I'm thinking maybe we should remove the bit on the Irish student prank per WP:DENY. Powers ^T 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might be bold and redact it a little--the specifics of the game described are almost tempting. Then again, who reads Signpost but the loyalists anywho? Ocaasi (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making significant alterations to Signpost stories that long after publication (see also Wikipedia:Signpost/About), unless there is a pressing need to do so (and as you said yourself, this detail is "not a big deal").

However, you are both very welcome to become involved in the pre-publications process that is coordinated in the Signpost Newsroom, and suggest edits to stories before they become published.

In addition, the remark about WP:DENY somehow misses the point of the Signpost's "In the news" section - one of its main tasks is to inform the community of what parts of Wikipedia have received media attention recently. In other words, it is too late to deny attention to this particular vandal, he has already received plenty (from an audience that he probably cares much more about than about Signpost readers) by writing about it in the University Observer, which can't be undone by excluding the story from the Signpost. And WP:BEANS doesn't quite apply here either - the few potential vandals who are Wikipedia-savvy enough to read the Signpost but still haven't thought of such mischief yet are far outweighed by the many good-willed Wikipedians whom the Signpost coverage might make more alert about unsourced additions of names to articles about historical events.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just change the speed of light? We could probably get consensus for 500,000 km/s initially, as a pilot project. Lampman (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who is distinctly uncomfortable at Jimmy Wales's sounding his mouth off repeatedly about the release of war documents by WikiLeaks?

At this point, I want to urge caution on the part of both Jimmy and The Signpost. First, when you watch the BBC vid linked to above, he's a good deal more measured than the coverage here implies: "slow down, be careful", seems to be the thrust of his advice to WikiLeaks (which he appears to comment on solely because of the commonality of the word "wiki" in the names of both organisations—a slender reason indeed). Crucially, in this interview he does not repeat what many people regard as his unwise comments that WikiLeaks could "put innocent lives at risk". Memo to The Signpost: much as I admire its coverage generally, that seems like a slip-up.

If our own in-house publication gives the wrong impression by partial and inaccurate quoting, it shows just how dangerous it is for Jimmy to be making any political comments about WikiLeaks; it is just too easy to interpret such contributions to the debate as POV. We should not wander down this path at all; among other reasons, we leave ourselves open to future claims of hypocrisy WRT neutrality and censorship. For example, during the same BBC interview, Jimmy says, "many countries around the world very inappropriately filter political information they don't like ... we've take a very strong stand in that we will never compromise on [or] participate in censorship".

The release of "confidential" documents by WikiLeaks raises complex questions about the role of the anglophones in Iraq, state secrecy and the possibility of cover-ups of wrongdoing by troops, and the balance that needs to be struck among the stakeholders. Let us not forget that as well as > 3,000 deaths among Western troops, more than 25,000 Iraqis have died. The argument previously put by Jimmy that lives could be endangered by the release of WL documents sounded perilously close to what is being pumped out of the Pentagon right now, in advance of the next release of documents. A cynic would ask whether Jimmy is being paid by the Pentagon. We know better than this, but outsiders may be inclined to use his remarks to attack WP.

Let us avoid putting out confusing signals about censorship. Tony (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree perhaps it was a poor choice of wording on my part to suggest he "repeated" the same comments. That was not my intention. However as you rightly point out, the impression I took away from the interview was that he was of the same opinion as before, and that was what I had intended to bring across. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And not only was the choice of wording not your intention, it was actually somebody else's choice - see below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Jimbo has a deeply held belief that goings-on at Wikipedia should be decided by community consensus—and abides by that worldview by taking a very minimalist, hands-off approach to governance on Wikipedia—is no reason that he cannot, should not, or may not express his personal views about other goings-on in the world. Because of the “wiki” that begins the name “WikiLeaks,” it is not surprising that many people would assume there is a connection between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia—and Jimbo by connection. His voice on this matter carries weight in the court of public opinion. Jimbo is understandably anxious to remind the press and the rest of the world that he and Wikipedia are in no way, shape, or form associated with WikiLeaks.

But he didn’t stop at the simple point about how Wikipedia has zero relationship to WikiLeaks, did he? He went on to say that WikiLeaks’ disclosures could “put innocent lives at risk.” Bravo to Jimbo for going the extra mile and reminding the world that what Julian Assange is doing is dangerous stuff that can cost lives. Were it me, I would share my personal opinion that Julian Assange is pure pond scum who simply basks in his 15 minutes in the limelight while putting the lives of dedicated military personnel at risk. In short, I can affirm that I am ‘distinctly comfortable’ with whatever Jimbo opines about Mr. Assange and his efforts to criticize the U.S. military.

Nation-building is tough business. It’s double-tough when one must do so while routing Taliban in order that the country might no longer give safe harbor to the world’s most dangerous terrorists and so the Afghani people can chose to send their girls to school without fear that the Taliban will burn down the girls’ school and shoot their teachers. And the way the Taliban religious police club women in the street for showing too much ankle under that burka is a splendid exhibit of “reinforcing a proper religious etiquette.” Check out the photo to which I linked. I wonder what that child at the far right is thinking. Indeed, nation building is tough business and I don’t think it can work in the long run. But military personnel are there doing their best to carry out their mission as directed by their civilian leadership. Jimbo is spot-on correct, in my opinion, that it is very, very wrong to further endanger lives for the mere pleasure of 15 minutes of fame. Greg L (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about missing the point. His utterances have been way out of line. Tony (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I took was that Jimbo was out of line for stating his opinion in public. I am merely pointing out that I don’t see that his day job requires that he keep his trap shut about WikiLeaks’ conduct. Of course, I could be biased on that point since I agree with his sentiment. But even if I disagreed with his sentiment, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t shortchange him on one of the core foundations of my worldview: he has a right to think as he does as well as the right to state what he thinks. Disagreeing with him is an altogether different matter though; bring it on if you feel he is incorrect. I’ve long held the view that “The proper response to bad speech is better speech.” Greg L (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a journalistic problem here, but it is both less serious and has a different culprit than stated above.

The full quote of Jimmy Wales' comments about Wikileaks in the BBC interview is as follows:

So contrary to what Tony implies, Jimmy Wales did actually make a remark similar to his comments in September that AP had summarized as saying that a Wikileaks decision "was irresponsible and could put innocent lives at risk." Tony also seems to have overlooked the Charlie Rose interview reported in the next paragraph, where Jimmy Wales formulated the same concern as "you may get good people killed".

That being said, I agree with Tony that the Signpost article should not have stated that Wales "repeated his previously reported comments that WikiLeaks could 'put innocent lives at risk'", because this implies that he repeated that exact wording in the BBC interview, whereas he chose a different wording there ("some of the information that they could be releasing could be dangerous to good people").

However, this was not Strange Passerby's fault. The problem was introduced in a subsequent edit by Ohconfucius that was labeled as "ce, trimmed" ("ce" = "copyedit"):

Strange Passerby's version:

Ohconfucius' version:

One can see that Strange Passerby's version had made it clear that Wales had chosen a different wording of what Strange Passerby (IMO reasonably) interpreted as the same opinion. By quoting Wales' statement that he was a "fan of the concept" directly, it also did more to convey what Tony calls the "measured" content of Wales' comments. In Ohconfucius' edit, this was weakened to "favoured a concept".

Another problem introduced in Ohconfucius "copyedit" is the "However", which constructs a contradiction between Wales' opinions about Internet filtering on the one hand and about Wikileaks' editorial policy on the other hand. This reflects the opinion put forth by Tony above, but I think it is misguided. There is no contradiction between opposing censorship of the net by third parties such as governments, and advocating that a certain site should not publish certain content. Otherwise any Wikipedian who ever voted "delete" in an AfD could be accused of hypocrisy when speaking out against the Great Chinese Firewall.

The basic problem here, regarding the Signpost, is sloppy copyedits which change the meaning of the text instead of just its style (and are apparently done without checking the source that is being reported on). This has been a serious concern in Signpost articles for many months now, and although I would say it has improved recently, just this week there was another misquote in "News and notes" (wrongly reporting that an interviewee had accused the German Federal Archives of frequent copyright violations), which had been introduced in a copyedit and was unfortunately only corrected after publication.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that your fault? You launched in there as soon as I had done the first run-through (it had been rather messy, structurally), despite my protestations that I hadn't finished. I had to twiddle my thumbs looking at the unfinished version. It was almost 3am and I had to got to bed. Are you yourself taking the blame for errors that were not picked up until after publication? Tony (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, your errors are not my fault. Every Signpost writer is responsible for his own edits. It's true that I (not you) had pointed out the error earlier on IRC and it unfortunately somehow slipped through the cracks while I was fixing several other issues that had been introduced with your edit, but that only highlights the need to be more careful when making such changes in the busy phase right before publication - not throwing out something and expecting others to do the hard work of fact-checkingg. In any case, I have now started a general discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Misquotes and other errors introduced in copyediting, which you are welcom to join.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lessons to be learned is that we should all be more careful when copyediting, and never do so 'blindly' without reference to the source text. We should constantly cross-check each others' work to prevent such changes in nuances and other errors from creeping in. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the other questions raised above: I don't think it is our job as Signpost writers to judge the wisdom of particular comments or views by Jimmy Wales when reporting on them. For example, I am not sure if his explanations of the connectivity issues holding back participation in India are entirely accurate, but at least they seemed to be notable, and an interesting new aspect to the much-discussed question on increasing participation in the "Global South", which is why I chose to report them in the "Briefly" section. Lacking newsworthiness would have been a more pertinent reason not to report about on the "dangerous to good people" comment, as I indicated here.

About "which he appears to comment on solely because of the commonality of the word "wiki" in the names of both organisations—a slender reason indeed" - that's not correct. First, this is an interview, so one would assume it was an answer to the interviewer's question. And if you watch the video in full, the BBC commenter states a solid reason for such a question: that Wikileaks is "often confused with Wikipedia". Or read the earlier Signpost coverage (e.g. this article), which reported that both Wales and Sue Gardner frequently had to deal with people contacting them based on assumption that they were involved with Wikileaks. Or see m:Wikimedia_Forum#Wikileaks_2.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I made my original criticisms as a WPian, not as a Signpost journalist. (2) If you launch into the edit mode just after I've done a major edit, you need to take responsibility yourself. Tony (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely going to be useful to run the final wording of this by me before publication; email will be best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late for that, isn't it. I got the Signpost with that article on my talk page on 23 November, and so presumably did everybody else. --JN466 21:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately. Just in general, I would say that Signpost shouldn't post anything that might be controversial in some way, or represent my views on anything that might be controversial, whether in the news generally or just of internal community interest, without asking me to help with the drafting to ensure perfect accuracy. In this way, the Signpost can clarify rather than merely adding to the noise in the world. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Jimbo, I can't go along with that view; I don't think the Managing Editor would either (contacting him now for an opinion). The Signpost needs to be independent. Sometimes well-meaning glitches occur, and we learn from them. But the idea of first passing by you reports of what you have said publicly for vetting would not go down well among the readership. Tony (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't, though the more cynical among them might enjoy the irony of seeing on one and the same page—this one—reference to Jimbo's disapproval of all censorship ("filtering"), and to his feeling that it would be "useful to run the final wording of this by me before publication." I'm sorry, but "Signpost shouldn't post anything that might be controversial in some way, or represent my views on anything that might be controversial ... without asking me to help with the drafting to ensure perfect accuracy" is a very naive statement. You do not possess a "perfect accuracy" wand, Mr Wales, and, emphatically, rewording by you does not always "clarify". Sometimes it clarifies, sometimes it befogs. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]