The Signpost article "Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee" by Smallbones as mentioned above was also The Signpost's second most viewed article in 2018 (out of a total of 171 articles published in 2018). Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: Your article and the aftermath, about how WSJ and Newser did credit The Signpost whereas others did not, prompts me to ask the same question for Wikipedia. I was also creating another Wikipedia page University of Farmington scam just now where I stumbled on the same question when I saw that Washington Post had said in their article that Detroit Post had broken the story first and I felt morally obliged to mention it in the article too. So the same question.. Should Wikipedia name the origin of investigative stories, even small ones? This got me thinking and prompted me to ask a question on idealab too just now. What do you think Smallbones? (This has nothing to do with supporting or opposing, merely trying to understand this situation personally and in a better way from someone who has experienced it firsthand) Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting question. I think that the Village Pump discussion has it more or less correct: Wikipedia is not news so there is *usually* no need to call out in the text who first reported it. Even so, putting the first news report as the 1st footnote, is a good idea. There are times when I mention the first source in the text, but it is a 2-edged sword. If only 1 source is putting their reputation on the line and making a truly remarkable statement that will be notable in the long-term, then our readers need to know that it's only 1 source, and they deserve credit or blame when they are right or otherwise. Once everybody is reporting the same thing, there's usually no reason to put the 1st source in the text of an encyclopedia.
What I really want to say here - one mention of last month's story in the WSJ is certainly enough for me. Other media were right to cite the WSJ because the WSJ did not just take my word on things. Via email they asked me some very detailed questions, and then they checked it out for themselves. There were a couple of things that I "knew" but couldn't check out in enough detail to add here. They were able to confirm them. The WSJ obviously has very good resources for fact checking, and when they checked out the story, that's the only thrill that mattered to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to Smallbones. That article looked as though it required a lot of skilled background work, not to mention checking and re-checking (since a lot was at stake). Tony(talk) 11:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Nice work, Smallbones! Since the WSJ article is paywalled, here is the quote crediting the Signpost coverage: "Questions about Mr. Whitaker's claims to have been an Academic All-American were raised Monday on Wikipedia Signpost, an in-house publication for Wikipedia editors, by a user named Smallbones." -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Jim Henderson! The recognition is well earned! SeoMac (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
