Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2019

For the non-EU people

This Matt Rhule's Wikipedia page edited to call him "the head football ... is forbidden to me, but if anyone wants to read it and add it, please do. On the plus-side, I've noticed that Los Angeles Times no longer seems to be blocked for the EU-people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocks can usually be bypassed using the internet archive (https://archive.org/web) or sometimes Google's cache (add 'cache:' in front of the url in the search box). Baffle☿gab 19:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Tsumikiria, I'd like to remove this one, IMO there's not enough WP in it, just a passing mention. Please see my earlier arguments on this at Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#"Coverage_about_Wikipedia_itself" and Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Trade_magazine. Per the second link, I think it fits well on Talk:Jacob Wohl though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I didn't feel it was entirely needed either. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC Announce : Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Standard for inclusion

What is the standard for inclusion on this page. Does the source have to meet RS, or are unreliable sources included, too (deprecated sources, personal blogs, social media...)? I would presume the former? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's a projectpage, and it says "Please list coverage about Wikipedia itself here, by month." Presumably it should be coverage in what editors can agree is "press" per title of page. My understanding is that we try to separate it from Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in books, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in press releases etc. Of course there are gray-areas. A point I personally use is "does the "press" have a WP-article that doesn't look bloody awful (and says "blog")?" It's not perfect but it's something. I generally don't add "press" without WP-articles. I read "Wikipedia" to mean any-language WP or the foundation. In practice, this mostly means "news", but I'll happily add for example Vogue (magazine) or Journal of Biological Rhythms.

Per for example WP:BREITBART and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail they can both be primary sources even in WP-articles, but these pages are not WP-articles. Of course editors could make a forbidden-list if there's consensus, it's projectspace and nothing stops that. WP:RS is about articles, and there is a tolerance for non-RS links and whatever outside mainspace. Of course WP:BLP and other policies apply but linking a DM-article about WP is not by default against WP:BLP. Relevant discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Breitbart and perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Social_Science_Computer_Review_at_Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2017.

I consider it current consensus per this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#"Coverage_about_Wikipedia_itself" that we don't include articles that only mentions WP in passing, like [1] (fits well as "This article has been mentioned by a media organization" on a talkpage though).

Here is a discussion on non-english press: Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2017#Is_WP:NOENG_ok_here?. For disclosure, I'm responsible for 75% of the edits on this page and 65% of the edits on the 2018 page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't see paywalled or off-line (rare but see [2]) as a problem for inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia talk:Press coverage 2017#Evolution News & Science Today, if I remember the material was not included since I objected, but there was no existing consensus to not use material like Discovery Institute blogs. (If there's a particular entry one objects to, it's of course subject to consensus too.) —PaleoNeonate – 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, here's the rest of it: Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_85#Recent_attempts_to_add_a_"pressbox"_on_this_talkpage (and a little more [3]). It took some doing, but Souza et al made me see it as a blog. They really liked writing about WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This one is similar too Talk:Acupuncture/Archive_31#This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_multiple_media_organizations-BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Reddit? Seriously?

See [4]

So now we are listing self-published sources where anybody can make any claim? I could post something I made up on Reddit that makes the exact opposite claim. Would that be listed as "press coverage" as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing. Auric, you said [5] this is "Infowars", but link to reddit, and reddit link to something called "governmentslaves" which I don't know what it is. Why is this a reasonable inclusion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that this actually was at Infowars. If WP is correct about "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website.[14]" (my emphasis) I'd argue that this is not "press" and should be removed. Otherwise, correct/remove url, those are not mandatory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Now removed by Kmhkmh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed The reddit part. This site is for reflecting the press coverage of Wikipedia and not what individual people might post on any web forum. So reddit seems a clear no-go to me here. Now onbviously this is politically loaded topic (smelling like bullshit to me though currently) and when Breitbart or alike cover it with an article, then it should be included (independent of the bullshit content's bullshit level), but as long as it is just some web fori thread it doesn't belong here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Kmhkmh And what is your opinion on including Infowars? www.infowars.com/wikipedia-editors-battle-to-hide-bill-clintons-link-to-jeffrey-epstein/ It's on the spam-blacklist, but url is not necessary (of course, any who want can ask for whitelisting). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't give infowars any tought before. Personally I wouldn't include it, but right now i'm not quite sure whether I would oppose it. As far as the fake news argument above is concerned, fake news as such are no reason for exclusion. I. e. press coverage includes false information published in press outlets and press outlets of questionable reputation as long as they are clearly press. Personally I see Alex Jones just as a private conspiracy nut website and hence possibly not qualifying for inclusion. On the other hand it is somewhat well known and I have no clue whether it is legally/officially registered as press somewhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're interested, there's opinions of mine on inclusion in the thread above this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Infowars is blacklisted, so I added the reddit link, which links to govermentslaves, which has the same content as Infowars and newswars. Perhaps I should have linked to the authors tweet? (same article at summit.news)--Auric talk 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to include something blacklisted, skip url (people can google), or ask for whitelist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good to know. Sometime I wonder if I'm the only one.--Auric talk 00:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Completely aside from Infowars telling lies, we have caught Infowars again and again stealing another website's material, making up a few extra details that never happened to make it more clickbaity, then publishing it under the name of an Infowars "author" as if it was original work. So any time we include anything from Infowars, whether we include the actual URL, include a URL to a reddit page that links to Infowars, or even give enough information to find it on Google, we are extremely likely to be sending our readers to a copyright violation.

Infowars claims that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony, that kids are only pretending to get shot at school and their parents are only pretending to grieve, that Michelle Obama is really a man, that Carrie Fisher of Star Wars fame was killed to boost DVD sales, that the coming New World Order is a demonic high-tech tyranny formed by satanist elites who are using selective breeding to create a supreme race, that tap water is turning frogs gay, that Temple of Baal arches will be erected in multiple cities around the world Real Soon Now, that the Democratic party runs a pedophile ring through pizza shops, that the US government commits acts of terrorism against its own citizens, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are literally demons from hell, that the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami were a government plot, that Obama wanted to detonate a nuclear bomb in Charleston, South Carolina, that FEMA runs concentration camps... Sounds like a wonderful place to send our readers, doesn't it?

You know, I could post an RfC and, given how most of Wikipedia feels about Infowars, get a strong consensus that our press coverage pages should not in any way give Infowars any attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You could. I checked the Press coverage pages back to 2013, and found 1 Infowars, so it's not that popular. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

?

Panda619, you added two articles that doesn't mention WP[6], why? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bud light

AngusWOOF, I removed this one[7]. There are grey-areas considering what is "press", but this is not in that grey-area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia in culture or Wikipedia:Wikipedia_on_TV_and_radio (if this has been on TV)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Then again, this could be about another online encyclopedia, that this is about WP is pure WP:OR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång The ad itself doesn't specify Wikipedia, but the Twitter says Wiki page [8] "Today we salute you, Internet Heroes of Genius, whether you footnoted a Wiki page, got 50 retweets on a meme, or simply ordered delivery from across the street." and the video itself talks about citing sources. Brobible suggests it refers to Wikipedia editors though. [9] "You know the people who dedicate an absurd amount of their time to editing Wikipedia articles? They get a shoutout too." Should that article be posted instead of the video? So, no it's not my Original Research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I still don't think it fits on this page (and wiki =/= WP). Even if you consider "BroBible" press, it's just a passing mention, not what I'd consider "coverage about Wikipedia itself". But that's me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see this added to a barnstar or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The video itself is pretty accurate, mentioning citing sources and other verbiage typical of Wikipedia including "and it's free". Note that in none of their videos, they do not mention any specific brands of social media. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying the video's not accurate (something I don't "demand" on this page), but it's not what I would commonly understand to be "press". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Vox

Biogeographist, IMO that article fits at Talk:Conspiracy theory (This article has been mentioned...), but not here (list coverage about Wikipedia itself), there's too little about WP in it, just a passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks; I already inserted a {{Press}} entry at Talk:Conspiracy theory, but I got confused because WP:Wikipedia as a press source says that I should add it to WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2019, but that page does not exist, so I assumed (wrongly, I now see) that WP:Press coverage 2019 was the replacement for WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2019. I guess WP:Wikipedia as a press source is not used anymore? Biogeographist (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2019 now redirects to WP:Press coverage 2019. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Now I'm even more confused. Why the redirect? WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2017 and WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2018 are different from WP:Press coverage 2017 and WP:Press coverage 2018, so why would 2019 be a redirect? (See also the difference between Template:PressCoverageYYYY and Template:PressSourceYYYY.) Shouldn't the redirect at least be explained somewhere, such as at WP:Press coverage and WP:Wikipedia as a press source instead of just quietly implemented? Or is it explained somewhere already? Biogeographist (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a press source YEAR seems to have a different purpose than Press coverage YEAR, whatever it is/was. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2018 seems to be a sort of guide, quite different from the corresponding WP:Press coverage 2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Looking at the links in {{PressSourceYYYY}}, it appears that over the years the page guidelines were added above the article listings, but then people stopped added listings, so that by 2018, as you noted, in WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2018 essentially only the guidelines remained, and nobody even bothered to create a 2019 page. So that series of pages appears dead. Perhaps that series of pages should be noted as deprecated at WP:Wikipedia as a press source? Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Would the banner at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs fit? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that banner looks good. I started a WP:RFC at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source about adding {{Historical}} to all pages linked in {{PressSourceYYYY}}. Biogeographist (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever looked at WP:Wikipedia as a press source. There is afaict not firm "rule" on this, but I think the Press coverage pages are better if we exclude passing mentions, and editors seem to mostly agree or at least let me have my way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I agree that you're right, but if you're right then Guy Macon was wrong to redirect WP:Wikipedia as a press source 2019 to WP:Press coverage 2019, which conflates exactly the distinction that you want to make. Biogeographist (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is confusing and similar questions have been brought up before: Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Trade_magazine/Template_talk:Press#Template-protected_edit_request_on_8_July_2018

As I see it, the "details" link in {{Press}} doesn't lead to anything helpful, perhaps it once did. Consider following that link from either of the 2 items at Talk:Conspiracy theory. You get no "details" because the articles are not there. Or from Talk:Jim Jordan (American politician), the article is there but you just get the same info again, that's not "details". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "details" link is confusing and should be removed as a default in {{Press}}. If you want to try to make that happen, I think it would be beneficial, and would help you in maintaining the WP:Press coverage listings as well. Let me know if I can help in any way. Biogeographist (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect. Feel free to do whatever you think best. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ianmacm! Since I nagged Biogeographist about this at the top of this thread, I'll nag you too: current consesus (afaict) is that we "demand" more than a passing mention of WP for inclusion on this page, and I don't think your addition [10] has that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

OK I'm not going to argue about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Splinter

A Brief History of NRA Employees Editing Wikipedia for Fun and Possibly Profit --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't add it because WP:OUTING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Good call. Let's keep an eye out in case another notabloe media outl;et pickes up the story and runs it without the outing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the OUTING boundaries can be fuzzy. I asked the oversight team, and this is the reply I got:

"The web link you mention does not fall under our suppression rules, mainly due to the context that it is being used. The article is being used in the

template, to highlight that the article's subject has been mentioned in the news piece. It's incidental that [-] is mentioned, and entirely hypothetical that the editor and [-] are the same person.

If this link were being used in a talk page discussion to argue that [---] were the same person, I would consider suppression being a viable option, but as it stands it's not being used to out a user so it fails the OS criteria."

So if you want to add the article to this page, that's probably ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine

Opinions, please.

Practice on these pages are that we exclude blogs. There are many many blogs, probably why Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs is inactive these days though it was a good idea in 2004.

BlackcurrantTea added Science-Based Medicine [11], which is both a blog [12][13] and a generally reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Science-Based Medicine.

So, what is "best" for this page? Keeping this blog (and other "worthy" blogs, however those are to be identified) out or let them in? I am currently leaning exclude for simplicity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, that Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs is inactive doesn't mean we can't start using it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we allow blogs on this page if they meet the following criteria:

• They are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page.
• The blog entry is primarily about Wikipedia, not just a mention in passing.
• We clearly label the entry with (blog) or something similar.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a mixed bag, but what isn't. Category:Blogs has among others TorrentFreak, Wikipediocracy, The Truth About Guns. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also a possibility, we add "For coverage in blogs, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs" to the page, that could increase visibility of the other page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with my proposal. It would be a rare thing for TorrentFreak or Truth About Guns to devote an entry to Wikipedia, but Wikipediocracy? We would have several entries each month! The same would be true even if we put them in Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs, so that doesn't solve the flaw in my proposal. BTW, do we have someone willing to maintain Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Torrentfreak has some WP-coverage, but you're lucky Evolution News & Science Today hasn't got a WP-article (yet), those guys like to write about us. I'm willing to move stray articles from here to there, but "blogs" won't be my focus. If we "advertise" it as I suggested it may get some attention, who knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I may be hasty, but I don't see consensus shifting on this ATM. I'm removing it, and as an experiment I added it and another blog-article I found today at Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs: [14]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More blogs, opinions please

Me and Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett have been backandforthing on some items currently at the bottom of Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2019#October, I'll call them the "indented" ones. They are talking about Internet archives big e-book library, quite interesting for editors, I think. Anyway, we're at BRRRR, so let's D.

First, I see no reason for the indented format, unique on this page, it sticks out like a mildly sore thumb.

Second, current practice is that we exclude blogs from this page, it simplifies the question of what to include, which can be tricky enough. "Blog" may sometimes be a fuzzy term in this day and age, but blog.archive.org and Boing Boing are reasonably not in any grey-area here. Also, the topic is well covered, mostly under November.

So, what I want is to remove those 2, the sub-heading "Internet Archive page links:" and un-indent The Next Web. Possibly that should be excluded/moved as a blog as well but that is less clear and I'm ok with leaving that for another discussion.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you can't see any reason for using valid, semantic list markup for marking up lists. That you see it as indentations does not mean that other consumers of the content do so. That such markup is unique on this page is a problem with the page, not a reason to remove it. Feel free to work on fixing that problem. As for "current practice", you asked about that above, and there is clearly no consensus for your approach. Contrary to your unsupported assertion; that is something is published using a blogging platform does not stop it from being press coverage, as many news outlets, and many journalists (not least Cory Doctorow) utilise such software as part of their journalism. This has been the case for at least a decade. You would do well to concentrate on content, rather than the content management publishing platform used to host it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree with most of that. I read the above thread as that there is no consensus to change current practice, and see no value in having 3 Internet archives related articles under a separate heading for October. We'll see if other editors have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)