I just removed an article published in the right-wing JNS by Aaron Bandler on the basis that it was unattributed to its author -- a prolific RW advocate (formerly employed by the Daily Wire among others). The Signpost published two briefs in the last issue which identified neither his participation nor his POV. The article I removed is an interesting case in point. Only after very strongly worded citations from various pro-Israel thinktanks and NGOs (unwatch.org, NGO monitor, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Foundation for Defense of Democracies) is it mentioned that the NGO EMHRM was actually downgraded in a recent RSN discussion. I think if this is published, at the very least, mention needs to be made of Bandler's energetic advocacy campaign. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥00:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this criticism directed at me for posting the link? I'm not sure what you mean "unattributed to its author"; none of the items I included in this editdid include the author, except one that I noticed was notable and written about himself. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the Signpost should not become Aaron Bandler's in-house megaphone. I can see that you probably didn't realize that the author was on a mission. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥04:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this. I sense some fundamental misunderstandings here about the role of ITM. It's not the Signpost's journalism award section where we honor and recommend the best press coverage of Wikipedia (or even serve as their in-house megaphone), but much closer in function to a press review or media monitoring service for the community. Throughout the Signpost's two-decade existence, this section had featured countless news articles that got basic facts about Wikipedia wrong (unsurprisingly, cf. Gell-Mann amnesia effect), or were highly opinionated in ways that are not compatible with various Wikipedia's values or community consensuses, or made unfounded bias accusations. (Of course, under general Wikipedia policy there are limits to what sites can be linked at all. If you feel that the Jewish News Syndicate should never be linked on-wiki even outside mainspace, perhaps submit a request to put it on the URL blacklist and see if the community agrees with you?)
While context like the name of a journalist who wrote a linked piece, their political allegiances, their previous publications about Wikipedia or their former employers can be very useful for our readers (and I'll see to add something in this particular case based on your hints), it is by no means required. (Also BTW, I'm a bit confused by this edit summary - seems you actually said there that you had yourself added the kind of context to the last issue whose omission you are now criticizing?)
Lastly, it seems that you sidestepped Bri's question. I find your edit summary here problematic (Last month the same editor added two briefs Aaron Bandler was involved with) - insinuating that there might be a systematic effort by Bri to push this particular author, rather than just him having done the bulk of the usual ITM preparation work of adding items from Google News etc. (Not to speak of the fact that "involved with" seems to be doing a lot of work in case of that first "brief", an article in The Jewish Journal by someone else about a panel where Bandler was 1 of 12 participants.)
Given that the podcast was 2.5h long and Bandler was one of the most talkative that for me constitutes involved. All that I corrected last month was the claim that Bandler's article was by rather than in RealClearPolitics. In do doing I did warn in the ES that he was a former Daily Wire journalist (generally unreliable publication). I see he also had unattributed publications back in an January, February, and April Signposts as well. I guess I was indeed under the misapprehension that someone actually read the articles which were posted in ITM and so would notice recurring authors and axe-grinding tone. My apologies to Bri for misunderstanding the authorial responsibilities for the briefs. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥08:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen a Bandler-WP piece that's not focused on the "WP is unfair to Israel" view. Presumably it's an angle that has a market, and they are often published in mainstream (mostly Israeli-ish, I think) media. Afaict, he's written about 10-15 such articles in 2024-25, someone could make a Category:Wikipedia beat reporters page for him. So, with this output, I don't think it's strange he keeps turning up in the Signpost. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: I do not want to obligate you beyond your interest, but I invite you to make an editorial recommendation to The Signpost or write an opinion piece, however brief that is. I was unaware that this author is repeatedly publishing Wikipedia criticism of this sort. I would like wiki user opinions on how Signpost should evaluate what seems to be hate-based material, and how we should share it.
There is limited editorial organization available to read these pieces and note that the same author is publishing the same kinds of stories. It takes a little while for the insight to come, so thanks for making it. Thanks also for your apology to Bri, because yes, I confirm that the media reporting in the Signpost is just a round up and we depend on people like you to help evaluate things like this. I really appreciate your compliant, and I really appreciate that apology. Now that we know, what should we do? Keep linking, mark the stories with some kind of disclaimer, avoid linking like we do with blacklisted publications, or what? Bluerasberry (talk)15:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have always been in favour of including comment from ideologically motivated critics in ITM, if they have a reasonably large audience. The community should know what is being written and read out there. A little contextualisation doesn't hurt, as long as it doesn't come across as polemical. AndreasJN46617:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not publish Breitbart because it is on WP:BLACKLIST, but they have a lot bigger audience than Jewish Journal, and they publish a lot of articles attacking Wikipedia ht tps://www.breit bart.com/tag/wikipedia/ . So Andreas, that goes against your wish to cover news with large audience. This Bandler person seems to want Wikipedia extinguished and is rallying for anyone to attack it, as in the Tax-Exempt Status.
Breitbart is blacklisted for not doing minimal fact checking. I do not know anything about JJ's content, but it seems there is a new and recent protest by some who felt strongly enough to try to establish a competing Jewish journal.
I hadn't realised TDA was still so busy! At some point it becomes repetitive. At any rate, I'm really not in favour of listing three or four Breitbart pieces in each issue's ITM. I am also against a blanket ban though. If an article of theirs gets attention elsewhere I would mention it. Then again, Breitbart is not an issue over which I would lose sleep. AndreasJN46600:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
