Talk:Gibraltarpedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Damage"[edit]

Some editors seem to be having comprehension problems with the recent Wikimedia UK report. It does not say at any point that WMUK has been "damaged". It says only that there was "an opportunity for the charity's reputation to be damaged" through conflicts of interest not being managed effectively. Also, it was not an "investigation by the Wikimedia Foundation", so the entire premise of that section in this article was wrong anyway. There seems to be a certain element of wishful thinking going on here. Prioryman (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i've re-added the section, modified to more closely match the source. Xerofox (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD on Moratorium revert[edit]

The Devil's AdvocateUser:Xerofox made a BOLD edit: 

==Moratorium==
Wikipedia declared a limit on how much Gibraltar could appear on Wikipedia's main page. On February 18, 2013, The Register reported that despite the limits imposed, six Gibraltar-related items appeared on Wikipedia's main page in February alone, with numerous entries in the months preceding.[1]

User:Prioryman REVERTed.

Let's DISCUSS.→StaniStani  06:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. It's simple enough - the entire premise of the source article is false. There is no moratorium. What there is is a set of restrictions. These restrictions allow no more than 1 Gibraltar-related DYK per day - i.e. up to 31 per month, theoretically (though that limit has never come close to being reached). 6 DYKs in a month is less than one sixth of this maximum limit. The story was based on a premise that (1) there is a moratorium - there isn't and (2) 6 DYKs in a month were a breach of it - which they weren't. The line that "despite the limits imposed, six Gibraltar-related items appeared on Wikipedia's main page in February alone" is nonsensical given the fact that the six DYKs were not only allowable under the limits imposed, they were a long way under the limit. It's a long-standing principle on Wikipedia that we don't propagate media stories if they are clearly wrong. For instance the New York Post led most of Monday with the story that 12 people had died in the Boston bombings (when only 3 had) and many media sources said that multiple unexploded bombs had been found and defused (they hadn't). These stories were verifiable but incorrect. If they're incorrect, we mustn't use them. The bottom line is that we have to be scrupulously factually accurate. Prioryman (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have SOFIXITed the article, per Prioryman. It was simple enough to do. - 2001:558:1400:10:4BE:C66D:864A:A387 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still wrong, I'm afraid. The Register's article is based entirely on the premise that Gibraltar-related articles weren't supposed to be appearing any more on the Main Page. They even refer several times to a "moratorium" that doesn't in fact exist: "Wikipedia's Gibraltar 'moratorium' - how's it going?", "we can safely conclude that any "moratorium" is holding fast." As I pointed out, there was and is no moratorium. It's completely false to suggest that there is. They listed the DYKs that appeared, without mentioning that the number of DYKs was far below the 1 per day limit. There's no "despite the limits imposed"; the number of DYKs was at all times a long way within the limits. It's like saying that someone drove at 30 mph "despite the 40 mph speed limit" - it's self-contradictory. If you're within the limit, there's no "despite" - you're complying with the limit. The story is written to give the false impression that somehow the number of DYKs appearing was not in compliance with the restrictions, which is quite plainly false. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


When a news source is clearly wrong on the facts, we have editorial discretion to not use it. I thought Wikipediocracy always complained about that not being done? SilverserenC 22:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


None of you should be editing this article. Please use the talk page to make suggestions. --Errant (chat!) 22:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/18/wikipedia_gibraltar_fancy_that/

Recent revert warring[edit]

I support Nikkimaria's recent attempts to improve this article per WP:MOS. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your support doesn't count for much, given the canvassing that mentioned you by name at an off-wiki site where you're staff. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're talking about, but nevertheless: thank you for not reverting the entirety of my improvements on your second go-round. However, we generally describe Wales as the co-founder, in keeping with MOS:IDENTITY (cf. Founder of Wikipedia). "Co-founder" is the most neutral, specific and accurate descriptor available for this context, since we need not discuss the whole disputed history here. Alternatively, we could avoid the issue by choosing a different description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gibraltarpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gibraltarpedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltarpedia&oldid=1207419663"