The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 310 times

The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by ericbarbour » Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:07 am

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020 ... f-the-fact
Wikipedia is also one of the few popular sites whose content is not monetized and whose pages are not personalized. Nothing is behind a paywall; you do not have to log in. There are occasional pop-ups soliciting contributions (in 2017-18, almost a hundred million dollars was donated to the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, headed by Wales), but no one is trying to sell you something. Everyone who looks up Pierre, South Dakota, sees the same page. There is no age-and-gender-appropriate clickbait, no ads for drain de-cloggers and books by German philosophers.
If I could get thru to Louis Menand, I would ask him: did you, the New Yorker, or someone else pay Sunwin1960 to write the Wikipedia article about you? Because that certainly looks like a typical low-priority paid article to me.

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/ ... uis_Menand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunwin1960

(Also, what the hell do Wikipedia and Jeopardy! have to do with each other? This is a rather thin premise for an essay.)

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:24 pm

Went over the history of the article

1) The original IMHO is better than the current version.

Louis Menand frequently contributes to The New Yorker (where is a staff writer), The New York Review of Books, and other literary magazines. He received a Ph.D from Columbia University and is now a Distinguished Professor of English at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written several books including The Metaphysical Club, which won the Pullitzer Prize for History]] and the 2002 Francis Parkman Prize and American Studies, which collects some of his magazine essays.

2) He is not notable to me, he is not notable to the Britannica, He is an egg head if that counts for anything; there are grillions of egg heads.

3) Sunwin1960 seems to "own" lots of these biographies. He has a toddies little gold star for being a Minor

Lol - clearly he is connected to the NY'er! He maintains a list of NY'er staff oh is talk page. Is his paid editing for the past 12 years disclosed.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:56 pm

Ok I just asked him if he works for the New Yorker

User talk:Sunwin1960
User page Talk
Watch
History
Contributions
Edit
More
Are you paid by the New Yorker? I don't care personally. However, I am interested in digging into some of the disconcerting concerns which I've identified as a critical thinker and a Wikipedia user.

1) a main page which identifies gender bias as the primary issue and concern. To me it's really the process and a accuracy which is the problem. Correcting this seems to be an intractable task

2) an isolated case where Wikipedia was linking to to child pornography this was corrected after much effort. Again this is a process problem

3) paid editing by the internal pr staff of the cme. Very difficult to correct.

4) a large percentage of the Articles which I consider to be materially wrong. This is really what bugs me the most.

Regards W

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:45 am

wexter wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:24 pm
Lol - clearly he is connected to the NY'er! He maintains a list of NY'er staff oh is talk page. Is his paid editing for the past 12 years disclosed.
I do not see anything to that effect. If you get a response, report back here. Very small chance you will--probably a bigger chance he will complain to an admin and get you banned.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:37 pm

What I saw was that he maintains a list of NYer editors and staffon his talk page.

Here is my answer - he deleted my question

21 November 2020
Sunwin1960
Removed comment.

m
07:22

-1,037

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:43 pm

Why is most everyone at the nyer notable enough to have a wikipidia page
There is a list of 100+ of em.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor ... ff_writers

My next talk page
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor ... ff_writers#

Category talk:The New Yorker staff writers
Language
Watch
Edit
Wikipedia has a list of New Yorker staff writers that appears to be created and curated by its own paid staff. The list is so expensive that I doubt every person listed is notable by Wikipedia standards.

I would suggest that this concern be examined. Cirst by asking the New York Magazine whether or not they are paying staff as a marketing effort. And secondly to determine whether or not should such extensive wikipeda coverage be extended to people that may or may not be notable

Return to "The New Yorker staff writers" page.
Last edited by wexter on Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:54 pm

And while we are at it

User talk:Sunwin1960
User page Talk
Watch
History
Contributions
Edit
More
Are you paid to edit wikipedia: if you are is this disclosed

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:10 pm

I read the whole text of the NYer article. It was painful read as dis-organized Two things popped out at me:

Wikipedia writers could consult the Encyclopædia Britannica, which pays its contributors. There is no such thing as a free fact. Menand

Leaving the irrefutably dire and dystopian effects .. aside

->urgh. The dystopian aspect of Wikipedia is that you have representations which diverge from fact and importance. Folks reading Wikipedia dont realize that its Fubar with the better alternative (britanica) being marganlised and stolen from!

"An educated consumer is the best customer" Sy Syms

Consumers of Wikipedia are uneducated to the veracity of its content. Folks are aggregating content on Wikipedia they are not creating anything. It really is a force of evil.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 310 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:37 am

Believe me---the New Yorker shenanigans are nothing. A minor issue.

Try going thru this category sometime. Three times bigger, nine times as pathetic. They simply don't have one obvious slave generating the crap. I suspect many of them either edited their own articles with sock accounts, or hired someone to sockpuppet happy-smiley content in (many of the latter were blocked for various kinds of "abuse".) Most of these "Google superstars" got rooked over, the articles tend to be garbage. Because Wikipedia and Google are sweet loving butt-buddies, and Google people have given millions to the WMF since 2006, no one says anything openly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_employees

User avatar
wexter
Sucks
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:18 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: The New Yorker deals with WP (hypocritically)

Post by wexter » Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:00 am

Thanks for pointing this fact out: here is an objectionable snippet

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Noy

Awards and honors Edit
Noy was elected an AAAI Fellow in 2020. In 2018, she was listed among the top women semantic web researchers without a Wikipedia page, and was nominated to have this page authored during the Ada Lovelace women in computing hackathon,[17] as a way to combat gender bias on Wikipedia.


So the way to fight gender bias on wikipedia is to throw a Google employee a wikipedia page. I guess that was embarrassing:

10 October 2020
JPxG
Reverted edits by 2620:0:1000:1612:A6AE:11FF:FE11:E322 (talk) to last version by Denny

m
04:13

+438

8 October 2020
2620:0:1000:1612:a6ae:11ff:fe11:e322
Remove the reference to the reason the page was initially created.
Last edited by wexter on Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply