Talk:Pakistan reverses block on Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia
Missing source?
edit@TechGPT, DRC-B5: The last paragraph quotes from WMF's press statement but it should probably be included in the sources section. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok adding soon @Chaetodipus. DRC-B5 (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A few things
edit@DRC-B5: 1. Images, even freely-licensed ones like the Wikimedia logos, must still be credited.
2. Not your fault, but the PTA's statement ("the services of Wikipedia have been degraded for 48 hours") does not make sense. How does one "degrade" a website without blocking it? The WMF simply quoted the statement, as did the sources. We shouldn't pass confusion on to our readers, so I've removed it.
3. There are Wikimedia projects that are not Wikipedia, like Wikinews, of course.
4. The block was placed on Friday, and that should be the focal date of the story. The sources seem to think the WMF announced it on Saturday, but that also occurred on Friday.
5. I had to edit for distance from source. Remember, don't copy paragraphs from the source(s) and "scuff them up" with synonyms and minor changes.
6. Remember WN:PYRAMID again, what the PTA did years ago is not as important as what it says now.
7. I could not verify that the Tinder and Grindr blocks were in September 2020, but figured it wasn't important enough to bring in another source for and removed. More seriously, I could not verify the PTA spokesperson's quote, so I added the The Independent source. Heavy Water (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Re no. 2: it's not our discretion whether sentences are ambiguous. When it's incomprehensible, [sic] or clarifying remarks will do; but it's pertinent to the story (and that's more our judgement) because it's a primary source quote. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Understood. DRC-B5 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @JJLiu112: OK,
Done. Heavy Water (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the points that you told me. And about Tinder and Grindr blocks I got it from BBC. It was mentioned already on the source. I was trying to explain that PTA block was not the first time before. DRC-B5 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @DRC-B5: No problem. The BBC article did say Tinder and Grindr were blocked, it just didn't say when. I do appreciate the background you included. Heavy Water (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4708411 [Not ready]
edit  |
Revision 4708411 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This cannot be published in its current state. The block has been reversed already. Shehbaz Sharif ordered the PTA to do so and the WMF has confirmed. The article needs to be updated for current status of the situation. Otherwise, it did look like a good article thanks to a lot of collaboration. I am concerned, however, the article might have been started as an AI experiment. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 4708411 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This cannot be published in its current state. The block has been reversed already. Shehbaz Sharif ordered the PTA to do so and the WMF has confirmed. The article needs to be updated for current status of the situation. Otherwise, it did look like a good article thanks to a lot of collaboration. I am concerned, however, the article might have been started as an AI experiment. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
@SVTCobra: It was a ChatGPT article, but with extensive copyediting and rewriting by DRC-B5, Chaetodipus, and myself, it might as well be a different article. I'll attempt to update it now. --Heavy Water (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, it was nothing like the initial article. But I think we need to collectively think about AI submitted articles. --SVTCobra 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Totally. Unless it's Microsoft's AI, which declares it will not write for you for "ethical" reasons and gives tips instead. Heavy Water (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: Sorry, it appears we edit conflicted as I was already editing when you added the under review tag. Heavy Water (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- No worries. Cheers, SVTCobra 00:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4708474 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 4708474 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It took a while, but we got here in the end. I do not like putting the WMF logo on the main page, but maybe I have to. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4708474 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It took a while, but we got here in the end. I do not like putting the WMF logo on the main page, but maybe I have to. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |