Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/In the media

← Back to In the media

Discuss this story

• "Furor over new Wikipedia skin" didn't have much backing in the text, did it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Truly a surprise. /s — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Okay, you caught me. I have written it out into a section. jp×g 23:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

That at least is some furor, even if it wasn't in the media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw, who alleged that this was an uncontroversial implementation? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for including the Atlantic article! As I pointed out here, Italian on-line newspaper Il Post also wrote about the extensive debate on the WMF's fundraising banners. They've already covered Wikipedia-related topics several times in recent years, so keep an eye on the (great) work they do, if you can! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Oltrepier: Sorry, I missed your comment on the Suggestions page. Busy week. But I was aware of the Il Post article and posted it back in January at the Village Pump. It should really have been in the previous Signpost issue. I forgot. Next time you want to alert us to an Il Post article (or any other interesting article), do ping me in your post. I agree they're providing good coverage. Cheers, Andreas JN466 09:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayen466 Don't worry, I totally understand. Thank you, anyway! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• The Paranormal article appears to not appear anymore, here's an archive:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for trying to archive that, but it didn't work! It links to some sort of 2021 psychology paper instead of the article I briefly reviewed. At the same time, the article I reviewed is still in the pdn table of contents, but that doesn't link to the article either. Spooky! While obviously a fringe topic, I was strangely drawn to the article. It's argument was oddly convincing and pure nonsense at the same time. Double spooky! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Smallbones I didn't archive it, I just searched it, but the link works fine for me. Some geo thing, perhaps. @Sgerbic, what do you see? And did you disappear it with evil sceptic-powers? Article still mentioned at [2] and [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    • I finally got the archive version. Maybe I'm just all thumbs today. Or it could be the strange weather we're having today. Triple spooky! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

      Gee I don't think I used my "special powers" this time. I get things confused with all the other evil I have to do these days. I'm quite busy. Sgerbic (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)