We should have that. We also have other articles about those things, and we should really have that.

So, Wikipedians, re-insert or not? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The reasoning seems to be that because a certain template exists, it should always be used. That is wrong. Instead, any action should be performed only because it would be helpful. There is no need to record everything said about Wikipedia, and that particularly applies in the case in question. Promoting misguided off-wiki commentary on talk pages would not be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry the reasoning seems to be that. Oh well. And, being picky, Wikipedia:Press coverage 2017 is a project page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Brian Martin is an antixaver who doesn't like being called on being an antivaxer so wrote an article complaining that all these other people who are not antivaxers have much nicer articles. Along the way he also comlained about me, specifically. The article is a single-author paper in a minor journal and is not press coverage, has not received any significant notice other than from fellow griefers, and offers nothing of merit in discussing Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Verge article (WP and machine learning)

So the Verge did an article on how researchers are using machine learning to process thousands of online conversations to try to detect when an argument might happen. Their source for this conversation data? Wikipedia Talk Pages, of course.

The work comes from researchers at Cornell University, Google Jigsaw, and Wikimedia, who teamed up to create software that scans a conversation for verbal ticks and predicts whether it will end acrimoniously or amiably. Notably, the software was trained and tested on a hotbed of high-stakes discussion: the “talk page” on Wikipedia articles, where editors discuss changes to phrasing, the need for better sources, and so on.

• "Machine learning is helping computers spot arguments online before they happen". The Verge. Retrieved 2018-05-28.

Not sure how relevant it is, but I found it interesting and I thought I'd leave it here. — AfroThundr ^(t•c) 15:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, AfroThundr3007730. While I agree it's interesting, I wouldn't use it here since although it mentions WP, WP isn't the topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Does "Press coverage" include radio/TV from reliable news sources?

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, since you are the most active editor of this page, I'd appreciate your answer. In particular, I have in mind an episode—"The Mysterious Wikipedia Editor"—today on BBC World Service, the world's largest international broadcaster. In searching the archives (2001–2018), I found just two references to BBC World, both from 2011, only one of which cites a broadcast similar to the one I listed. KalHolmann (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann. it turns out we have a Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. I had no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Trade magazine

The June 2018 issue of Walls & Ceilings, a construction/architecture trade magazine, which I would consider a RS about walls and ceilings, quotes Wikipedia for the definition of a wall - which I find interesting/ironic. "If we were to ask ourselves what walls are really for, Wikipedia has a pretty simple definition: 'The purpose of walls in buldings are ...'" Does this belong here? MB 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Walls & Ceilings quotes two sentences from Wikipedia in passing in an article titled "Increase Energy Efficiency with ICFs." The source may be reliable, but this does not qualify as press coverage of Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Per your description, I'd say no, it's not about WP. In the past I have removed articles like [8] from this page. However, I think it fits in a "mediabox" at Talk:Wall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Thank you for your helpful response. I found the template {{press}} and added it to Talk:Wall. But that creates a "details" link back to this page. Since this page lists coverage about WP, I don't see how it provides any "details". Any idea of its intent? Maybe the link should be removed from {{press}}? MB 17:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

MB, Good question, but I'm afraid I don't have a good answer, I've ignored that detail myself. While there may be the intent of that template that "details" should always be here, that is not how it's used. It's often put only on the talkpage, possibly because the editor don't know/care about this page (not many look at it:[9]), or like in this instance, it doesn't really fit here (that's my own opinion anyway, and I seem to rule this page with a non-iron fist). Which, as you point out, make that link sometimes confusing/annoying.

Perhaps someone else has an answer, here or at Template talk:Press. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

And BTW, "Details"? Seems to me that in most cases when a media-article are mentioned in both places, this page would pretty much have the same info as the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa SångI think perhaps it is a mistake, although it's been that way for a long time. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2018 seems to be a better link. That provides some general information on WP as a "source". It also is a place to list WP as a "source", but as you say this info is more often placed only on the article talk page. I will propose on Template talk:Press that the link be changed from the "press coverage" page to "press source" page. I think the usage of the template has changed over the years. The oldest version of {{press}} from 2006 says it is used for coverage of WP, but the template now says it is for when an article is mentioned by the press. MB 18:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart

I often see entries added from it, please see its reputation at RSN and here. Is this something we should collect as press coverage? Considering their far-right stance, their coverage of Wikipedia is likely to only be criticism, exaggerations and even fake news (although some may point at actual events). I however understand that this is not for article-space content and that this project-page is subject to separate consensus about what is appropriate "press coverage". The above image, while not exact science, gives a pretty good summary of which papers are considered to reflect reliable journalism (including some on the left and right). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate, your first hyperlink leads to list of 55 archived Noticeboard discussions. Would you please tell us what overall consensus was reached as to whether or not to include Breitbart articles on the Wikipedia:Press coverage page? If no consensus was reached, please indicate which of the archives discussed this particular question.

Your second hyperlink leads to an image published by MediaBiasChart.com, which itself has never been cited as a source at Wikipedia. I'm unsure what weight to give this content.

Since you did not refer us to an existing Wikipedia policy or guideline instructing us to omit Breitbart from our Press Coverage list, I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. KalHolmann (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's an RSN archive; normally onus is on those who add content, I'll let them do their homework. Another RSN summary is part of WP:RSP. The Breitbart News article itself also has a lot of information with relevant sources. —PaleoNeonate – 07:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting this. Hmm so relevant policies would be WP:CONSENSUS as always even in project space, as necessary we could have an RFC. Also relevant may be WP:ONUS but also WP:RS and WP:PROMOTION (promoting here sources otherwise discouraged and divisive propaganda may be considered a type of soapboxing). I'll step back and wait for more input. —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, we want to keep track of what others, especially critics of Wikipedia, have written – partly to alert editors to the possibility of misinformation that needs correcting. Especially when the media refer to particular articles or groups of articles, a mention on this page may alert additional editors not only to address any legitimate concerns but also to monitor the relevant pages for changes or comments based on or motivated by partisan reporting. --Boson (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Breitbart has been included on these pages since at least 2015. As the editor who has added the most Breitbart to the 2018 page (because I so far edit this page more than anyone else [10]), I think it fits. The subject is press (whatever we can agree that means), not WP:RS, though the two can overlap. WP:RS talks about WP-articles, and this page is not exactly that. It has been pointed out to me in the past that policies like WP:OUTING etc can be relevant when considering inclusion.

Come to think of it, it may be that Breitbart writes about WP fairly often compared to other press.

As for WP:PROMOTION, I hope you accept that I no more intend to promote Breitbart than Haaretz or WaPo or other media I add. My purpose is to add press items that discuss WP, something I find generally interesting. Few of them have any deep understanding of how WP works, and many get details wrong.

Trying to exclude Breitbart, Daily Mail and what have you from these pages strikes me as bowdlerization and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I much prefer that we include this side of press as well. It exists and is a significant part. They can be interesting and even helpful, though perhaps not in the way the authors intend.

I've recently been in related discussions at my talkpage [11] and Talk:Sarah_Jeong/Archive_6#Pressbox/This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization,_again, which ended firmly in the no consensus. I can provide more, but they're mostly about the related "This article has been mentioned by a media organization". The Social Science Computer Review discussion above may be of interest.

So start an RFC if you think it's a good idea and I will make these arguments there. However, I don't think this page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia has many watchers, so it should probably be "advertised" in more places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, there's currently 5 Breitbart items on this page, including 3 from this month. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the input. In relation to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I admit that it's not the kind of sources I read, but if it was my only concern I would not have opened this discussion. I've not mentioned the Daily Mail, but their editorial stance has obviously been anti-Wikipedia since the RFC. Breitbart articles also tend to criticize and attempt to divide (not only Wikipedia, anything that's not in their bubble). There are very good reasons not to use those sources in articles and seeing those being collected here raised concerns. Although I was aware that you added some, I've not mentioned you, because I'm confident that if those were also discouraged on this very page by consensus, you would most likely not add them (no such consensus exists for that at current time). I find that some arguments you both raised are convincing. For WP:BLP implications, this could be true of any source. It also makes sense that some may like to keep track of what popular topics and pages need improvement or patrolling. I don't think that an RFC is needed, unless there's eventually more input against the inclusion of sources that are generally considered unreliable. Afterall I'm maintaining an old community list of books on pseudoscience topics and that doesn't mean that I'm promoting them. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 13:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I reject @PaleoNeonate:'s suggestion that including Breitbart constitutes WP:PROMOTION. Over the past 90 days, this page has attracted a daily average of just 16 views. Why would @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, who claims to have added the most Breitbart to the 2018 page, or any other sane editor consider this a good soapbox from which to spread divisive propaganda? The idea is absurd. KalHolmann (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention in singling out any editors about this. Per my previous comment I now consider reasonable their inclusion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, pingees PaleoNeonateKalHolmannBoson and anyone interested. I just attempted to add a new Breitbart piece (nope, not on talkpages either), but such url:s are now blocked/blacklisted. The "problem" can be seen as minor, I added it without url, interested people will have to do their own googling. What I'd like your view on is if it is worth the bother to argue for some sort of exemption for this page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You can add a shortened link without the https, and the software won't recognize it as a website. GMG^talk 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GreenMeansGo, did you mean like in this version [12]? Check at Adler, T.D. (October 3, 2018). It doesn't look that great. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You'd have to manually craft the reference and add the link as plain text, like bit.ly/2yfQktp. The cite template freaks out otherwise. GMG^talk 17:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm, can not unfreak the template, I am no genius on these. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Fish and karate, hello! You closed the rfc at WP:BREITBART, which doesn't mention any blacklisting (not in your close anyway). Has there been a new rfc or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Individual links can be whitelisted, but I'm not sure if certain pages can be. Pinging Beetstra and MER-C who have more experience with spam protection measures. —PaleoNeonate – 18:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: it was blacklisted due to uncontrollable abuse after the RfC. While we do not blacklist on being unreliable alone, we blacklist on gross misuse/abuse, especially if there is strong backing that it is anunreliable source - our threshold becomes lower at the abuse site.

Yes, individual pages can be whitelisted, and that is likely the only thing we will whitelist here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thanks for the reply. I meant individual remote pages per "individual links" and Wikipedia pages by "certain pages". I assume that the latter is then not possible and that this means only specific Breitbart articles can be whitelisted as above? If so, Gråbergs Gråa Sång: this means that since it's on the local blacklist (see the spam report and its addition), individual link whitelist requests would need to be made here. —PaleoNeonate – 08:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, "no url" seems the easier way to go. However, I think it could be helpful to make an addition to WP:BREITBART, something like "Because X, links to Breitbart has also been blacklisted." I'll suggest it at that page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Yes, the source can then be used all through Wikipedia, but it seems strange that a source that is usable on subject A will also be suitable for subject B - it's use will be very limited, and easy to monitor.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: - for good sources it is better to go through whitelisting. A reference without a link is more difficult to check, and may easier be challenged (especially 'since it is on the blacklist'). Also, if the page gets caught in conflicts with vandalism edits, it may happen that one is not able to revert to a good version (reverting on a removal is not considered a new insertion, and will not be blocked). For what is currently on Breitbart and one other page with multiple links, I would simply take these links that are currently there, strip off all http:// from the front, and throw them in one single request 'these x for Breitbart and these y for ...'. It is just a formality (I will press my magic button without questions as soon as I see it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Beetstra. Personally I have only used Breitbart on this page and talkpages. This page has been relatively conflict-free, but I'll try to remember this if it becomes relevant. If I understand you correctly, the current links to Breitbart will remain on the "Press coverage" pages if noone tampers with them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they can stay there, people can edit the rest of the page without any problem. The problem is just if someone tampers with them that in rare occasions things cannot be reverted to the original state anymore (and therefore, it is better to whitelist to avoid that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Digital Humanities Now, recent addition

KalHolmann and anyone interested. Per their about-page [13]:

"DHNow aggregates potential content via RSS from our list of subscribed feeds, which includes hundreds of venues where high-quality digital humanities scholarship is likely to appear, such as the personal websites of scholars, institutional sites, blogs, and other feeds—and is open for anyone to join."

This gives me a sense of blogishness/selfpublishedness. Also, less important but it's an indicator I use, they don't have a WP-article. So I'm currently thinking we should exclude it, are you ok with that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I hesitated for the same reason before adding it. However, I noted their claim that "Digital Humanities Now is an experimental, edited publication that highlights and distributes informally published digital humanities scholarship and resources from the open web." (Emphasis added.) It seemed to me that "edited" made it an acceptable source. Additionally, they explain:

• The aggregated material is reviewed, nominated, and discussed directly in our WordPress installation using our own PressForward plugin. Each week volunteer Editors-at-Large use the plugin to survey the incoming content from both our subscribed feeds and their own networks and nominate content for broader dissemination through DHNow.
• Next, a rotating Editor-in-Chief selects content for publication on DHNow. Our site manager then creates a brief post on DHNow, and links back to the original content in order to direct attention and conversation to the creator.
• Editors-in-Chief are research faculty and graduate students at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

Nevertheless, I defer to your greater experience and keen eye, and have reverted my addition. Thanks for discussing it here. KalHolmann (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle

KalHolmann Well, at least we weren't told that all the players died last year ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wired Magazine

Daylen, per [14], did an issue of Wired really have 842 pages? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: No, the magazine only had 124 pages; however, the page number is 842 (it's the 42nd page of the magazine). Not sure why they start the page number with an 8, but I have the issue right in front of me. Daylen (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's issue/month nr 8? Anyway, I don't know any WP chapter and verse on this, so I won't change it. Just mildly confusing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times

If someone on the other side of the great firewall of EU wants to read and add this[15], please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)