Some long-overdue retractions

From the editor

Some long-overdue retractions

The Signpost apologizes for giving Grug of Blue Rock Clan (right side of contemporary illustration) an undeserved platform for his "hot light from stick bad" disinformation

As the Signpost has moved from publishing every month to ~~every two weeks~~ ~~every three weeks~~ ~~every two and a half weeks or so~~ more frequently, we've hit our share of snips and snags, including a couple weeks ago, when a rather brashly opinionated technology report spurred about a hundred kilobytes of discussion, a big-ass thread at administrators' noticeboard slash incidents, and a currently-open request for comment linked to from WP:CENT.

In light of this most recent debacle, I've been going through old Signpost archives in order to find some editorial guidance. What I've found is grim: it turns out this is far from the only time we've made a questionable call on a hot-button issue. In fact, there we have run a great number of ill-advised pieces over the years. But under new editorship, we too have the chance to turn a new leaf. So I'd like to take a few minutes and apologize for some of the times we've gotten it wrong over the years.

Starting from the beginning.^[1]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Time of cold/Opinion, by Grug of Blue Rock Clan: "Hot light from stick bad"

Basically everything in this piece was a bad call, starting out with blatant personal attacks: "MAN OF TALL TREE TRIBE BRING HOT LIGHT FROM STICK AND SHOW BLUE ROCK CLAN HOW TO MAKE. BUT PROBLEM. MAN OF TALL TREE TRIBE HATE SUN GOD AND WANT TO STEAL HOT LIGHT FROM HIM. SHOULD BE INDEFFED." This just goes to show how much of a Wild West environment Wikipedia was back in the day; Grug was later community-banned, and removed from his seat on the board of Wikimedia Afro-Eurasia, after it was revealed that he had been sockpuppeting for years to discredit hot light from stick.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/First consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, XVI Aprilis/News and notes, by Marcus Artorius Castus: "Why Vercingetorix had it coming"

This is a very early Nuntium ac notas, and it shows. It doesn't hold up to modern standards at The Signpost at all: for example, there were non-free images all over the place.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1633-12-14/Arbitration report, by Benedetto Lucio Anafesto: "Pseudoscience case closes with ruling against GGalilei, topic ban (finally!)"

To be fair, at that time the political climate was a little different, and the WMF's endowment was being managed by the Camerarius Domini Papae. Still, the article was inexcusably and unduly biased against GGalilei (who even caught a siteban while defending himself in the comments).

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1775-05-06/Wikiproject report, by the Right Honourable Wilford Hottingston, 5th Viscount Frimsy-Wimsy-upon-Rumpcastle: "His Excellency The Most Honourable Charles, Earl Cornwallis and WP:COLONIES coordinator, on fighting POV pushing from anti-Crown extremists"

It turns out these concerns may have been reasonable after all.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1815-03-19/In the media, by Pierre de Froufrou: "Bonaparte is advancing with rapid steps, but the Corsican ogre will never enter Paris"^[2]

There was also a lot of stuff in there about him having tiny hands, which has aged poorly.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1906-01-14/Deletion report, by Jebediah Ezekiel Hegginbottom: "Hoax about supposed 'flying machine' removed swiftly"

Hegginbottom noted that "aviation experts have said that the alleged heavier-than-air 'flying machine' is in fact a 'glorified kite' and, moreover, its development raises ethical questions." To be fair, they didn't have pics.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1947-11-14/From the team, by Baldy Falsman: "The Signpost's plan for pushing back against Soviet disinformation"

Falsman, a former editor-in-chief of The Signpost and member of the Arbitration Committee during the HUAC trials, did indeed lead The Signpost to numerous accolades. However, some of his policies have failed to stand the test of time:

“

Anyone who wants to write for The Signpost needs to be screened for ideological sympathies and potential fifth-columnism. Fortunately, this is simple. Our process is to ask them what they think of a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. If they say something like "hell yeah!" or "based!" or "that would be nice", that's how we know they are a Communist, or a homosexual, or some other kind of freak, and we start keeping a close eye on them and their associates.

”

Luckily, those dark days are over, and the English Wikipedia no longer has to deal with any accusations of people being jacked around on account of their political leanings.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/1992-09-01/Technology report, by Hubert Glockenspiel: "Why putting Wikipedia on the 'World Wide Web' would accomplish nothing"

Well, I guess maybe this is true, from certain perspectives. However, many of Glockenspiel's claims were objectionable, e.g. "That's a teletype. Congratulations, techbros, you literally invented a teletype."

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-03/From the editor, by JPxG: "Some long-overdue retractions"

Since this was published on April 3, the idea of doing an April Fools' Day bit makes no sense. Frankly, the whole idea was kind of stupid, especially when we have gotten hauled to AN/I over Fools' bits before, and this one was very closely skirting the line to begin with (referring, as it did, to ongoing dispute resolution processes involving The Signpost). The decision to eschew the {{humor}} template was simply asking for trouble, as was the unfunny extended meta-reference at the end. Moreover, that JPxG guy was a jackass.

Notes

^ Note that the stories and information posted in this article are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything written here as fact.
^ While this is a funny post, and it is often claimed to be an actual headline in a French newspaper (the Moniteur) in 1815 during Napoleon's return from exile, it is likely apocryphal; its only source is an 1841 retrospective by Alexandre Dumas. No actual such headlines as he described exist during that time!

In this issue

3 April 2023 (all comments)

From the editor

News and notes

In the media

Arbitration report

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.

Is... there a reason why the text is moving down towards the right? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume someone at the printing press screwed it up. Legoktm (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be entirely fair to them, it's an easy mistake to make.
Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so this entire thing is supposed to be a joke...so why isn't it in the humor section of the signpost? It's past April Fool's so this entire issue just being a joke makes no sense. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there will be a retraction, then. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh-oh... Someone borrowed the "askew" command from Google. (For those who don't know - type in "askew" in the Google search box and see what happens. It's right up there with "do a barrel roll" and other shenanigans embedded in that search engine). cart-Talk 17:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Waggers TALK 10:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally i think this comes across a bit bitter. If signpost wants to defend the previous things they wrote, their right to have opinion pieces and editorial discretion, or whatever this piece is trying to signify, by all means just do it directly. Lazy sarcasm is unbecoming and unconvincing. Bawolff (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I think the Signpost ('s editors) are allowed to take positions on controversial stuff. I think anyone who is unhappy about the Signpost's editorial line and how it represents the Wikipedia community is free to found WP:TSOPNGIS and write counter-articles. But I also think the editors should take it as they dish it, and complaining that one’s article caused a big ANI fuss is whiny. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You missed such wondrous articles as Local man lost at Sea, and "Fog in Channel, Continent Isolated" from the forgotten era when the signpost could be accused of an excessive focus on the English language Wikipedia, with consequent neglect of the rest of the Wikiverse, let alone the rest of the internet. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sarcasm is really unfunny and off-taste. 113.160.44.130 (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Night at the Museum was my first thought when I saw the painting at the top of this page, looks like one of the dioramas in it. 50.0.121.127 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we cut the salaries of the editors until they swiftly apologise and retract every single article published. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.

Home

About