Jump to content

User talk:MathewTownsend/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Article Feedback Tool updates

Hey all. My regular(ish) update on what's been happening with the new Article Feedback Tool.

Hand-coding

As previously mentioned, we're doing a big round of hand-coding to finalise testing :). I've been completedly bowled over by the response: we have 20 editors participating, some old and some new, which is a new record for this activity. Many thanks to everyone who has volunteered so far!

Coding should actively start on Saturday, when I'll be distributing individualised usernames and passwords to everyone. If you haven't spoken to me but would be interested in participating, either drop me a note on my talkpage or email okeyes@wikimedia.org. If you have spoken to me, I'm very sorry for the delay :(. There were some toolserver database issues beyond our control (which I think the Signpost discussed) that messed with the tool.

New designs and office hours

Our awesome designers have been making some new logos for the feedback page :) Check out the oversighter view and the monitor view to get complete coverage; all opinions, comments and suggestions are welcome on the talkpage :).

We've also been working on the Abuse Filter plugin for the tool; this will basically be the same as the existing system, only applied to comments. Because of that, we're obviously going to need slightly different filters, because different things will need to be blocked :). We're holding a special office hours session tomorrow at 22:00 UTC to discuss it. If you're a regex nut, existing abuse filter writer, or simply interested in the feedback tool and have suggestions, please do come along :).

I'm pretty sure that's it; if I've missed anything or you have any additional queries, don't hesitate to contact me! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Doodle for April Wikipedia Education Program meeting

Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.

I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription ·  Distributed via Global message delivery, 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN Church of St Peter, Berende

Thank you for the review and the positive comments! All the best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse metrics for Signpost?

Hi Mathew,

Just letting you know that we've posted a variety of updated Teahouse metrics. Basic info is here, and a full report (which adds survey results, among other things) is available here. Ping me or post to the Teahouse host lounge talk page if you have questions! Cheers, - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added them. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

'nuff said?

Please seek consenus before you continue with your disruptive edits, or request dispute resolution. 'nuff said?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to initiate a review. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As I stated before, I would constitute that as disruptive editing. Seek consensus or dispute resolution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not a reason for a superficial review.[1][2][3] MathewTownsend (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Two

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

  • Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
  • First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
  • Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
  • Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
  • Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
  • Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MathewTownsend. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Images

I was thinking we cut Kalākaua as we have two images of heads of state. Since Kalākaua is less related to the subject, it should probably be cut. What do you think? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Just put it there because it was already a Featured picture from the Commons and a better image that the other head of state. But we could do without either one. I don't like the featured portal image. I think there are several featured pictures that are much more interesting. And I don't think we need another sport's figure (since there's only one featured list) or more war pictures (since usually Featured content is dominated by war. And that image isn't a good one and doesn't clearly illustrate anything interesting.) There are several featured pictures that are much much better. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MathewTownsend. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sarah (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you hate these things, and of course feel free to remove. I did reply, and I hope that it can make things a bit better. Sarah (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi, you said you expressed concern and about the Tea Room and your concerns were dismissed - would you mind posting the link to that discussion? Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, never mind. I just found it by following Sarah's talkback to her page. So you expressed a concern, rather mildly I think, and she instantly jumped on you for a "patronizing and seemingly threatening tone". The exact same thing happened to me. I answered a post, quite civilly I thought, on the template talk page, and she jumped down my throat with a very hostile and condescending lecturing post about my "attitude", accusing me of being "hurtful" and "angry". I'm completely flummoxed. I have no idea what in my post made her think I was angry, and rather than ask, she jumped right into aggressive attack on my thinking, my perceived mood, for crying out loud... all without bothering to even specify what I said that she objected to. I'm deeply concerned. You've clearly been following this pilot program - is she acting like this towards anyone else? thanks in advance. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
hey! Sorry I didn't see your comment until now. I'm concerned also; "over reacting" and "mind reading" what another editor's motives/thinking is - these are things that should be guarded against and certainly not acted upon - or at least apologized for when it happens. (Since we're human and all!) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

  • I removed a FU image as quickly as I could to replace it with a free one. As I was getting ready for work at the time, I didn't have a chance to weigh each one carefully. No need to "bow out" Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you need to take a break from the Signpost and focus on more relaxing things, no problem. One request though: could you do the write-up for Chrisye? It just passed and I'd rather not do the write-up for something I spent more than 20 hours on. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It would be good for me to get back into the Signpost (make me get over my phobia!) and I'd be happy to do Chrisye! It'll help me get back into the swing of things. (Congratulations, by the way - that was a journey - looked nip and tuck for a while there!) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It took... a lot longer than I expected, but eventually I reached the finish line. Next... 1740 Batavia massacre, if I can get a really good copyeditor to look at it. Malleus is currently not in the mood to do such work, as he feels persecuted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for categorising the Aquamelt page! Rheospider (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Joint Attention GA Review

Hello, Thank you for your feedback on the Joint attention page. One concern I have is about the original research section. There are good articles that use original research. See Object permanence. Our article however does rely on secondary sources as the bulk of the information. Furthermore, n medical journals and in psychology papers many of the books considered "secondary sources" are in fact just collections of "original research" re-published by the authors. Will this be an aspect that if unchanged will result in the article being failed?

For clarification. The original article written on Joint attention contained information on humans and on primates. It was recommended that we include humans and non-humans in this article as it is titled "Joint attention" with no specification in regards to humans and non-humans. Can the article continue to include both topics or should they be separate articles? Thank you, Amae2 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Amae2,
When I used the term "original research", I'm more concerned with combining information from several sources to support statements that are not directly stated in any one source. For example, the table Developmental markers of joint attention in infancy appears to combine information from several sources, but is there any one source that supports that version of the table? Also, the first statement, that at two months "Engaging in dyadic joint attention and conversation-like exchanges with adults during which each is the focus of the other's attention and they take turns exchanging looks, noises and mouth movements" is not cited. I'm also concerned with combining information about animal with information about humans at certain points, as if the process is the same in each. Unless you have sources that specifically support that these processes develop in the same way in (some) animals e.g. you mention apes, primates, and chimpanzees, I think animal and human sources should not be combined to support a position. Also, are you saying that other animals, e.g. dogs are not capable of joint attention? If so, that cite a source.
I gave some examples in my review of the confused explanations, especially in the chimpanzee book. The descriptions from your first source is particularly confusing, and as I recall, ends up by saying the definitions are controversial.
For me, the article never gets over the differences in gazing, joint attention etc. in animals and humans, and the conflict in definitions among researchers.
Your Object permanence article is good. Focusing on Jean Piaget gives the article a clear structure. Using his views, it defines object permanence for humans, gives the history, research Jean Piaget that clearly explains his views, gives the stages as defined by him, gives "Contradicting evidence", and then has a clear section reserved for animals, not just primates, and then gives recent studies.
I think if you used Object permanence as a model, you could fix this article up nicely without too much effort. (Also the references in Object permanence are in better condition.
All in all, I think this is not far from a good article. In fact, it is quite well done. It needs some clarification and a little reorganization. Perhaps you are trying to cover to much, and need more focus as in the Object permanence article.
Also, look at my other comments - e.g. the lede shouldn't need references, etc.
Hope I'm being clear here. Feel free to ask me more questions. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend, we have revised the Joint Attention page. I am uncertain if we have to submit for GA review again, or if the GA Reassessment that you started is still active. If we need to resubmit can you let me know? Otherwise, I'll assume you will reassess when you are able. We did spend quite a bit of time discussing the concerns raised by the reassessment, and I believe our reorganization of the article is an improvement.Thanks, Paula Marentette (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarasota County preserves

Thanks very much for your help improving these articles. They sound like nice places to visit. My only suggestion would be to move the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program back to Environmentally Sensitive Lands Protection Program without the "(ESLPP)". Take care and thanks again. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.[4] MathewTownsend (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A new piece in the Guardian about a collaboration I am involved in

[5] pertaining to our translation project here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very wonderful. And a good promo for wikipedia in the Guardian. I'm only somewhat familiar with Spanish and French - not good enough to be very helpful so I can't sign up. Wish it were otherwise! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre

Greetings Mathew, this is a notice to let you know that 1740 Batavia massacre, which you have previously reviewed or copyedited, has been nominated at FAC. Should you be willing to review the article, feedback is welcome at the nomination page. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MathewTownsend. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page.
Message added 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Tom hardman

Hello MathewTownsend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Tom hardman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: user talk of valid user - replace with welcome instead. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ok. It's the only one I've ever done and won't do any more. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Risley review

I notice that you are prepared to review Herbert Hope Risley. Thanks for this. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it an extremely interesting article. I'm editing as I am reading it, but feel free to revert any changes I make that you don't like. I will post a review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It is an interesting niche and, unlike James Tod, has not attracted any angry contributors. I've addressed the most recent points raised in your review. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for completing the review. I am by no means an expert in the origins & implications of caste, varna etc (& it is a very contentious area) but I've learned one heck of a lot over the past 12 months or so while concentrating on subjects that heavily involve those in Wikipedia. Please do feel free to drop me a note if ever you need any elucidation, be it in relation to an article or just some personal query. I may well be able at least to guide you in the right direction or perhaps assist with an article etc. It is great when people show an interest because, after all, that is a big part of what this place is about: researching subjects and informing people. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Puccinia striiformis var. striiformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: sorry, didn't realize

No worries, we did publish exceptionally early but recent standards. Your additions look great, and weren't that much after publication - no-one would have noticed :) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Check your email once in a while, man :) Mark Arsten (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ok. I did. :) MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, a lot of people use separate addresses for their wiki-email and don't check them unless they get a note. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Join us Monday for April Wikipedia Education Program meeting

Greetings,

I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.

The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription ·  Distributed via Global message delivery, 19:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Sanddunes Sunrise thread and/or participating in the User talk:PumpkinSky#Ostereierbaum .28Easter Egg Tree.29 thread. Peace to everyone. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I started a similar thread for Alarbus, his creation on his talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support there! On this day PumpkinSky's Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning the approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Hi again Mathew. I just want to say regarding this that I am not one of the online ambassadors for the personality psychology class. Nor was I invited by anyone to participate in discussions or !vote. I came across the class independently and watchlisted their pages because I thought an extra set of eyes might help. I am solely acting in my capacity as a fellow editor. Gobōnobo + c 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't thinking of you at all, but rather User:Smallman12q. And some that are members of the same class. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

meta:Terms_of_use

meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities – I'm just letting you know that I've mentioned your comment on the discussion page. Can you please participate in the discussions in order to have your concerns addressed? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

ok, I answered there and tried to explain. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Journal

On which page does the link not work? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On the wikimedia outreach (or whatever it's called).[6] MathewTownsend (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

16 Personality Factors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Oblique
Alabama Clean Water Partnership (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tuscaloosa
Eldar Shafir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conflict

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Footbridges

Aren't all of these Category:Pedestrian bridges? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I wrote an article on Timber bridge and couldn't find anything on the Commons under "Timber", so while going through the various categories on the Commons commons:Category:Wooden bridges and subcategories like commons:Category:Wooden footbridges came closest to what I wanted. I never thought of Category:Pedestrian bridges as I was looking for what fitted closest to "Timber bridge{. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Evans

I thought I'd mention that I nominated Hiram Wesley Evans for GA in case you're interested in reviewing. Thanks for your help on it thus far, I always appreciate when people help copyedit my articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Education problem and DYKs

Hi. I've decided to draft a RfC about the processes for educators being involved. It is currently in my user space at User:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. I'm really concerned that no educators appear to be involved with this programme. They do not appear to understand things like learning objectives and lack of being able to clearly articulate what students will learning from going through the process is a problem. "The student will learn mastery of Wikipedia's DYK process by learning about the submission process, and understanding the reviewing criteria. Students will demonstrate mastery by successfully guiding an article through the DYK nomination process." THAT is a learning objective for DYK. I'm under the impression the learning objective is "they will be rewarded for writing good content." That is NOT a learning objective. Anyway, as you've been active in several places with this, I would really appreciate help crafting this as I have never done an RfC like this before. --LauraHale (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never done and RfC either. I'm willing to try, but I think the problems are fundamental. It's clear that the professor(s) who sent students over to collect a DYK not only didn't have clear learning objectives, but didn't seem to understand DYK processes himself. Or even how wikipedia works. Thinking that it was wise to flood dyk with a bunch of articles on Big Five personality traits shows he doesn't. And look at his course Article banners, it can be seen that these article on the Big Five were course requirements.
User:SandyGeorgia has complained that the students don't understand WP:MEDRS or WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH, yet are writing medical and psychology articles. She sees Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/Cognitive Psychology (Stacy Eltiti) is also a problem. He also assigns attaining a dyk to his students. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The learning objectives is a big thing for me. In chatting with two or three people on IRC about this, I do not think they understand the problems involved. This is not a Wikipedia Project. This is bringing in non-voluntary editors into a space where the LIKELY instructional objective is to gain subject area expertise... but you do not gain subject area expertise. Because it is completely unclear to the community what the learning objectives are, it is hard to figure out how to guide the students. I talked to two people offline about psychology courses and they told me these classes often put an emphasis on the use of primary source research as a way of understanding what is going on in the field. Time in courses is spent on evaluating and using primary source documents in a medical area. If that is the case, we have students who are being prepared to do something which explicitly violates Wikipedia policy in this area. SandyGeorgia is completely on the mark with her assessment of the problems with those articles (but as a DYK reviewer, that is not something we are equipped to deal with because our assessment process does not include that.) It is clear professors are not being guided in developing a course outline and in developing lesson plans. This is in many ways unpardonable, and if WMF is going to recruit without this, it then falls to the community to educate professors... and the easiest way is to require professors to have their plans assessed to maximize their potential for success.
I spend a fair amount of time offline talking to university related staff about using Wikimedia related projects in an academic context. (I've helped with two workshops related to this.) I've talked about the process of teaching university courses with university staff in the area of education. Lesson planning is generally NOT done on the university. After discussing this, I think the myself and the people I have chatted with have come around to the conclusion that this is detrimental to student performance. Lesson planning is extremely important here, because the professor is not giving a lecture with a test as the sole means of assessment. Rather, this is a form of active student engagement and that REALLY REALLY requires understanding core learning objectives for a course and having lesson plans to articulate how these will be met... and I'm not convinced the learning objectives for the course match with English Wikipedia.
In drafting the page, I want to make clear this is about resolving fundamental differences in goals for being involved and offer solutions which the community can support while not feeling burdened by non-voluntary contributors who are incentivized in a way that may be contrary to core Wikipedia policies. (And you can edit Wikipedia with a COI or even be paid and still be be incentivized to adhere to those if only because the goal is to avoid being blocked and have your content stick.) Any help finding difs that demonstrate problems, suggesting proposals, fine tuning the proposals, organising things and formatting it would be appreciated. I want a good draft before I take this live. --LauraHale (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree totally. I'm in a discussion with one of the professors at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Five personality traits and culture. He is saying that his campus ambassador told him that primary sources were fine. I agree that when completing course work at a university, students do devote a fair amount of time to analyzing primary sources with the objective of critiquing them. After all, to achieve an MS and PhD, one has to conduct one's own primary research project. But it is completely different to interpret primary research findings as fact and report it as such in an encyclopedia. Even WP:RS restricts this kind of thing.
I wonder if you could get SandyGeorgia to provide input. She has a great critical mind and is very familiar with the system here, which I'm not. Being primarily a medical article editor, she sees all the flotsam and jetsam and just plain incompetent junk float by.
A big problem that you've identified is that no one seems to be in charge of quality control in these educational programs. In fact, I tried to file a complaint about an online ambassador that twice could not get an article through GAN because of plagiarism/close paraphrasing, etc., and it turned out that there's no editor/forum set up to handle complaints. No one seems to be in charge of anything in these educational programs. It's clear that if a professor is relying on a campus ambassador's word about sources (and I've gathered that some campus ambassadors are barely familiar with wikipedia), then there's something very wrong.
It's clear the Education Program (whoever they are) learned NOTHING from the copyvio/plagiarism scandals of last fall's semester. They still expect the wiki community, whether dyk, GAN etc. to continue to clean up the mess. Either the community will continue to do so, or the encyclopedia will fail. In fact yesterday, one of the Education Program's regional directors (or whatever), User:Epistemophiliac just yesterday announced a wikibreak out of discouragement, because he has lost confidence in the project.
I will help you any way I can. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think one of the problems is people do not understand what the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. This isn't confined to students in classrooms but I've seen it on English Wikipedia. One of my favourites is the belief that match scores by an a sporting league on their website are primary source. Well, no. The primary source would actually be the official score sheet. But I digress. Medical stuff requires a huge amount more scrutiny and the sourcing needs to be made explicit to students at the onset. I could probably design a lesson plan addressing this issue for File:Outreach Oceania Integrating Wikimedia into the Curriculum.pdf (which needs to be wikified. WMF is spending huge on their project but non-disruptive projects designed by an educator with subject area expertise and using standard educational practices? Forget about it. Still pissed.) which would deal with that but unless the course aim included something like "To evaluate sources used in medical research" which would allow for specific lesson objective of something like "Student will learn to identify different types of source material in medical research and evaluate the reliability of these sources for use in different situations." then not much of a point.
I'm still not over the fact that WMF is doing all this university research with out having hired a Wikipedia expert who also has a degree in Instructional Technology degree. My alma mater Northern Illinois University must have at least one. The University of Indiana has one of the best programs in the world. They could hire there. We've done several successful programs in Australia but near as I can tell, no one is contacting these professors and willing to come down here to find out why these people have been successful. (Hint hint: Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiversity and Wiktionary are better equipped to deal with classes because of a narrower scope than English Wikipedia is.) I'm absolutely NOT hunting for a job at WMF (I want to stay in Australia and in Canberra.) when I say this: I just absolutely cannot believe a major EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH programme is not being headed by some one with the appropriate credentials AND a major Wikipedia project is NOT SEEKING COMMUNITY CONSENSUS. This stuff is spread across a large number of pages, but there appears to have been no discussion with the projects involved when stuff is put there.
If the community is going to be serving as EDUCATORS and EVALUATORS in non-normal community processes (which is why there is pushback regarding paid editors) who do the work of Graduate assistants and Teaching assistants, the lead courtesy that could be paid is they should be consulted and ambassadors should be paid for the Graduate assistants and Teaching assistants they actually are and undergo the same assessment process instructors undergo with end of term student reviews.
Nikkimaria dropped by my userpage to highlight a good project and it would be good to highlight that but not sure how. Given the potential... ramifications for this RfC if/when it goes live, it needs to be done with care. I wouldn't mind seeing SandyGeorgia help. While I don't always agree with her and we've butted heads, I have tremendous respect for some of the work she has done. She really knows medical and the featured article process. Having her opinion would be useful. I'm just nervous about putting anything on her talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a wonderful project that took place in Spring 2008 (four years ago). The guy running it was explanatory, and a crack group of FA editors devoted themselves to the project: FA-Team. This kinda highlights how much the encyclopedia has deteriorated since then. And, of course, WMF had nothing to do with that project!
You're right of course about the WMF's priorities. But I might disagree with you a little about the community, as (although dwindling in numbers) do perform a huge amount of work. I kind of resent these professors who think they can just transplant their courses to wikipedia without lifting much of a fingure - WMF's priority also. The online ambassadors are a joke, with a few exceptions. Maybe they spend a lot of time on IRC but I don't see them actually doing anything to improve articles.
I'm going to keep my eye out for editors who might be helpful. Perhaps some medical editors. Maybe this has to get worse before it's possible to rally any troops. Maybe dyk has to really suffer before they realize they are being used by WMF, just like the New Page Patrol did. (They had an RfC, but the WMF turned them down. But now we have a Community Liaison person for NPP who is actually helpful. User:Okeyes (WMF) actually engages with the en:wp community, is instantly responsive to questions and suggestions etc.) MathewTownsend (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There was a great project on Wikinews and one psychology class did a featured book on Wikibooks. These things can be done. (And GLAM demonstrates groups can lift content.) WMF does not appear to want to support community led projects. Instead, they appear to me to want to lead things while opposing work not coming out of their little group. If they aren't opposing, they aren't actively engaging the community. You can see this best when you look at the grant funding on meta. One of their staffers got as much funding to travel to three different conferences that I requested to create an educational pilot progamme that would have had lesson plan creation and materials usable by others afterwards. More important for WMF to fund their staff to attend conferences than to support community members who actively improve. Another example of this sort of weirdness of not consulting community while simultaneously burdening the community? Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions‎ which has created a fair amount of work for WP:AFC while not working to improve WP:AFC.
The community does a huge amount of work and the people doing valuable community support are not always appreciated. In many ways, AfC, DYK, ITN, GA, A and Featured content reviewing is more difficult than other work. Only a certain type of person can do it well, isn't scared of the negative ramifications for reviewing, can understand the guidelines to do these reviews. There is a tremendous demand on these volunteers and people get extremely cranky at them. (AfC had a backlog of about 875 reviews a day or so ago. Some one in IRC was "How long do I have to wait? I submitted my article about an hour ago." Dude, unpaid volunteers... and WMF keeps doing things that put a greater burden on the system while people inside the system put pressure on the system to reform it because of their own preferences. (DYK =/= GA. This is a continual conflict.) GA has a huge backlog. Sport made worse because I think 15 to 20 articles in that queue are mine and I'm not reviewing those, just QPQ related DYKs. This is highly specialised, non-content creation and non-content maintenance work. Not appreciated. I really wish that instead of submitting DYKs, students would be taught about evaluating sources according to WP standards and understanding formatting rules and content requirements... and learn how to review DYK and GA. They can learn about the topic and demonstrate content knowledge by doing extremely thorough reviews for DYK, GA and FA.
I've heard babbling about subject specialist in the ambassador programme, but I don't think that will fix the problem because it still avoids accountability for WMF, instructors and students. Unless ambassadors are recruited for specialised skills and are capable of putting in the time of a teaching assistant and will be PAID for this, they can't be held to the same level of accountability for allowing things to slip because participation is voluntarily for ambassadors and it isn't for students. --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe I'm in a "trough" like User:Epistemophiliac (a really nice, respectable guy) and need a wikibreak. I write a section of the Signpost every week, and each week I realize that I have no interest in most of what they are reporting, because it's all about "Chapters" and the WMF and "finances" and wasteful "grants" like the Teahouse, and there are so many who have worked for years creating good content, but are snubbed by WMF. And suddenly I feel resentful. Why should I add my labor to this whole shabang, when (as you say) the WMF people get paid vacations in Brazil. I agree the students are the victims here, and a while ago I would have gone out on a limb to help them out. Maybe my feelings are temporary, but I'm disgusted. I was just now reading through Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors, seeing your comments as well as those of others. Do you see the writing on the wall?
  • I today received an invite to be a "host" at something or other saying: "I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda." - well, gee. They don't really get what I'm about. It requires nothing, essentially. Just like all the WMF and Education Program ambassador positions. Have good social skills, never mind my ability to edit, to understand the dynamics of wikipedia etc. Not relevant!
  • Think I'll go to bed before I slit my wrists! MathewTownsend (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • If you want fun unhappy giggles, This here (also here) compared to the education program. I'm honestly a fan of chapters because I think local solutions are better and need to be supported. WMF is just NOT equipped to deal with that. After all, look how much support WMF is providing to educational initiatives in Australia, New Zealand and Oceania.
    • But I can understand your frustration. I have my own share of frustration. I feel like I am doing ABSOLUTELY COOL AND FANTASTIC stuff but not getting WMF support or recognition in things like the signpost. Look at Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/Outcomes. A lot of the work there was done by me. I'd guess about 1/4 of that work was that. In Australia, we were the first people to get official permission from a team to take pictures of a team for use on Wikipedia. Then, we repeated this with another team. Articles about every player on the both squads were improved or created and taken to DYK. I think 12 of the 18 water polo players were nominated for DYK. (On the men's side, we did this for the field hockey team but didn't get the pictures because I had to return home.) I'm busy working on women's football articles about African women's teams, articles that should get through GA. None of that gets much of a mention. (Which is why the assessment process and DYK matters so much to me. It is a form of recognition that standards have been met. A reward for improving that. Considering the implications of promoting women's sport as it relates you women and you health related issues and creating appropriate female role models in non-traditional areas... ) I've also been involved with WikiWomenCamp and it hasn't gotten much attention. But hello! One of WMF's people decided to take user created branding and use it all over with out promoting a chapter and GLAM driven female empowerment conference intended to help bridge the gender gap on the leadership and content side. I proposed and created a lot of support material for Outreach Oceania. We had RecentChangesCamp in Australia. None of this got reported outside of GLAM and my chapter. But Teahouse gets nice chunky mentions in Signpost. Will I continue with the women's sport and Australian sport work I do? Yes, as these are important topics to me that I believe in. I have fantastic support in my chapter from a few people who recognise the value of this work. I've gotten positive feedback inside the Australian sporting community. I've met fabulous people offline. I've gotten to work with a few new editors. Fabulous. I love lots and lots of this. I just have occasional frustrations elsewhere.
Laura, I think The Signpost would be interested in covering the WHM; but it would be better before the month's out, or in anticipation of another effort to encourage women editors and/or topic expansion. Tony (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And be happy with the education thing. In many cases, I couldn't attend if I wanted to because they schedule them at 3am my time. Don't be too pessimistic. I recognise the value of the work you're doing. :) Come down to Australia. ;) I can think of ways you can help. --LauraHale (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The problems are bigger than the MEDRS thing. They create articles that shouldn't be articles at all (at most, a few sentences should be added to existing articles, then the stub they've created has to be merged or AFDd, but they create the stub of a whacky topic so it will be a new article that will easily meet the DYK expansion criteria); the students are, in every case I've seen, WAY over their heads in terms of ability and knowledge to be writing on the topics chosen (sheesh, they're doing it for a grade, not because they have a passion for or knowledge of a topic); they're usually way over their heads in prose command period (what are they teaching in schools these days, but most of these students don't have the ability to try to write an encyclopedia, they write student essays, they are non-voluntary here!); they procastinate and then get desperate as the term-end approaches so edit war and commit copyvio; the profs don't communicate (I've notified four, maybe six, this term, not just the one you mentioned); none of these student editors stick around after the course ends, so what are we gaining? In the articles I follow, we're only gaining content when I'm forced to clean up after students, and I could be better spending my time writing on worthwhile topics than the obscure klazomania I had to rescue after students went at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambassadors came to vote before realising it was not an active RfC defend their programme at User talk:LauraHale/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Education Program. In any case, I feel guilty but I failed two of the nominated Wikipedia:GAN#Culture.2C_sociology_and_psychology. If you or some one else could go through and quick fail any of the ones with obvious problems, that would be great. I think two or three others were failed by some one else. --LauraHale (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

BINGO!

Just saw this:

I realize that I have no interest in most of what they are reporting, because it's all about "Chapters" and the WMF and "finances" and wasteful "grants" like the Teahouse, and there are so many who have worked for years creating good content, but are snubbed by WMF. And suddenly I feel resentful. Why should I add my labor to this whole shabang, when (as you say) the WMF people get paid vacations in Brazil. ... MathewTownsend (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Think about that from where I'm sitting :) What you said ten-fold. Four years of devotion to FAC, doing all that work and reviewing so others could get their rewards, to see Sue Gardner trash it, The Signpost trash it and me, and WMF employees sucking up to disruptive Brazilian editors. I'd rather go off and work on the articles that interest me. Oh, wait !!! I can't!! They've been overrun by crappy student edits because the Education Projects went after psych classes ... sheesh, can't even go off and ignore what WMF has done, because it followed me to my own area of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, come to WikiWomenCamp. :) I know it isn't your cup of tea but I think you'll find like minded people and people who have successfully done educational outreach. (I'm sure Siska would really find you useful. They did a successful programme in Indonesia, but because the Ford Foundation approached Indonesia to offer them funding for it while the WMF applied for and did not get money from the Ford Foundation, WMF isn't going to expand the Indonesian programme because not their programme.) The WMF problem in Brazil goes something like this: Brazil wanted to start their own chapter. WMF decided to open offices there with out consulting the local community or the people in the local chapter. (A repeat of India! I believe their Indian education consultant was paid $150,000 for her work.) WMF in my opinion isn't supporting local work because of a goal to centralise it at the EXPENSE of the community. Their organisation at the top would not be legal in some countries. (I don't believe in Australia for example that a board can appoints its own members to it. This needs to be voted on by members of the organization.) I'm fine with chapters because they do things locally and can assess the man power of this. meta:WM-DC and meta:WM-NYC would unlikely to be doing the stuff they are involved with if they didn't have the WMF there because they would realise they don't have the sheer bodies to handle it. Why isn't Wikimedia Australia doing massive educational expansion in our area? Because we're not stupid and know we need 1) the editing community behind it, 2) the experts to run it with the time to do it, 3) the money. We have local workshops but these are say 30 editors max, they have two trainers in the room. There is a community on a mailing list offering support and a centralised noticeboard offering support. (Biased and COI on this. My apologies.) --LauraHale (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha, I lived in Buenos Aires (among other places), and of all the different places and cultures I've lived in, BA was the only one I hated :) :) No Thank You!! Although for your purposes, visiting there is much better than living there. Also, I've got a Very Important Date elsewhere that week :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
This is solution oriented so if there is some point related to these discussion that might be useful for me to convey, please let me know. (I'm not as involved as I should be. Panicking inter dissertation. [open in other window].) We'll see how BA is. And have a fun time on your VID. :) --LauraHale (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

  • Well, let me ask you, SandyGeorgia: we shut down five dyks on a personality test: Big Five personality traits and culture and four variants on the same test. See example: Template:Did you know nominations/Big Five personality traits and culture. The editors parting shot at me was that WP:MEDRS shouldn't apply to psychology, since psychology is a social science and not medical. Was I wrong? (To me, I don't think so.) FIVE separate articles on the "Big Five" personality test. This is the one where the "campus ambassador" said primary sources were OK, according to him. (Read what he said.) MathewTownsend (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
    They try that argument all the time: wrong. MEDRS applies to statements affecting medical content, health issues ... not sure on personality traits, but the issue is, these psych courses like to report primary studies instead of using secondary reviews or books, and using primary sources incorrectly is SYN or OR in any topic. Ask them if they've even consulted secondary sources or books? All MEDRS does is explain how to find secondary sources and what they are wrt to health and medical issues, but the issue of appropriate use of primary vs. secondary sources applies to ALL articles-- it's just better explained for medical topics in MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sample

OK, just as a sample, I went to the first one (mind you, I know nothing of this topic), and found in the lead:

Big Five personality traits have also been linked to academic success of high-school students.[3] Romantic relationship satisfaction, in dating, engaged, and married couples, is also predicted by Big Five personality traits. [4]

The first statement is sourced to a 2011 primary study of Israeli students, published in 2011, meaning it most certainly hasn't been subjected to any secondary review (too new), and is a primary source. MEDRS or not, we must use primary sources correctly. Asserting the conclusion of one unreviewed by independent peers as a fact with no qualifications in the lead of an article meets our standards for sourcing (primary vs. secondary)? Not to mention WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS-- wait for the study to get some sort of peer feedback or secondary review. The second statement was sourced to a study which was a questionnaire, self-report!! So, everything I said above, but not even a study that is well-designed or controlled! Yet, this is stated in the lead, as a statement of fact. These profs are teaching students to string together primary sources to write what would be a secondary review in a journal, but this is Wikipedia-- we don't use primary sources that way. You can tell them that with or without MEDRS-- MEDRS just codifies how to identify a primary study vs. a secondary review on medical statements, but the general principles apply regardless. These articles are making statements about people that are based on unreviewed primary studies, but presenting the conclusions as fact.

I think one way around this issue is to encourage profs to get topic approvals from WikiProjects in advance ... five articles on the same topic indeed ... I'd be fuming, too. Because it's not a "health" issue, whether or not they conform to MEDRS in this case doesn't concern me, but they have overstated what can be concluded from a questionnaire study, and that's irresponsible, and they're possibly splitting up one topic into five so they can all be rewarded with a DYK.

On the bunk that MEDRS doesn't apply to psych topics, I spent five hours today cleaning up Cognitive behavioral therapy-- most definitely a psych topic with very clear implications for health and medicine, where although thousands of high quality reviews are available, it had been mostly sourced (probaby by students) to primary studies. MEDRS applies, even if it's a psych area (if you read it, you'll see why-- we don't state treatments are effective for medical conditions based on primary studies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
And there; it's a general issue, regardless of MEDRS. Now they can scream at me instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't tell me that DYK is just as bad as it was last year. I can't bear to visit it. Tony (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's better only because Nikkimaria is doing all the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sangay

Forgot about it completely! Can I prompt you for it once I get around to it? Sorry but I've been really severely loaded with work lately, and will have little time for a while yet. Regards, ResMar 02:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low Readership: Low to High Readership: High, while for quality the scale goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: High Quality: Low Baltagiya   Readership: High Quality: Low Spectrum bias
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Wylam Railway Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Cognitive miser
Readership: High Quality: Low Acquiescence bias   Readership: High Quality: Low Ludic fallacy
Readership: Medium Quality: Low David F. Bjorklund   Merge
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Rainbow Bridge, Oxford   Readership: High Quality: Low List of psychology disciplines
Readership: High Quality: Low Prebends Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Intertemporal consumption
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Time Table (film)   Readership: High Quality: Low Basic science (psychology)
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Victoria Bridge, Malaysia   Add sources
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Old Sartell Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Medium Openness to experience
Readership: High Quality: Low Information bias (epidemiology)   Readership: High Quality: Low Psychoticism
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Clopton Bridge   Readership: High Quality: High Cognitive bias
Readership: High Quality: Low Response bias   Wikify
Readership: High Quality: Low Developmental Science   Readership: Low Quality: Low MEMS testing
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Ovingham Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Attribution (psychology)
Readership: High Quality: Low Hot Hand   Readership: High Quality: Low Simulation heuristic
Readership: High Quality: Low Thomas Gilovich   Expand
Readership: High Quality: Low Northern Paiute language   Readership: High Quality: Low Innovations for Poverty Action
Readership: High Quality: Low Third Mainland Bridge   Readership: High Quality: High Slovenia
Readership: High Quality: Low Cruet-stand   Readership: High Quality: Low David Wechsler

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool office hours

Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3; just a quick note to let you know that we'll be holding an Office Hours session at 18:00 UTC (don't worry, I got the time right ;p) on 4th May in #wikimedia-office. This is to show off the almost-finished feedback page and prep it for a more public release; I'm incredibly happy to have got to this point :). Hope to see you there! Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

WikiProject Maps article

Hi Mathew, no problem with that large map you selected for the signpost article, if you were after something a bit more unusual you could perhaps have had this, which I found looking in featured images. But the one one you picked looks good.

So, yes, all good. Thanks EdwardLane (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I agree that the one you chose is better. I didn't know where to look for maps - the map categories I found were mostly maps that were too similar to the ones already on the page. The one you chose would have been really great. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the help with finding images and copyediting, but plopping a massive picture at the end of the article seems like a major change to make shortly before publishing an article. We typically haven't included a big picture at the end of a Report in the past two years I've worked on this section. Please discuss these changes with me before doing them rather than having private conversations behind my back. Furthermore, the image posted is not even a map. It's an photograph of the world and is not under the scope of WikiProject Maps. The image EdwardLane posted to the right would have been more appropriate. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry! I was trying to follow Tony1's directions: "Any chance another map could be included and blown up bigger, at top or bottom?" I told him I didn't know anything about maps. I did post to your page and to EdwardLane; we were under deadline pressure for publication. I think he would have remove it if he didn't think it is right. Tony1 and Dank both copyedited after me and didn't remove.[7] I'm new here at the Signpost and don't know how things work. I posted to EdwardLane and to you but didn't get an answer until after publication. Dank, and The Ed17 copy edited after me and didn't remove it. I'm sorry you're unhappy. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. We're probably in different time zones, so I may not get a message in time to respond when we're this close to publication because I'll be sleeping. The WikiProject Report tends to be similar to the Arbitration Report in that one person typically does all the heavy lifting for a single article and then other editors provide minor tweaks and copyediting. That's why we just have one name in the byline. One of the best ways to get used to the way the WikiProject Report works is to write one yourself. I've been writing these for years and recently Rcsprinter123 decided to give it a try. He's working on one for May 14 and I've got two in the pipeline for next week and for the big Star Wars anniversary later this month, but you could be published as early as May 28. Just pick an active project that hopefully hasn't been covered recently and we'll get you a workspace for your interview and a place in the schedule. Are you interested? -Mabeenot (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Liaising confusion

First off, I'm not upset with you for asking questions regarding my role-- I'm glad you're making an effort to understand what's going on.

Up until March, LiAnna was responsible for all communications between English Wikipedians and the Education Program staff, in addition to her other responsibilities. The reason you didn't hear about me until recently is because I wasn't hired until March to relieve her of that duty-- as you pointed out, keeping up with these conversations takes hours per day. Initially, I didn't say a whole lot, since I was still learning my way around the role.

Basically, you could think of my role as a secretary in an office, making sure that simple questions receive an answer, and more difficult questions are passed onto the appropriate person. Example: Stuart's question about the New Zealand class is one where I knew a little bit, so I answered initially, and when it got into territory I wasn't helpful with, I passed it onto Jami, since she was the one who dealt with that situation. This doesn't mean I'm the wrong person to contact, however-- if it's anything to do with the Foundation's share in the Wikipedia Education Program, I'll do whatever I need to to get the question answered (whether that means learning and sharing the answer myself or flagging the question for the person and asking them to reply).

What I'm here for:

  • The Foundation's extension of the Wikipedia Education Program (United States, Canada, India, Brazil, Cairo)

What I'm not here for:

Of course, liaising is a two-way process-- it involves a middle-man's communication between two parties. As I'm sure you've guessed, most Wikimedia Foundation staff aren't Wikipedians. In the Wikipedia Education Program, a lot of the volunteers are Wikipedians, but among the staff involved with the program, Frank and I are the only two with personal experience on Wikipedia. However, Frank is a German Wikipedian. He knows how to communicate effectively with German Wikipedians, but the German community is a very different animal from the English community.

The Foundation is constantly asking questions about the English-speaking community's perception and concerns, just as you ask questions about the program. When I'm not busy answering questions the community members have, I'm busy reading all those pages on my watchlist to gain insight into the Wikipedian view of the program-- and this is SUPER helpful in identifying program issues needing correction. Things like structural problems that Wikipedians are identifying aren't going unnoticed; I'm representing the community's voice during program staff meetings, so when I spot something the community identifies as an issue, I make sure the staff members hear about it. (They highly value this community input, by the way!)

Oh, and "Dennis" that you referred to is Moonriddengirl's legal staff member face-- her name is Maggie Dennis; since she's working in the legal department, it's even more mandatory that she doesn't confuse her personal identity with her staff identity, so if she comes off as two separate people, she's probably doing that well. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

wow, "tricky" is an understatement. Since someone recommended that I contact the Dennis (WMF) identity about the copyvio/plagiarism problem, I contacted him. When I learned that dealing with copyvios/plagiarism etc. was not in the job description of Dennis (WMF), it was recommended that I contact Moonriddengirl, as that was his area of concern. So I did that and was told that because I had already contacted Dennis (WMF), I was not eligible to contact Moonriddengirl about the issue, per some kind of rule. Since the Online Ambassadors have/had no complaint handling process, or even a place where I could get a helpful response, the result was that the particular Online Ambassador I had a problem with posted more rants to me about my stupidity in huge tldr posts, continuing to attack me.
How about having a main page with links to all the various pages where these conversations are taking place, including links to the outreach pages. Some of the links are now soft redirects (like on outreach the Online Ambassadors ) - it's a nightmare to try to figure out. Is there anyplace where all this is listed: the (WMF) folk, their duties etc. and the links to all the pages having relevance to the Education Program. I know this mess is not your fault, Rob Schnautz (WMF), but it is a mess. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Reorganization (is "re-" applicable here?) is one of the things on my to-do-list once the semester ends and things calm down somewhat. I think a navbox on the right side of the pages would definitely be a great start. The last of our classes are just finishing up, so unless things go really berserk around here I'll be sure and get that together this month. For now, I'll put together a sort of temporary directory in my userspace at User:Rob Schnautz (WMF)/WEP directory. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That sounds great. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey MathewTownsend/Archive 3 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education

You may want to read and comment on User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. It proposes amongst other things creating a body that is parallel but does not compete with ArbCom. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A special gift

for a special copyeditor
Hi Mathew, thanks a lot for the copyedit at 1740 Batavia massacre; it just passed with flying colours. In thanks, I'm giving you a collectible kris. The blade is iron with gold leaf and it has a twin naga design. Hopefully you don't have one yet!

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation

MathewTownsend, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, I commented on the subject, Flyer22. Didn't we go through this before? Good luck! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

SP images

The pics you've chosen are lovely, IMO. I agree that images can really lift SP pages. Tony (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

This week's Signpost

Could you do the write-up for 1740 Batavia massacre? I clearly have a COI there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, I will. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey MathewTownsend! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eldar Shafir

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey

It's been a little while since I've seen you on my watchlist... what are you up to these days? Any chance you'd be interested in leaving any comments at a peer review I have open or making a few copyedits to the article? It's been 6 weeks or so since I've had an article at FAC, I'm about to take the plunge again, hope I show up on your signpost column soon :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching the article and may copy edit parts if I feel up to it. I just became somewhat burned out over all the rules and regulations regarding articles going for FA or even GA. Hopefully a temporary condition! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope so as well  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Don't know how you keep up your wondrous production level. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I mix it up; in a week I may write an article on a soldier, an article on an actress, an article on a film, an article on a work of literature, and sometimes even something not about Indonesia. That way there, I'm always interested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I got a bit burned out on FAC 6 weeks or so ago, I think the key is to take some time and work on a different part of the project for a bit. FA and GA can be fun, or can be a huge pain, depends a bit on the reviewers you get. Oh well, good job on that DYK, pretty interesting topic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've got a couple more ideas for articles about NRM founders. Not sure how I keep finding all these, I just use the internet a lot and make a mental note whenever I come across a bizarre and fascinating person. Weird Americans would be a pretty long book... Mark Arsten (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ha ha ha! You guys aren't American. Mark, I think you should look deep into your soul (re your choice of articles)! The lynching one I can't make myself read. Too, too awful and in such detail. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I must seem like a pretty deranged person if you look at what I write about. We should have one of our wiki-psychiatrists examine me... The lynching one is a tough read, I recall being really shocked when I first read it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Signpost this week

I'm hoping to have an interview with an editor about featured content related to Africa.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • that would be great! (We accidental left out a fa last week! Fortunately, after it was published only a few minutes, the editor posted the omission on the Signpost comments so I immediately fixed it. Don't know how that happened.) MathewTownsend (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've been hoping we could get some more interviews in. Not every week, but at least once a month... maybe sometime we could interview "Mister Weird" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I think it needs editing. When you are done with your first draft, I could edit it and you could revert anything you didn't like. (I think the interview needs to be shorter. I learned from Sko and Tony1 that it is ok to edit the answers in an interview.) MathewTownsend (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons

Hi! When you move a file to Commons and tag the file on en-wiki with a "NowCommons" you should let the information and the license stay. It is much easier to review the transfer if the license etc. is still visible. If you remove the license we risk that another user or a bot tags the file with a "no license"-tag and leave a message to the uploader. --MGA73 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

ok. I thought I was following directions, but I guess not. Sorry! I won't remove anything from now one. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

The Precious article is up for peer review, from the author of Great Dismal Swamp maroons ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Organization

Hey there, just wanted to give you a brief update-- I've organized the pages on the English Wikipedia relating to the WEP, so let me know if you notice any awkwardities! I haven't tackled the pages on the Outreach Wiki yet, but that's my next project. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dames Point Bridge

Hi, Mathew, I just wanted to message you about the Dames Point bridge. I have some questions about the article, in particular the claim that the Dames Point is the longest cable-stayed suspension bridge in the United States. I have only checked the Wikipedia page on "List of largest cable-stayed bridges," but it seems to be pretty well-referenced. However, I have not confirmed that page on my own. That is why I am contacting you. Longest bridge seems to be a slippery thing to define. Span length and total length seem to be used, although span length seems to be preferred. The "List of largest..." page does give a technical definition of what should be included in total length. So, firstly, according to that page, the Dames Point bridge is not the longest cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. by span length. The span length compared does not seem to be in question, as it is reported here on the "Dames Point Bridge" page, and it is not even close to the length of the longest span in the U.S., the John James Audubon Bridge in Louisiana. I grew up in Jacksonville, and as I recall (again I will need to source it), the Dames Point was the longest span for a cable-stayed bridge in the U.S. when it was built (1989). However, it was overtaken in 2005 by the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge in Charleston, SC.(which was surpassed by the John James Audubon Bridge just last year). This was a big rivalry thing between the two cities. So, I think that is where the confusion began, and I think that any promotional material from the City of Jacksonville has simply not been updated. Secondly, I do not think that it is possibile that the total length is longest either. I think the total length of the Dames Point is misreported, likely by not complying with the technical definition of total length. The total lengths of the bridges on the "List of largest..." page are not reported. However, if the reported length of the Dames Point was really 3244.9 meters, as reported, and if this length was determined in compliance with the technical definition, then the Dames Point would be one of, if not the, longest cable-stayed suspension bridges in the world by total length. This is a claim that I have never heard made. I will try to find out how the total length was determined, but I thought perhaps you might know since you are the person who replaced the statement in the article after it had been edited out.

Sorry for the long winded note, and thank you for your time.

Matthew Areford (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, I actually don't know much about the Dames Point Bridge. I reworded the bit about size and added a citation. But if you have better sources, more reliable citations, better information, please feel free to change the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quickie review

Handled the issues related to Sangay. Want to do a quick re-GAN? I really do not want to wait out the ridiculous line at GAN. ResMar 20:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

ok. Give me a day or two. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll pop open a review in a sec. ResMar 20:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 20:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low Readership: Low to High Readership: High, while for quality the scale goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: High Quality: Low Hart Bridge   Readership: High Quality: High Lowry Park Zoo
Readership: High Quality: Low Rip Van Winkle Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Pinellas Park, Florida
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Morgan Connor   Readership: High Quality: Medium Temple Terrace, Florida
Readership: High Quality: Low Philemon Holland   Merge
Readership: High Quality: Low Shahin and Sepehr   Readership: High Quality: Low Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge
Readership: High Quality: Low PVN Tower   Readership: High Quality: Low List of traditional armaments
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Maple Leaf (shipwreck)   Readership: High Quality: Medium General knowledge
Readership: High Quality: Low Natural gum   Add sources
Readership: High Quality: Low Okanagan Lake Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Lake Kissimmee State Park
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Benjamin J. Chambers   Readership: High Quality: High Da Nang
Readership: High Quality: Low Cost centre (business)   Readership: High Quality: Medium Joliet, Illinois
Readership: High Quality: Low Le Lys dans la vallée   Wikify
Readership: High Quality: Low Ybor City Museum State Park   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Dorothy Nelkin
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Red Wing Bridge   Readership: High Quality: Low Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation
Readership: High Quality: Low Lennox Bridge, Parramatta   Readership: High Quality: Low Tra Giang
Readership: High Quality: Low Klariza Clayton   Expand
Readership: Low Quality: Low Västra Torup   Readership: High Quality: Low Coat (clothing)
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Richard Knolles   Readership: Medium Quality: Low List of bridges in Burma
Readership: High Quality: Low Huey P. Long Bridge (Baton Rouge)   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Twin Rivers State Forest

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MathewTownsend/Archive_3&oldid=1166664187"