WP is a celeb tabloid (and LIES about it)

[ericbarbour]

Today's crass example: within MINUTES of this story hitting the media yesterday, there was a long rant posted on his WP bio. And it instantly attracted editwarring. Courcelles slapped protection on it, which only attracted insider assholes like Black Kite, Sandstein, and "golden Wiki-god" Andy Mabbett. The squabbling continued today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Edwar ... suspension

They hate UK tabloids? Then why is THIS CRAP in there?

Following both the statement by the police and that released by Edward's wife, The Sun distanced itself from the situation claiming that it never insinuated criminality on the part of Edwards while stating that it would cooperate with the BBC's internal investigation and that it wouldn't publish further allegations regarding Edwards.[45]

Already tried to purge the Daily Mail, and tried to slap the Sun with the same brush in 2018. And repeatedly at other times. Did not get very far.

I understand exactly what the proposal means. and I agree with Andy Dingley about how discretionary sanctions notices are being misused. Wikipedia is becoming more punitive and combative. It's no wonder editors are fleeing in droves. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: Andy Dingley is still a little shit. But Gerard is still the biggest shit.

[ericbarbour]

This happened today

https://gizmodo.com/sag-aftra-ai-actors ... 1850638409
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/2379 ... age-rights

The unions damn well have the right to bring this up in negotiations, because if a studio can get the legal right to use their likenesses for "eternity", and use generative AI bots to write content, it WILL BE abused. Because the AMPTP members are notorious for abuses, going back 100+ years. It is why there are entertainment unions in the first place. Greedy bastards brought unions in on themselves. This time there is literal blood in the water as both actor's and writer's unions are on strike against the whole industry, for the first time since 1960. But of course, since Wikipedia openly skews leftwards and pro-union, its content is far more favorable to the unions than to the producers or studios.

Both of these articles are being editwarred heavily this week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Writ ... ica_strike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_SAG-AFTRA_strike

Don't tell me WP:NOTNEWS and all that shit--within hours of the claim being made in a public press conference, it was stuck into the WP articles. The Verge article was used as the "reliable source".

On July 13, with no agreement between SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP, the SAG-AFTRA negotiating committee voted unanimously to recommend a strike to the union's national board.[27] The national board held a vote officially approving the strike.[28] SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher announced the strike would begin at midnight on July 14;[29] the cast of Oppenheimer left the film's London premiere ahead of the announcement to walk out.[30] Joined by chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland,[31] Drescher stated that the strike is a reluctant last resort[32] and described negotiations as "moving around furniture on the Titanic."[33] In the press conference, Crabtree-Ireland alleged that the AMPTP attempted to include a proposal that allowed studios to use actors's faces for a one-time fee, having the exclusive rights to their likeness, drawing comparisons to the Black Mirror episode "Joan Is Awful."[34]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1165241994

And oh, just on the side: back in May someone stuck a long, long list of celebrity actors in the WGA strike article. Useless information AND not directly related to the WGA. After two months of argument on the talkpage, it was removed today. Tell us again that Wikipedia is not a celebrity tattle thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1165200963

[ericbarbour]

Forgot to add: this is a PALTRY article, for an organization that is 99 years old (and was formed from the ashes of a previous group, the Motion Pictures Producer's Association). They have great power in the film and TV industries but Wikipedia has almost nothing about their long and bizarre history.

Have a 1988 paper that went over the early days of labor organizing in show business:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3815030?ma ... went-union

And there are books. So the Wiki-twats can't claim a "lack of reliable secondary sources".

https://www.amazon.com/Class-Struggle-H ... B09K82FP2N
https://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Strike ... 143823385X
https://www.amazon.com/Writers-History- ... 0813571391
https://www.amazon.com/TV-Strike-Hollyw ... 0815610084

Even animation has books about labor disputes
https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Line-Unt ... 0813124077
https://www.amazon.com/Disney-Revolt-Gr ... 164160719X

But noooo, you can't "google that for free". So we end up with half-documented garbage and celebrity blather.

[ericbarbour]

Jane Birkin died, and within minutes of it hitting the media in Europe/UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1165627106

Which triggered an editwar. The article grew by 10k bytes in a few hours.

WP:NOTNEWS ha ha

[rubricatedseedpod]

Jane Birkin died, and within minutes of it hitting the media in Europe/UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1165627106

Which triggered an editwar. The article grew by 10k bytes in a few hours.

WP:NOTNEWS ha ha

I suppose much of NOT is treated as extended criteria for N these days, so it won't stop people from doing what they like with already-established articles.

[ericbarbour]

Anyone remember this from 2016?

https://shitplanetblog.tumblr.com/post/ ... ezer-still

I checked again: Emily Ratajkowski is now 180k bytes with 279 references. Making her one of the world's "most important people", according to Wikipedia.

That "true Wikipeidiot" TonyTheTiger finally stopped grinding it in January of this year. But someone called Kailash29792 took over from him and kept expanding the thing. Maybe he should stick to Indian films.