User:Eddie891/signpost

ITM

• Fighting against gender bias Smithsonian Magazine highlighted that prosopographies ("a study of the individuals in a group of people within a specific context and their relationships"), nowadays obscure collections of biographical materials, can be used to fight Wikipedia's gender bias. The magazine mentioned that Alison Booth, a professor at the University of Virginia has created an online database of more than 7,500 women chronicled in such collections.
• Media archives The Times of Israel reported on the uploading of 28,000 photos by Wikimedia Israel of life in the region before Israel. The images are in the public domain as their copyright expired after fifty years. The Association of Israeli Archivists criticized Wikimedia for the move, saying that “Wikimedia’s ‘sting’ operation involves a variety of legal and professional offenses, including concern of infringement of intellectual and property rights, breach of signed agreements with donors, blatant failure to give credit, and erasure of the archival context,”
• Citogenesis Stephen Harrison of Slate commented that Wikipedia has a citogenesis problem. That is, websites will copy information from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors will then cite those websites for that information. There is a long list of such citogenesis incidents, and more surely pervade the website. Harrison proposes several solution, but for now the surest way to prevent them is by manual verification. One wonders — how many more are out there? What happens when there is no way of verifying whether something happened or was a hoax on Wikipedia?
• BAME scientists In Nature, Nicola O'Reilly wrote about editations, and how they help increase the coverage of minorities, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) scientists.
• https://www.newscientist.com/article/2195577-wikipedias-civil-wars-show-how-we-can-heal-ideological-divides-online/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225

Wikipanel 2018:

questions

1. How do you see your contribution to WP over the next few years? More generally, how do you see Wikipedia developing? Are there any basic changes that you would like to see implemented?
2. How do you deal with disruptive editors?
3. What is something you wish you had known as you were starting out?
4. What motivates you in editing? Do you ever get tired of Wikipedia?