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

In the media

Bills, bans and laws

By Bri, Andreas Kolbe and Smallbones

UK Online Safety Bill

According to Wikipedia, the Online Safety Bill is "intended to improve internet safety" in the United Kingdom. The WMF, and many others, have a dim view of it. For more, see this issue's special report.

Section 230

See prior Signpost coverage

The Verge tells us "A number of internet services — including ... the Wikimedia Foundation — filed briefs last week ... encouraging the [United States Supreme Court] not to narrow its definition of Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act]." The narrow definition referred to by The Verge would uphold the ability of Texas and Florida to restrict online moderation that is defined by the states as viewpoint discrimination. An argument against these state laws is that they essentially compel speech by online hosts such as Wikimedia – what Eugene Volokh writing in Texas Law Review calls "compelled hosting" – which is likely a First Amendment violation. We don't know yet whether it is a violation, and this is what the Supreme Court case will sort out, maybe.

More media on the topic include Gizmodo sorting out the views of several participants and a number of legal scholars' opinions and analysis:

• The United States Supreme Court's linked list of relevant documents
• The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a Cato Institute research fellow concerning Section 230 and compelled speech.
• The Cornell Law Review has an analysis that states "requiring tech companies to maintain politically neutral content moderation algorithms is a form of compelled speech and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

• WMF brief

– B

Saudi bans, jail sentences

Osama Khalid (left) and Ziyad Alsufyani, the two Wikimedians jailed in 2020 for 32 and 8 years respectively

The story of the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of sixteen administrators and editors in the Middle-East/North Africa region and the two Saudi Wikimedians, Osama Khalid and Ziyad Alsufyani, who have been jailed in a Saudi Arabian maximum-security prison since 2020 (see previous Signpost coverage) has been attracting further press attention over the past two weeks.

Democracy Now! featured an interview with DAWN executive director Sarah Leah Whitson on 17 January.

On 18 January, a number of human rights organisations (Access Now, ALQST, Article 19, Global Voices, GCHR and IFEX) published a report that called for Osama's and Ziyad's release and also included a short WMF statement:

"We are saddened and deeply concerned about these arrests and the harm they have caused to the freedom and safety of Osama Khalid and Ziad Al-Sufyani. The Foundation shares a common belief with Wikimedia volunteer communities around the world that access to knowledge is a human right."

On 26/27 January, a Reuters story titled "Wikipedia Middle East editors ban shows risks for creators" was carried by outlets including the Bangkok Post, Jakarta Post, Deccan Herald, Jerusalem Post and CNBC Africa.

The report included quotes from the recent Signpost coverage as well as a statement from Raed Jarrar, DAWN's Advocacy Director, who questioned Wikimedia's "business model" which he said had created "two classes of humans" – those paid to manage Wikimedia, and the volunteers who produce and edit Wikipedia's content for free:

"The biggest question here is about Wikimedia's model of relying on volunteers who are operating in authoritarian countries, and putting them in danger, and not advocating for their release when they are in trouble."

Pat de Brún, head of artificial intelligence and big data at rights group Amnesty International, commented:

"A huge amount is at stake. Knowledge is power, and the power to rewrite history and do propaganda is valuable for governments who have a lot to hide and have a shameful human rights record."

– AK

In brief

• Mystery billionaire didn't have a Wikipedia page: Alex Gerko, a non-oligarch Russian-born algorithmic trader, paid more taxes (£487.4 million) than anybody else in the UK this year. The lack of a Wikipedia article surprised the Mirror, but the article was created within 10 hours. An article on Gerko's firm, XTX Markets, had been created in 2018.
• The good, the bad, and the ugly: Poynter together with a PBS Newshour Student Reporting Project video teaches about the good – the solid foundations of Wikipedia's work; the bad – vandalism, the special markup language, and the difficulty of editing on a mobile device; and the ugly – hoaxes. It also gives some tips on using Wikipedia such as "explore the footnotes", and look for locks or tags at the top of the page. It gives a rating as well "Mostly Legit". View the video here. The real good, bad and ugly are here.
• Italian TV report: An episode of Italian TV series Report, which airs on the Rai 3 channel of Italy's national broadcaster, took an hour-long critical look at Wikimedia finances as well as paid editing and POV pushing on Wikipedia. Rai also posted links to WMF responses to the programme makers' questions: 1, 2. These documents are bilingual, showing the original English questions and answers followed by an Italian translation.
• Wikipedia "not completely dependable", says Supreme Court: "The Supreme Court [of India] cautioned the courts and adjudicating authorities against use of 'wikipedia' for legal dispute resolution". Fair enough.
• "Wikipedia has spent years on a barely noticeable redesign": by Annie Rauwerda for Slate.
  • "Wikipedia's first desktop design update in a decade doesn't rock the boat", Engadget
  • "Wikipedia gets its first makeover in over a decade…and it’s fairly subtle", TechCrunch
  • "It's not just you — Wikipedia looks different", Business Insider
• Quiet progress: Noam Cohen in The Atlantic writes that "The Culture Wars Look Different on Wikipedia" (paywalled)
• Is everybody skeptical?: Paranormal Daily News is skeptical about how the paranormal is covered in this encyclopedia. They believes that a secret conspiracy is working to suppress the scientific presentation of the paranormal here.
• Igbo Wikimedians: Digital safety challenges for activists preserving their language through open knowledge (Global Voices's RisingVoices blog)
• Software turns Wiki pages into videos for education: [1] (EdSurge – International Society for Technology in Education)
• Annie Rauwerda, again!: For the second time this month, Rauwerda's work on her Instagram account @depthsofwikipedia has been recognized by the press, this time on Bustle. For the second time this month, the article has featured a photo of my dog!. -Sb
• Freely licensed oral knowledge: Peoples Gazette reports that Wikimedia User Group Nigeria and the Yoruba Wikimedians User Group donated 100 Nigerian oral histories and 20 audiovisual recordings of Yoruba Indigenous work to the Department of Linguistics and African Languages at the University of Ibadan. -AK
• Pakistan state telecom "degrades" Wikipedia access due to blasphemy: Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, the state telecom regulator, threatened a full block if Wikipedia maintains non-compliance TechCrunch, Daily Times. Neither the two referenced media sources nor the PTA English language press release mention what is the offending material, nor how the PTA notified "Wikipedia" of its order. For a more comprehensive report on this development, see News and notes in this issue of The Signpost.
• Congressman edits: Controversial U.S. congressman George Santos may have edited English Wikipedia a decade before his election this past November. Reported by The New Republic in the United States, The Independent in the UK and Politico published in the U.S. with German ownership.

Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit our next edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.

← Previous "In the media"

In this issue

4 February 2023

From the editor

News and notes

Section 230

Disinformation report

Special report

In the media

Op-Ed

Opinion

Recent research

WikiProject report

Tips and tricks

Featured content

Traffic report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try .

• "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:[2] 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 [3] and [4]. 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)

The Signpost is looking for new talent.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions