Wikipedians are used to media coverage that misunderstands or distorts our processes, but even so, the recession definition frenzy was striking. I wrote for about what actually happened and what it means for Wikipedia as a space of shared reality:
Follow
Samuel Breslow
@sdkb42
I tweet about journalism, , information ecosystems, and urbanism.
I copy edit the . Past: , , , .
Samuel Breslow’s Tweets
"Social media flattens everything. A New York Times story can look exactly like a fake Chevron news site story on a platform like Facebook." – to
“The reality is a very typical case study of how Wikipedians modify articles in response to current events.” writes for about what actually happened with the article about “Recession” ⬇️
1
8
21
It's 2022. 's been a top 10 website for *15 years* now. There's no excuse for journalists to STILL misreport the fundamentals of how it works; no excuse for the mass failures to fact check what happens there when everything is completely transparent/visible.
4
41
106
Show this thread
One thing I think about alot: the exurban & rural places in which US conservatives live are utterly bereft of public spaces. Church attendance is declining. There are virtually no civic groups & associations left. These people live in *profoundly* alienating circumstances.
790
1,731
9,289
Show this thread
Wikipedia stubbornly insists on presenting a single, shared version of reality, writes .
That's getting harder to do.
1
1
4
Topics to follow
Sign up to get Tweets about the Topics you follow in your Home timeline.
Carousel
As this year's begins, Wikipedia is one of the last information sources relied on across an ever more polarized political spectrum.
I wrote for about an incident that shows how precarious this position is:
#Wikimania2022 #Wikimania
11
19
A lot of politics on social media can be understood in terms of supply and demand. There is always heavy demand for information that suggests your side is right and the other is wrong. When the mainstream media don't satisfy that demand, social media will elevate those who do.
15
101
256
Show this thread
Very good, straightforward piece by about the viral false claim that the Wikipedia page for "recession" was being censored by Biden partisans. Something very different happened, but you wouldn't know that from Twitter:
2
2
20
“The reality is a very typical case study of how Wikipedians modify articles in response to current events—and a clear example of how some conservatives are learning to weaponize as part of a political battle to delegitimize traditional sources”
2
26
74
Quote Tweet
Wikipedians are used to media coverage that misunderstands or distorts our processes, but even so, the recession definition frenzy was striking. I wrote for @Slate about what actually happened and what it means for Wikipedia as a space of shared reality: slate.com/technology/202
1
3
"If Wikipedia were like Facebook or Twitter, there would be not one main page on recessions but many, each defining it in a way algorithmically targeted to appeal to you"
I am briefly quoted in this article by .
2
2
8
"This is no Dutch bike lane with a safe, modern design and well-funded construction. This is an American bike lane—a blood-pumping obstacle course of neglected asphalt and ideas from the 1970s."
1
65
120
One joy of working at the is getting to share an idle thought on Slack and then see it taken up by brilliant writers and reported out into a full-fledged article.
The result is this piece:
4
11
the main killer of adult friendships in America is the suburbs.
425
3,828
49.1K
Show this thread
I'm quoted in 's report on Wikipedia's most controversial request for adminship in recent memory. Check out his article (slate.com/technology/202) and read my thread below.
Quote Tweet
A disabled trans Jewish editor recently went through a hellish ordeal requesting administrator rights on #Wikipedia. Her experience reveals a lot about how power and politics work on the world's encyclopedia, affecting what you read there. (Thread
)
)Show this thread
2
As we approach a full year of bargaining for a new contract with management, we want to share excerpts of messages that our members sent to the entire company in March.
We explained why we were fighting for fair wages and a #ContractNow — management never replied. 🧵
5
85
122
Show this thread
Pro tip for spamtrepreneurs:
Actually getting paid to do work is not some special perk (even in all-caps), and "it'll be just like driving for !" is not the selling point you think it is.
read image description
ALT
NEW: The District of Columbia will soon charge owners of supersized trucks/SUVs extra for the damage they inflict on society.
It's a groundbreaking model that other cities and states should study.
A 🧵 about my latest in
176
2,199
8,315
Show this thread
Excellent🧵on this controversial "request for adminship" on #Wikipedia. Hearing that this nom was supported & opposed at record highs. Wikipedia admins have special powers to block users and to protect pages from editing. But first they must survive a week of public scrutiny...
Quote Tweet
A disabled trans Jewish editor recently went through a hellish ordeal requesting administrator rights on #Wikipedia. Her experience reveals a lot about how power and politics work on the world's encyclopedia, affecting what you read there. (Thread)
)Show this thread
2
7
The New York Times, likely tired of paying to hear about a constant drip of “anti-Jewish excesses,” as the paper of record often described Nazi crimes against humanity, dropped its subscription to the JTA in 1937, and the Associated Press soon followed suit.
1
6
29
Show this thread
You can also read Tamzin's own reflection on her experience here:
2
3
Show this thread
Wikipedia needs to chart a path that allows it to retain the qualities that have made it such a trusted source of information, and to do so with a diverse community of editors and administrators. The solutions are not easy. /🧵
Here is the full RfA:
1
3
Show this thread
But many people with Tamzin's positionality rightfully see Trumpism, an ideology that politicizes their very existence, as similarly disqualifying. What does it mean to be neutral about an extremist ideology held by a large fraction of Americans?
1
3
Show this thread
And in our current fractured information landscape, Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality is arguably more important than ever. But who defines neutral? Wikipedians are clearly generally comfortable declaring an extreme ideology like fascism out of bounds for admin candidates.
1
6
Show this thread
At the same time, the standards expected of admins have justifiably increased as Wikipedia has grown. Many admins who ran in the 2000s might not have been able to pass today, creating a demographically unrepresentative legacy cohort.
1
6
Show this thread
So what does all this say? Wikipedia has struggled for years to overcome the systemic bias it inherited from its origins in the early days of the internet, when most editors were libertarian-leaning white men. To do that, it needs more editors like Tamzin in positions of power.
1
6
Show this thread
The final tally: 340 supports, 112 opposes, and 16 neutrals. 75.2% support, a hair above the threshold. But one of the bureaucrats, citing "the acrimoniousness of the discussion", opens a chat anyways. Ultimately, they decide 9 to 2 that yes, there is consensus to promote Tamzin.
1
5
Show this thread
As the 7-day window closes, Tamzin's support % is high but dropping, nearing an important threshold. Candidates >75% typically pass outright. But those in the 65%–75% "discretionary zone" go to a "bureaucrat chat", in which senior editors assess the community's overall sentiment.
1
4
Show this thread
Other editors, however, continue supporting, or affirm their prior support. They argue that there is no direct evidence that she's actually discriminated against right-wing editors, and that this issue just distracts from her strong technical credentials.
1
3
Show this thread
It's not enough. Editors start opposing. Some are clearly conservatives, but Wikipedia leans left (by U.S. standards); most opposers just feel that her views would prevent her from being impartial as an admin.
1
4
Show this thread
A political litmus test for administrators would depart radically from this cultural norm, so Tamzin has a lot of explaining to do. She offers this answer, clarifying and moderating her opinion but not entirely dropping it.
1
5
Show this thread
At this point, it's important to know that neutrality is seen as one of Wikipedia's core pillars. The encyclopedia covers every one of the world's most controversial issues, and to maintain its credibility, it tries to explain all major points of view without endorsing any one.
1
5
Show this thread
Fast forward to a month ago. (Vami's RfA ultimately failed.) Tamzin decides to run for adminship herself. She has an exceptionally strong technical background, so she's widely expected to pass easily. But then a questioner brings up the above line. Initiate firestorm.
1
3
Show this thread
Another editor, Tamzin, supported Vami despite his past, offering this defense of her stance. It included a line (highlighted) endorsing a hypothetical rule that Trump supporters not be allowed to be admins.
1
3
Show this thread
The story here begins a year ago, at the RfA of an editor known (like most Wikipedians) only by their pseudonym, Vami IV. The central controversy: Vami admitted to having held fascist views as a teenager. He had since renounced them, but many editors remained discomfited.
1
3
Show this thread
Some RfAs sail through with hundreds of supports and no opposition at all. Others collapse spectacularly after a comment or edit is unearthed that calls into question the nominee's judgement/temperament. Editors have repeatedly tried to reform the process but cannot agree on how.
1
4
Show this thread
The review (a Request for Adminship, or RfA) can be stressful in even the best circumstances. For 7 days, every Wikipedia editor is invited to review the nominee's work, ask questions, and publicly endorse/oppose the candidacy based on their own subjective criteria.
2
5
Show this thread