Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-11-28/In the media

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


In the media

"The most beautiful story on the Internet"

Contribute  —  
Share this
  •  PDF download
  •  E-mail
  •  Mastodon
  •  LinkedIn
  •  Facebook
  •  X (Twitter)
  •  Reddit
By Lane Rasberry, Bri, JPxG, and Smallbones

Could ads turn Wikipedians into Facebook content moderators?

At least Scrooge paid his workers something.

In a well-timed coincidence for this issue, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Op-Ed by Nicholas Agar asked "Could ads turn Wikipedians into Facebook content moderators?". Agar, a professor of ethics, notes that with the wrong policies around content monetization, the Wikimedia Foundation could "turn Wikipedia into just another tech business using its vast store of data to pursue profit". He recommends the Foundation "ask for help, not money"... – B, J

Internet search in Russia

The BBC investigated how well internet search engines were working in Russia. Yandex has 65% of the market in Russia, followed by Google with 35%. The BBC used a virtual private network (VPN) to view search results for both search engines on controversial topics to make it appear that the search requests originated in Russia. They also used the VPN to give the origin as the UK for Google requests. All requests were typed in Russian. For example, they searched for Bucha, the Ukrainian town where hundreds of civilians were killed during the current war. Yandex search results predominantly gave links to sites following the Russian government's viewpoint. "Glimpses of independent reporting only occasionally appeared in Yandex search results with links to Wikipedia articles or YouTube." Google searches originating in Russia were a bit better, and Google searches originating in the UK gave a full range of viewpoints, even with the search requests typed in Russian. – S

Maybe not so altruistic after all

Cash donations preferred from now on

Many have told the tale of the dramatic flameout of Sam Bankman-Fried's cryptocurrency exchange FTX and sister company Alameda Research, following a series of boneheaded moves that require a couple of whiteboards to explain in full detail. Suffice it to say that there was a bunch of money, and now there isn't.

In a Washington Post article titled "The do-gooder movement that shielded Sam Bankman-Fried from scrutiny", Nitasha Tiku claims that his lost fortune may have been built – at least in part – on his connections in the effective altruism (EA) community. Bankman-Fried's net worth was estimated at $15.6 billion in early November. The bankruptcy of his cryptocurrency firms, and the devaluation of his own securities, is expected to leave him with a net worth estimated at jack shit, and one million unpaid creditors. Yowza! Tiku went further to say that there was an "EA group devoted to writing Wikipedia articles about EA"; it's unclear whether this refers to off-wiki coordination, or merely to the existence of a legitimate EA WikiProject on the English Wikipedia. – S, B, JPxG

Toaster hoax

The BBC has published an in-depth article and radio programme about the Alan MacMasters toaster hoax, featuring interviews with the protagonists as well as Heather Ford (see Book review in this issue). "How did this hoaxer get away with it for so long? And how did an eagle-eyed 15-year-old eventually manage to expose his deception?" (See also prior Signpost coverage in August's In the media, titled "Alan MacMasters did not invent the electric toaster".) – B

In brief

Almost as much fun as building an encyclopedia together
Sportsball: Some things never change. But some do: the fans didn't vandalize encyclopedias so much a century ago.
A study summarized by Mongabay suggests people notice seasonal changes in nature, like bird migration, and turn to Wikipedia to understand.
  • "La plus belle histoire de l'Internet": Let's fight for Wikipedia says La Libre Belgique (in French), "the most beautiful story on the Internet". The article provides a pretty good one-paragraph summary of the "permanent tension" between radical inclusionists and those who see unfettered "openness as a contradiction of the principles of encyclopedism".
  • Encyclopedias are fun: A journalist for Australian science magazine Cosmos shares their view on Wikipedia's position in the global information ecosystem. Do you agree that it "tap[s] the implicit expert within all of us", supplanting "experts and institutions which ring-fenced their expertise"?
  • Embraced by higher ed: "Wikipedia, Once Shunned, Now Embraced in the Classroom" - Inside Higher Ed
  • Sportsball: Angry Bills fans have taken over Duke Shelley's Wikipedia page (Sports Illustrated)
  • "I don't think I'll ever finish": Jess Wade's interview at Mashable. Vice joined in on praising her; see also the coverage in last month's In the media
  • Modern pagans want to be Pagans: The question is whether to spell the word "Pagan" with a capital "P". True believers point out that other religions have their names capitalized as proper nouns and that Wikipedians have raised the issue but failed to come to a simple answer.
  • Afrikaans error: Did Charlize Theron make fun of a Wikipedia error in the number of Afrikaans speakers (from Eyewitness News (South Africa))? Or was it just an "ill-informed" statement as CNN suggested, not mentioning Wikipedia as the source of the misinformation?
  • Back in the old days: In the context of a notional Twitterverse without moderation, US sportsperson Tyrese Haliburton reminisces about the old days when Wikipedia "wasn't always correct"... is someone going to break the news to him? (AP News)
  • Got a turkey craving? Try Wikipedia for a taste of wildlife facts, like other people did as explained in this review of an academic report. (Mongabay via Tacoma News Tribune)
  • A notable feat: A notable filmmaker Gracie Otto says "'A friend once told me that everyone I've dated has a Wikipedia page'" (Sydney Morning Herald). Perhaps she should start a notable dating service?
  • "Is Wikipedia's independence at risk?" asks Volkskrant (in Dutch), covering Wikipedia fundraising and recent Wikipedia-related AI initiatives by Facebook parent Meta.



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 the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.


← Previous "In the media"
Next "In the media" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • There having been no shortage of cryptocurrency collapses and frauds, I'm a bit sad to see disproportionate energy spent attacking the philanthropy movement SBF supported as responsible for the latest one (eg. the WaPo article linked), absent evidence for this. (Are our comments expected to stick to the Wikipedia-specific ramifications?) CharredShorthand (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We as The Signpost are here to report about what the media report about things. They said the movement "shielded" SBF. "Shielded" is pretty strong language coming from a top-tier national newspaper, and that's why the item exists in this column. If they were saying such things about other movements with a Wikipedia nexus, that would show up here too. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing against the Signpost inclusion! I was commenting about the original WaPo article, not objecting to the Signpost's coverage of thus, which is only proper. Apologies for any lack of clarity. CharredShorthand (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as WP:BLP is followed, I think we can say what we want. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 22:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kind of juvenile to me as well. My theory is that novel takes are a market; when somebody does something shitty, it creates a large demand for takes about why they suck. The obvious reasons are, well, obvious, so they are written into takes within the first couple days. But there is still demand, so the market responds by creating more: this is how we get all of those opinion pieces about how some mass murderer listened to heavy metal music, or drank Pepsi, or whatever. They don't make a lot of sense, but so it goes. jp×g 05:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Effective altruism seems a bit of a buzzword to me, but I get the idea of get rich, then donate. The Andrew Carnegie route, as it were. Has the whole "but who will do the charity work you fund?" problem if everyone does it, but it's fine. However, if it's true the movement worked to promote itself and it's fellow members on Wikipedia, that' s where it's notable for us. We may have buried the lead, though, in my efforts to make sure there was context. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 05:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "paid advertisements" and Wikipedia or Wikipedia Foundation should never appear in the same sentence (except for this one) let alone ever contemplated, lobbied for, or be remotely thought of by any board member and/or principled human being. The WMF by-laws should contain a firm "never" when it comes to advertisements appearing on their projects, Jimbo should issue a statement in support of never-no way-don't-even-think-about-it when it comes to paid ads (the WMF and Wales may have done so in the past, I'm not aware of the history of Wikipedia and contemplation of paid ads), and every editor who hopes to sell advertising space on their user page (ha!) should turn over their keyboard and sulk off into the day/night. In any case, just look at what advertising has done to Britannica, a once proud and universially respected encyclopedia now looking like a scene from Idiocracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has always been monetized, it's just done in its own peculiar way: editors are not paid, but the Wikimedia Foundation has been collecting millions of dollars annually for more than 15 years and is currently worth approximately one quarter billion: see Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics. 50.0.121.183 (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smallbones: Regarding internet searches in Russia see also Search engine manipulation effect. --Andreas JN466 08:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-11-28/In_the_media&oldid=1193881265"