Sarah Jeong racism allegations

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:21 pm

Did an article in Breitbart about the fight over Sarah Jeong's article. A previous article on the debacle in The Daily Caller has already got the usual suspects into a tizzy. Of course, full protection came before there was a lot of coverage about it so the earlier outrage was more due to the poor timing of the protection. I myself only became genuinely interested when I saw the way they handled putting something into her page about it. The whole unstated BLP/NPOV excuse for not favoring the version that had much clearer consensus doesn't hold much water for me. Suspect there is a certain element of "these sources are conservative and therefore unacceptable!" Know some of these folks already think Fox News should get the Daily Mail treatment.

Pudeo
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:29 am

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Pudeo » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:47 pm

It was mostly Sangdeboeuf, who has done almost 200 edits to the Sarah Jeong article and talk page in 2 days. That guy is living the culture war, and apparently can't ever compromise one bit. Quite something to cite WP:AVOIDVICTIM to try to prevent the tweets being quoted in the article, despite apprearing in several mainstream media sources.

Also did you see ZinedineZidane98 being indefinitely blocked because of this article? I understand why he would run into some trouble with responses like "Cool story bro" and "LOL!", but in this article he only suggested removing wording about "negative reaction from conservative media". That was sensible and the majority supported it in the talk page.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 286
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:03 pm

Pudeo wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:47 pm
It was mostly Sangdeboeuf, who has done almost 200 edits to the Sarah Jeong article and talk page in 2 days. That guy is living the culture war, and apparently can't ever compromise one bit. Quite something to cite WP:AVOIDVICTIM to try to prevent the tweets being quoted in the article, despite apprearing in several mainstream media sources.

Also did you see ZinedineZidane98 being indefinitely blocked because of this article? I understand why he would run into some trouble with responses like "Cool story bro" and "LOL!", but in this article he only suggested removing wording about "negative reaction from conservative media". That was sensible and the majority supported it in the talk page.
The matter with Zinedine is mentioned towards the end of the piece. I have to say that is one factor that also makes this interesting to me. Outside of Zinedine, there are two other editors who have criticized the handling of this who are now subject to "boomerang" requests. All of that is on top of the people getting dinged for violating the restriction on the article. Seems to me they are one step short of pulling a Ryulong over this case, which would just make everything that much worse.

Edit: Looks like The Atlantic is talking about this now too, though it doesn't quite represent things accurately. It also complains about the "culture war" coming for the "utopian" project, which is pretty indicative of where this writer stands and it is not with a reasonable understanding of the site.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:41 pm

Alexis C. Madrigal wrote: Others pointed out that dozens of news organizations, including gold-standard ones in the Wikipedia community like the BBC, had covered her tweets.
It's funny how BBC is considered to be a "gold standard" source, even though they fail the most basic test of attributing their articles to an author. Some of them are picked up from wires, and they don't indicate that either. I've noticed other shenanigans there, such as accompanying articles about places with photogaphs of different places and the like. Wikipedians like it because it's "mainstream" and suits their prejudices.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:41 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:41 pm
It's funny how BBC is considered to be a "gold standard" source, even though they fail the most basic test of attributing their articles to an author.
What an odd thing to say. Most traditional media do not attribute the majority of their stories (getting a byline is quite a career step for a journalist). In the UK, responsibility for what is written lies with the editor of a traditonal newspaper -- in the case of the BBC it's more complicated but legally explicit.

If you have reason to believe that stories on the website are misattributed, or pictures are falsely captioned, by all means produce your evidence.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:42 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:41 pm
Proabivouac wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:41 pm
It's funny how BBC is considered to be a "gold standard" source, even though they fail the most basic test of attributing their articles to an author.
What an odd thing to say. Most traditional media do not attribute the majority of their stories (getting a byline is quite a career step for a journalist).
Uh, what? Pick up the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Guardian, even student newspapers, all academic journals, most books, etc.…see all the bylines? This is why bibliographies take the form Author. Year. Title. etc. BBC of course is a broadcaster with a website, but this is not really a good excuse, especially as many of their stories e.g. those from Associated Press were signed until they intentionally removed the signatures. An outlet which does not attribute authorship is at least one step down the ladder. Maybe you were thinking of Wikipedia?

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am

OK, I'll pick up a recent Daily Telegraph which I happen to have by me. Front page: 6 stories, 3 bylines; page 2:10 and 3 (one "Daily Telegraph reporter"); page 3: 2 and 2; page 4: 5 and 4; page 5: 3 and 2; ... page 15, 8 and 4 (one "Our Foreign Staff"). There's a hierarchy about "Our correspondent", "Our own correspondent", "Our special correspondent" and so forth, rather like the credits on a TV show ("starring", "also starring", "guest starring", "with" etc.) It simply is not the convention that British quality newspapers sign all their stories, and I don't know why you would trouble to assert the opposite. The formal legal responsibility for the contents lies with the editor personally, who is ultimately repsonsible for the text of a story even if it has a byline. Any reporter will tell you that their text is fiercely subedited to fit the page, for example, and there's a whole tradecraft around just making sure that the main points of the story survive subbing. You may not think that lack of a byline is a good thing, but it's a fact of life, and has rather little to do with the quality of the fact-checking or the reputation for reliability.

Did you have any examples where the BBC website removed the attribution from an AP story? I would be surprised, as it's hardly what AP would want. Did you mean that they removed the report's name and replaced it by an attribution to AP corporately. Do tell.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:11 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
OK, I'll pick up a recent Daily Telegraph which I happen to have by me. Front page: 6 stories, 3 bylines; page 2:10 and 3 (one "Daily Telegraph reporter"); page 3: 2 and 2; page 4: 5 and 4; page 5: 3 and 2; ... page 15, 8 and 4 (one "Our Foreign Staff")
I just checked https://www.telegraph.co.uk and every one of some 10 stories I checked has a byline, sometimes included in the newsfeed. Of course these will be the highest profile articles as they are in said newsfeed. I don't have experience with the UK print media, but a byline is standard for American newspapers and has been for as long as I can remember. Even college and high school newspapers as stated.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
The formal legal responsibility for the contents lies with the editor personally, who is ultimately repsonsible for the text of a story even if it has a byline.
Not the publisher? No one was arguing about legal liability anyway. In the United States it might be any or all the aforementioned. As in the communism discussion, you seem to have a fondness for straw men. Perhaps the courts will allow you to marry one soon.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
You may not think that lack of a byline is a good thing, but it's a fact of life, and has rather little to do with the quality of the fact-checking or the reputation for reliability.
What nonsense. Excepting perhaps the part about reputation, since it seems possible that there are people out there who say, "It's in the Telegraph, it must be true!" or the like. In the United States, a number of reporters for high profile outlets have been busted for plagiarism and/or fabrication, and the stories with their bylines are now open to question. Without those bylines, we would not be able to see which ones they are. You are just sweeping the dirt under the rug.

In academic writing, citing a journal but not an author on the grounds that its "fact-checking" and "reputation for reilability" are what makes the difference would be not just unethical but completely laughable, unorthodox and bizarre. Sounds like an Englishman swallowed too much WP:RS and cherished what aftertaste suited his preexisting prejudices.

Oh wait, you're nearly quoting it, aren't you?
Professor Wikipedia wrote: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 8#Overview
Maybe don't build your mental castles on that sand.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
Did you have any examples where the BBC website removed the attribution from an AP story? I would be surprised, as it's hardly what AP would want. Did you mean that they removed the report's name and replaced it by an attribution to AP corporately. Do tell.
Last I checked – several years ago – it was standard practice for all wire stories picked up by BBC to omit credits to anyone besides "BBC." Of course it's not what the wires and their reporters would have liked – presumably they were paid to accept this, and couldn't just seek out some alternate BBC to cut a better deal – nor did it serve readers who might have wondered where the information came from and upon whose authority.

Hmm, can we think of any other websites that work this way?

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Renée Bagslint » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:11 am
I just checked https://www.telegraph.co.uk and every one of some 10 stories I checked has a byline,
I was referring, quite explicitly, to the printed version.
I don't have experience with the UK print media
Then why are you trying to argue the facts with a UK contributor who does have that experience?
but a byline is standard for American newspapers and has been for as long as I can remomber.
That's nice. Also irrelevant to (a) whether British newspapers always have bylines (which isn't the case) and also to (b) whether having bylines is a reliable indicator of high standards of journalism (which also isn't the case).
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
The formal legal responsibility for the contents lies with the editor personally, who is ultimately repsonsible for the text of a story even if it has a byline.
Not the publisher?
No. Again, it's a UK thing. Perhaps you should brush up your knowledge of the UK media scene before lecturing us on it.
No one was arguing about legal liability anyway.
Legal liability, which is a part of what I was talking about, is connected with personal responsibility -- did you notice the word "responsiblity" there? -- and corporate reputation. The reputation of a British newspaper is attached more to its brand and to the personal reputation of the editor than it is to the personal reputation of individual journalists.
As with the communism discussion, you seem to have a fondness for straw men. Perhaps the courts will allow you to marry one soon.
Almost funny ... keep trying and one day you may manage to make an actual joke.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
You may not think that lack of a byline is a good thing, but it's a fact of life, and has rather little to do with the quality of the fact-checking or the reputation for reliability.
What nonsense. Excepting perhaps the part about reputation, since it seems possible that there are people out there who say, "it is in the Telegraph, it must be true!" or the like.
"Nonsense"? Really? You mean you cannot understand it or it isn't written in plain English? I think what you mean is that you disagree with the facts, which you admit you aren't familiar with. So that disagreement doesn't carry much weight. "Except the reputation"? Is that not exactly what we are talking about here? But yes, in the UK, people do tend attach credibility to the newspaper or the broadcaster corporately rather than to individual reporters. Again, a fact of life.
In The United States, a number of reporters for high profile outlets have been busted for plagiarism and/or fabrication, and the stories with their bylines are now open to question. Without those bylines, we would not be able to see which ones they are. You are just sweeping the dirt under the rug.
So the US media work differently. I think we agree on that. So what (apart from the fact that you didn't know there was a difference)? If a British newspaper has to retract a story then the reputation of the newspaper as a whole, its brand if you will, suffers, and does the personal reputation of the editor, and indeed of the journalist if named. The dirt gets dished in different places, that's all. I'm not trying to hide anything -- I didn't design the British media, I simply happen to know more than you do about how it works.
In academia, citing a journal but not an author on the grounds that their "fact-checking" and "reputation for accuracy" are what makes the difference would be not just unethical but completly laughable.
Yes, I know, having published dozens of academic papers, refereed dozens more (not quite the same as fact-checking), and been on the editorial board and the board of trustees of academic journals, with, I believe, good reputations. One of the things I noticed from my experiences was that academic journals and newspapers are different things, with different goals and different means of achieving those goals. Academic journals are trying to publish something of lasting value: newspapers are famously tomorrow's fish-and-chip wrappers. Again, these are matters of simple fact -- you may not like the way these worlds work, but there it is.
Sounds like an Englishman swallowed too much WP:RS and cherished what aftertaste suited his preexisting prejudices.
I'm correcting your mistaken notion of the facts about how things work here in the UK. Another mistaken notion you might like to correct is that it's a good idea to refer to people who sign their posts Renée as "Englishman". The people who have "swallowed too much WP:RS" are the Wikipedians who think that a newspaper (except notoriously the Daily Mail) is a reliable source on a par with an academic journal or a scholarly text from a university press. Why don't you argue with them about it? I'm not a contributor to Wikipedia and most unlikely ever to be one.
Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:28 am
Did you have any examples where the BBC website removed the attribution from an AP story? I would be surprised, as it's hardly what AP would want. Did you mean that they removed the report's name and replaced it by an attribution to AP corporately. Do tell.
Last I checked – several years ago – it was standard practice for all wire stories picked up by BBC to omit credits to anyone besides "BBC." Of course it's not what the wires and their reporters would have liked – presumably they were paid to accept this, and couldn't just seek out some alternate BBC to cut a better deal – nor did it serve readers who might have wondered where the information came from and upon whose authority.
So, that's a "NO", then.
Last edited by Renée Bagslint on Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Proabivouac
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Sarah Jeong racism allegations

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:01 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:50 am
Another mistaken notion you might like to correct is that it's a good idea to refer to people who sign their posts Renée as "Englishman".
Gosh, I didn't realize that this is your real name! How about this: I don't believe you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests