The Signpost

In the media

Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

US presidential inauguration and politics: The struggle gets real

Chaim Gartenberg of The Verge watched US Inaugural proceedings live in real-time edit-wars and observed that Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales lost his mind on Twitter over "alternative facts", and then engaged with replies. Kastalia Medrano with Inverse asks How Will Wikipedia Navigate the Trump Era? and while discussing "fake news" and editorial bias, notes that, "...Wikipedia editors can't share a bias precisely because of the way the site is structured...". Meanwhile, writer Adrianne Jeffries for The Outline says that The whitehouse.gov reset broke Wikipedia links en masse, and interviews Signpost editor-in-chief Pete Forsyth for his opinion. (January 20-February 2) T

New iteration of periodic table: This time, with science

This version of the periodic table of elements, on Wikipedia since 2014, allegedly contains a number of errors.

Astronomer Jennifer A. Johnson created a version of the periodic table of elements, mapped to the composition of the human body. The table improves upon a similar one added to Wikipedia in 2014, and present in nine language editions of the site, and many different articles on English Wikipedia. Johnson elaborated on the errors in the Wikipedia version in her own blog post.

The editor who created the now questionable graphic, Cmglee was contacted and replied about the matter. After looking over the new image, Cmglee requested that Jennifer A. Johnson's corrected version be used. Johnson was also asked to release her table for public use, which she now has.

Cmglee's version was well documented and sourced at the time it was uploaded in 2014, incorporating some feedback from the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Cmglee, who used data from Northern Arizona University Meteorite Laboratory and elsewhere, also pointed out that the "incorrect" version was selected as the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day in January of 2016, and noted the "subsequent criticism of its veracity" (in two pages of discussion there about the table). (January 9, January 23) T

+ 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.
  • That MOS:TV discussion is precisely the kind of reason I tend to avoid such conversations — it's impenetrable to users who don't spend much of their time working on guidelines and metacontent, and very quickly turns into a confrontational, defensive argument. I don't have a lot of time to spend working on Wikipedia; I have little desire to spend it arguing with other editors when I could be researching and writing article content. I was going to go and agree with the recession of the MOS change, but discussions of that kind always being quite so unwelcoming and confrontational means I'd rather not participate. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember suggesting a periodic table like that a couple of years ago. I'm glad to see that we actually do indeed have one and that it's now up-to-date. Abyssal (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/In_the_media