Scarlett Johansson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 30, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024
The reference to Scarlett Johansson refusing to work with OpenAI, and then OpenAI releasing an audio assistant that sounds eerily like her should reference NPR, which broke that news, not the New York Times, which followed up on NPR's reporting. The Times credits NPR in its article. Here is the original NPR story: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/20/1252495087/openai-pulls-ai-voice-that-was-compared-to-scarlett-johansson-in-the-movie-her 209.144.103.186 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Disney lawsuit + OpenAI controversy
These two events are interconnected with much press coverage, here's just the latest source.
We should not cover the lawsuit in one section (buried in her Career) and the OpenAI controversy in a completely different section (her public image). This denies the reader the connections and similarities that were drawn.
Which section we focus on isn't super-important to me, just that it's one and the same. Ideally we mention the cases during the chronological walk through her career, and point to this other section for more detail and context.
CapnZapp (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Gatekeeping tendencies
There is a definite trend to just shoot down contributions with a single click on the undo button and a terse edit comment that does nothing to help explain what is wrong and how to improve the contribution.
Frequent contributors to this page would do well to distinguish between their reflexive reverts of actual vandalism and how they treat contributors that have an actual improvement to bring, because as is, the work climate on this article is impossible.
Wikipedia is not intended to be like this where gatekeepers spend 5 seconds to shoot down contributions that took multiple minutes to research, with zero thought given on how this contributor should actually proceed. I don't mind being reverted - if I'm being given insight into how to proceed. Case in point: sorry, this sentence is incredibly poorly written, and I don't feel like trying to re-write the edit at the moment
that lead to [1]. Thank you, Vincent.
I've been hit with edit comments like this that's not much of a commentary, and this is an FA
or this Removing as it is unnecessary
and I see frequent examples directed against others as well. There is no spirit of cooperation whatsoever present in any of them. No expectation of an actual collaboration. No effort made to explain how the contribution could be made acceptable. I love the "this is an FA" bit because it is peak unconstructiveness - it says absolutely nothing except "I don't like it, but I realize that's a weak argument so I will instead state something obvious and indisputable."
Y'all prefer to send a very clear message and that message is: "stay the fuck away, this is our article."
CapnZapp (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- You’d enjoy trying to improve the Red Dead Redemption 2 article if you think this one is bad. Seasider53 (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is obviously a larger issue than Scarlet Johansson, but yeah. As Wikipedia has aged, I'd guess a number of the editors have too, along with editors' "get off the lawn" tendencies :-) and I'm sure I've been guilty of this. Pointing to FA status is no reason to discount a contribution as being useful - WP isn't set in stone, I hope. I expect there's room for improvement even in older, FA articles. CAVincent (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)