The Signpost

File:Munkácsy Ordító suhanc.jpg
Mihály Munkácsy
PD
45
300
From the archives

Where to draw the line in reporting?

Six years ago on Christmas Eve, we published Where to draw the line in reporting? in our From the editors column. One of the comments from readers – namely, the late Nosebagbear – suggested that we continue asking the same question, annually if possible, so we are taking up that request with a delay. The original article follows, complete with its original introduction.
Carrying on without an official Editor-in-Chief, we—the collective Signpost newsroom team—also wear editor hats. We hope you appreciate the Nobel, err, noble efforts of several guest contributors in this issue, as well as our own. Herein, you will find a concise corpus of debates, data, and distraction for edification and enjoyment. And we're leading off with this question for the community about future directions.

Photograph of an 1880 painting by Mihály Munkácsy depicting a man angrily shouting
If any of our reporting on specific people causes you to feel like this, then let us know how we can do better

As anyone paying attention to The Signpost in 2018 would have noticed, the publication was struggling. So was the team. One of the struggles that has recently cropped up again is in how to deal with reporting that involves specific members of the Wikipedia community and the wider Wikimedia movement. For example, what type of Wikimedian-specific content, if any, should we cover? Are critical pieces of specific Foundation members acceptable? What about controversies surrounding members of the community, such as chapter board members or notable Wikimedians? Is the line drawn at trawling AN/I for juicy threads, or is that acceptable, too? At what point does investigative journalism become sensationalism, or community news become gossip?

Prior issues have contained content which criticized specific people, and which reported on conflicts and controversies between particular users; reader responses have been mixed, with some condemning it, others criticizing it, and still others commending the commentary. While the support is encouraging, the criticisms, some of which are borderline personal attacks and harassment in a venue that is considered by some to be a safe haven from our Wikipedia policies, and complaints tell us where we may be falling short of the hopes and expectations of our readers.

At The Signpost, as in Wikipedia generally, the readers come first. We write for you, so your input is paramount in deciding the content of what we write; and if you write, we publish. Like the rest of Wikipedia, we also value consensus in determining what to publish—and not just the local consensus that may be achieved in the newsroom. That is why we are bringing this to you, the readers:

What do you consider to be acceptable reporting
on individuals within the Wikimedia movement?

Please, tell us what you think in the reader comments below! We want to understand where the line is—and what you want to be reading—when it comes to reporting on controversies, conflicts, scandals, and other news involving specific members of the community. The better we do, the better we can provide the content you will want to read - or in the worst case scenario, if you wish to continue reading The Signpost at all, and whether or not the editorial team is fighting an uphill battle to keep it in print.

Finally, the editors and contributors to The Signpost would like to wish our readership and the Wikipedia community a very happy holiday season. Enjoy a well deserved break, and we'll see you after the new year.


+ 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.
  • I don't claim to be able to answer this question. But I think I speak for many when I say I'm grateful that the Signpost doesn't try to find "drama" or make itself into a gossip tabloid. And barring the occasional screw up, it usually lets people speak for themselves rather than publicly attacking them or dressing them down. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what we are talking about is potentially talking ill of editors. Very few editors would hate being held up as a good example and asking for permission to report on the good stuff will probably elicit a pleased yes.
    We probably have a Wikipedia equivalent of public figure by prominence of editing or being a current or former organizer of things. Editors with the Admin or Bureaucrat bit, of course, but also project leaders. And there is also an instant leap to being WikiAvatar through bad choices. Mostly, we should not call out all the little bans, but bans and blocks become important if they illustrate a particular way in which Wikipedia as a community needs to be on watch for a type of style of bad behavior and by their bad behavior they have forfeited a right to be forgotten.
    Having a review of what happened is a good thing for those of us uninvolved to better understand how Wikipedia works as a community. It also is important because not saying anything is worse. Not saying anything can be like a conspiracy of silence where members of the community leave or are shown the door and then we're pretending nothing happened. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming to this discussion late (as seems to be my habit), this article touches on an important dilemma. On the one hand, the vast majority of people connected to Wikipedia are private individuals & don't deserve being dragged into the public attention due to a (often) part-time hobby. This is something that crops up whenever I think about writing a memoir about being a Wikipedian for mumble years: to talk about conflicts & discussions that shape how Wikipedia operates one must inevitably mention people; yet except for their contributions to Wikipedia these people don't merit notability & have a right to privacy; so it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss disputes such as over editors like Ed Poor & provide some account of their contribution to Wikipedia, both positive & negative. Hence one is unable to talk about most Wikipedians, which forces historians & reporters to focus on individuals who had little to no direct effect on Wikipedia yet have public visibility, such as Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, & Maryana Iskander. So one either provides the necessary accuracy of Wikipedia & intrudes on the privacy of countless individuals, or one simply focuses on the (so to speak) celebrities & provides an imperfect account of this project.
    I don't know how to mediate the two. -- llywrch (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Signpost and other news sources are the "first draft" of history, but a memoir comes rather later to events. If I am mentioned by name after I am dead I will not care. If I can figure out a way to direct my heirs/executor I'll put my name to my account. I do not right now because it seems to me that we are in a time where editors can be targeted by pressure groups and, unfortunately, the Wikipedia Foundation cannot be trusted to protect us as their interests do not align perfectly with those of individual editors. They are for protecting the project as a whole and for fundraising. But that is mostly about the intersection editing and private life.
    I also have to "own" what I do here on Wikipedia. If my editing is talked about, that is part of putting my work in front of a large audience like Wikipedia's. If we are discussing the work and the editor's behavior on Wikipedia, why not just refer to them by user name? Some do not see a handle as a name, but they're just as real as any other nom-de-plume. They have not yet acquired the noble patina from long usage, but as a way of identifying one editor they seem just as useful as names like Zane Grey or George Eliot. If humans are still discussing such things in English in 200 years I suspect that seeing a handle from this era will seem part of this time like one of the pseudonyms used in the American Constitutional debates does to the 1780s. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-12-24/From_the_archives