There is a 6 month Wikimedian in Residence role, or perhaps in this case
Wikidatan in Residence coming up, at least 50% based in Cambridge.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Arrow <tom(a)contentmine.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:00 AM
Subject: [Wikidata] WikiFactMine Project is Advertising for a Wikimedian in
ContentMine is currently looking to hire a Wikimedian in Residence for
the WikiFactMine Project (see:
It's a six month long position and we're looking for someone who could
spend around half their time in Cambridge, UK. We expect it to have
quite a lot of Wikidata related work.
If you're interested or know someone who might be then the advert can
be seen at: http://contentmine.org/jobs
Wikidata mailing list
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Firstly, many thanks to those of you who have said you would consider
responding to Wikimedia press enquiries in future, and I will be emailing
more about that within the next few days - particularly off the back of the
Media Handling and Crisis Communications course I've been on for the past
two days (and no, the irony of the timing wasn't lost on me).
In the meantime, we've had an enquiry from BBC North West online who
are working on a story about a music fan who apparently secured entry to
the VIP area of a gig by editing the band’s Wikipedia page to claim he was
a relative of one of the members. More fool the bouncers in my opinion but
anyway...the BBC has asked "we wanted to check that this change would have
indeed been processed this quickly and without being verified by Wiki
editors? Would Wikipedia be interested in adding a comment about users
making edits for their own means and what the organisation does to tackle
this?" Clearly the journalist in question doesn't understand exactly how
editing works and I think it would be most appropriate to have an editor
respond to this, and talk about processes in place to deal with vandalism.
The article is The Sherlocks <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sherlocks>
and the edit in question was made on 10th February at 8.28pm and reverted
by another editor at 4.15pm the following day.
Would anyone be willing to talk to the BBC about this today? If so, could
you let me know and I'll put you in touch.
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent
non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility
for its contents.*
Re "why blacklist the Daily Mail not even worse
The Daily Mail is a very long way from being the first source deprecated by
the Wikipedia community, it isn't even in the most deprecated category of
sources, that would be ones that go into the spamfilter and are
If someone can point to a worse site currently in use as a source on
Wikipedia we can comment on that and even start a discussion on them at the
reliable sources noticeboard. But if someone comes to the discussion in the
misconception that the Daily Mail is the first source we have deprecated,
the best response is to explain that Wikipedians have been discussing the
reliability of sources for many years. This may be the first such decision
to get public interest, it is a very long way from being the first such
decision. So to answer a question with a question, can you name a source
which is less reliable than the Daily Mail but isn't deprecated on
For the record I wish we could go into a little more nuance re the Daily
Mail, such as at what points in history could they be treated as reliable.
I've heard that their sports coverage is reliable, except perhaps where it
blurs into coverage of sports personalities.
On 15 February 2017 at 03:28, - - <john(a)bodkinprints.co.uk> wrote:
> On 09 February 2017 at 15:57 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
> Which leaves the question of "why blacklist the Daily Mail not even worse
> sources?" If anyone can suggest an answer to that which would keep a journo
> happy I'd be interested to hear it .... ;)
> One reason that I didn't see mentioned in the rfc is that, unlike say the
> Guardian, the Mail seems to reuse its story urls after only 2 years or so.
> Eg: I followed a ref link for a story on a record auction price for a
> painting to find a recent story about a footie transfer. That may be good
> enough for many linking websites but doesn't work for us.
> Btw i did the WMUK media training & am used to speaking to the press on
> Wiki-in-residence matters, & would be happy to be on a panel or whatever,
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
I suspect we need to build up the UK press corps again. The call comes
maybe every 1-2 years, but when it happens we need people. So if you see an
email come by, you can *SPRING* into action and represent editors on the
Last night's Newsnight didnt happen, because the Daily Mail bottled it.
Possibly because Alastair Campbell offered to speak up on our behalf, ahem.
I'm regretting I couldn't make it now ...
So! Who thinks they could do well off the cuff about the view of Wikipedia
editors? I think Lucy would like all your names :-)
Someone should do a text comparison of Daily Mail articles to identify all
the bits they thev almost certainly lifted from Wikipedia!
07976 935 986
On 10 February 2017 at 10:06, <wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
> editor on hand? (Deryck Chan)
> 2. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
> editor on hand? (Gordon Joly)
> 3. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
> editor on hand? (Lucy Crompton-Reid)
> 4. Re: Digitisaton of East India Company/ India Office records
> (John Lubbock)
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:15:06 +0000
> From: Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs
> WP:RS tonight - editor on hand?
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Interesting question from Chris.
> On 9 February 2017 at 15:57, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
> > Which leaves the question of "why blacklist the Daily Mail not even worse
> > sources?" If anyone can suggest an answer to that which would keep a
> > happy I'd be interested to hear it .... ;)
> I think the answer is NPOV and systemic bias.
> For several years I've been resisting the urge of other editors to prohibit
> the use of "tabloid" newspapers in the context of establishing notability
> of subjects in cultures whose primary language isn't English. I see it as a
> necessary trade-off to address systemic bias.
> Case in point: Some AfD editors don't like Apple Daily as a reference. But
> they are the only major news outlet in Hong Kong that is openly critical of
> the political establishment and supportive of the (perpetual) opposition.
> I guess I'm just adding to David's comparison:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > compare -
> > * not right-wing-ness - e.g. the Times and Telegraph are both serious
> > papers that lean right
> > * in fact - The Sun is not OK and the Times is, even though same politics
> > and same publisher, because one's a tabloid and one's a serious paper
> - If blacklisting a tabloid source which sometimes produces questionable
> journalism would mean a significant POV gets purged, we allow the lesser
> evil of citing sources by lower-quality publishers.
> - If the same publisher produces different publications that vary in
> journalistic integrity, we treat each item differently.