Miscellaneous desk
< January 29	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 30

What happened in 2007?

...that could explain the sudden halt to the steep rise in numbers of active Wikipedians (per graph)→
~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See market saturation and diminishing returns. No normal societal growth curve increases infinitely. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard societal growth curve should look more like the Logistic function in relation to reaching a saturation threshold (in 2007). There must be some causative action for the graph to deviate in such a significant way. This graph [1] is closer to a model of what a prediction would be (that graph relates to predicting the future states of large complex social systems; specifically, early identification of emergent processes —from here:[2]). ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that reality should look more like a model than reality. I've never seen a plot of real data that looked smoother than a curve that models it. One might as well say families that don't have 2.3 children are unrealities. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was there some redefinition of "active Wikipedian" in 2007? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only go by what the file description says: Wikipedians who contributed 5 times or more in a given month (no indication of any redefinition)

If this were a graph of bacterial populations in a petri dish, you would have to ask: "WTF happened?" ~Eric the Bacterium:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better model for the Wikipedian experience is: Worms and Society (seriously). ~Eric the Worm:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect two overlapping effects:

1) The normal "S Curve"/"logistic function"/"sigmoid function" we would expect with anything involving an "infection" of a population, as eventually everyone susceptible to infection (interested in contributing) already is infected (contributing). This would be asymptotic to a horizontal line at the end, and alone it is nothing to worry about. "Market saturation", as listed above, is another term for this.

2) A gradual reduction in interest by former long-term contributors. This is more of a potential problem. There does seem to have been a decision, at some point, to limit quantity and go for quality instead. Thus whole categories of topics are banned from Wikipedia, like those on common household objects. (I myself created an article on the linen closet, with a pic, which was deleted.) This, along with the tendency to delete anything lacking full references, now, discourages many people from participating. We seem to be headed back towards the first failed experiment, where Wikipedia was to be written solely be a small number of "experts". StuRat (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One might just as well ask what happened in the early parts of 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 to cause a sudden rise (approaching 10,000 in 2008 and again in 2011; smaller rises in the other years). And to keep this in perspective, the highest ever was c. 95,000 and the latest data point was at c. 75,000. I don't think it's time to call "Doomsday" just yet. It would be interesting to see how much of the content is provided by active users vs. other users, and whether that balance has altered significantly over time. It's the total quantity (of quality material) that matters in the end, not so much how many people are contributing that material. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but there must be some explanation for the discontinuity around March~April '07, such as a policy change or new software implementation. Referencing the worm model, Wikipedia "active editor population" is in decay phase (actual), rather than recovery (strategy projections) following the discontinuity. I haven't mentioned anything about "Doomsday" —a projection on your part— rather, the data is self-evident in indicating a change in conditions, and I am simply curious as to what that change might have been. ~E the IP:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday reference was in response to StuRat's "We seem to be headed back towards the first failed experiment, where Wikipedia was to be written solely be a small number of "experts".". It was indented under his post. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please accept my apology in that regard. Btw, the annual cycle "in the early parts of..." (those years) is curious; something to do school cycle would be my guess. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2007 when "edits must have references quoted" came into effect? That made being active harder. Also at the year turnovers, maybe folk make new year resolutions to contribute, or have time to discover WP during their Christmas break? -- SGBailey (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the upward blip at the beginning of each year has to do with the university cycle in the Northern Hemisphere. After the Christmas break, a new semester is about to begin, but the academic workload is not yet too heavy, nor do end-of-semester deadlines loom. Meanwhile, the weather is miserable, and the semester break isn't long enough for most students to have short-term full-time jobs (as many try to do during summer break, at least in the United States). The result is a lot of students with time on their hands for a month or two. Marco polo (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember getting turned off after five of my articles got flagged for deletion in a row back in 2008. I loved the encyclopedic format but it seemed I could never actually write what I wanted to without it getting deleted in full, and in general certain users kept reverting my edits and posting a link to some Wikipedia policy with a tenuous-at-best link to the situation. I eventually migrated to Wikia because I could actually publish my articles in peace, and now I almost exclusively use the Reference Desk. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering; when did bots start running around and leaving nasty notes on user talk pages? ~Eric the Nonbot:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sayin' anything but 2007 was when some unencyclopedic community building stuff like BJAODN got killed. Sure didn't encourage me to stick around. Not having the fun is no fun. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that multiple effects are at work here, but the discontinuity in early 2007 is striking.

I notice that in late 2006 and early 2007 there was a lot of drama about the verifiability and attribution policies. (example). On their own this wouldn't cause a sudden change in editorship, but I think it's representative of how those guidelines were being taken much more seriously than they were in the past. For example the Great Webcomics Purge also occurred in early 2007. No doubt there were other purges going on as well.

I'm sure this sudden change in tone from "Post about everything!" to "articles should be notable!" drove away a lot of people that, nowadays, we would consider not serious about making an encyclopedia, but who, in early 2006, could have had great fun writing some unencyclopedic fluff articles. APL (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the general shape of the graph tracks pretty well with overall American internet usage, so I'm not suggesting that policy/tone changes are responsible for the overall shape of the graph, just the sharpness of that corner in 2007. APL (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The overall internet usage is a good example of the logistic function, the first effect that was noted. But Internet usage is still growing, although at a decreasing rate ("leveling off"), while Wikipedia editing is actually decreasing. Thus, we need to explain the difference. StuRat (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wanted to mention out that doesn't seem to have gotten much discussion is that if you look at the graphs, it's clear it isn't just en that was affected. Yes en did have a massive drop off in 2007 and the numbers went down; but growth for the top 2-10 and the rest also slowed down a lot even if these did generally continue to grow. I'm not particularly sure that the rest and top 2-10 had webcomic purges, references required etc at the same time as en, or maybe even at all. One possibility is the drop off in en, whatever the cause, reduced people who started at en and then moved on to language another wikipedia and you can come up with similar explainations which mean en contributed to the problems on the other wikis, but any explaination I think it's helpful to at least consider the other wikipedias when considering the en number drop offs. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfamiliar Job Title Given the Company

I was looking on the back label of a jug of White House apple juice and there's a picture and testimonial of an employee of White House juices about how good a company it is and all, followed by their name, then "Traffic Coordinator, 24 year employee." What would "Traffic Coordinator" be for someone at a company that makes apple juice? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like they might be involved in distribution of the product. That is, they arrange shipments and must avoid "traffic jams" where more juice is delivered to a warehouse than is needed there, and it backs up the system. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A UK supermarket was putting comments from a different employee on banners outside the store each week. One such comment was from the "ambient manager" - I don't understand that job name! -- SGBailey (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient goods are those which can be stored at ambient (i.e. room) temperature. An ambient manager is responsible for those goods not requiring freezing or refrigeration.

http://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/content/retail-grocery-category-ambient

Dalliance (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there was I imagining they were responsible for the background music! -- SGBailey (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, me too. I imagine they do have people responsible for figuring out what background music, volume, light level, colors, scents, etc., will make customers buy more, although those people are probably at the chain HQ, not individual stores. (For some businesses, like Cinnabon, I bet their scent wafting around the mall brings in most of their customers.) StuRat (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

My guess is similar to Stu's above. Usually these types of positions have titles involving logistics, supply chain management, or industrial engineering. In addition to the warehousing issues, there is also "traffic" within the production facility, i.e. how all the pulpers and hoppers and strainers get hooked up to each other. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, but it seems less likely; someone taking care of internal "traffic" is usually called an "internal expediter" or something similar. "Traffic coordinator" usually refers to someone responsible for external haulage, either outbound (coordinating deliveries of the finished product) or inbound (coordinating deliveries of raw materials - i.e. apples). Matt Deres (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy title for "Loading dock manager"? ~:71.20.250.51 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In smaller places, yeah, but in larger operations, they're distinct things. A loading dock manager would oversee the transition of goods between trucks and the warehouse; for example, making sure the trucks are loaded correctly (sequencing can be surprisingly complicated) or making sure staff levels are appropriate throughout the week. An outbound traffic coordinator would oversee routing and delivery scheduling (and maybe stuff like the delivery trucks); an inbound traffic coordinator would be the person scheduling the inbound appointments (and maybe stuff like arranging temporary workers for lumping and offloading). Matt Deres (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has pointed this out yet, I just thought I'd mention it. White House Apple Juice can call their employees by pretty much whatever job title that they want. Granted, banks and legal firms don't usually get too fanciful (as in fantasy) with their titles but toy companies and the like often have a bit less of a serious attitude about job titles. Vermont Teddy Bear, for instance, calls their phone sales reps "Bear Counselors". The woman who is in charge of the repairs department is referred to as "Doctor" though she holds no PhD. Subway used to and may still refer to their food prep people as "Sandwich Artists". And I can't remember the term right now but I could have sworn that Ben & Jerry's calls their ice cream scooping employees something whimsical. Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And at the Disney theme parks, every employee, including the maintenance and custodial staff, are called "cast members". --Jayron32 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more and more shops insist on inviting you to ask a "colleague" if you need help, to which I always want to reply "I can't. My colleagues aren't here right now, because I'm in your shop. Is it OK if I ask one of your sales assistants instead?" -Karenjc (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's weird. As weird as the IT term "client". The first time I came across it was in a long work circular. I finally figured out it must have been referring to the computer system that was the subject of the communication, but all the way through I assumed it was referring to users like me, or at least some organised group of human beings. Most confusing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having just struggled for weeks with a “host” whose hospitality consisted of an unfriendly “error 10013, access denied” or “error 10064, time out”, I can commiserate. Mind you, this grumpy “host” resides somewhere in the vicinity of the noted Bruckner Organ in the abbey of St Florian. A most humbling experience, if I compare it to my own:o) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of Scottish Independence

How exactly is Scottish Independence legal? A portion of a sovereign state cannot unilaterally decide to become independent -- the state has to allow them to become independent, or else a Civil War situation would occur, like it did in the USA.

Now, I realise that Westminster, with the Queen's implied assent, has allowed Scotland to hold this independence referendum in 2014 (which itself is a major step), but in the language of the bill, there was nothing concerning enforcement of the referendum should the "yes" votes win.

In other words, it looks like London has agreed to let Scotland vote on independence BUT has NOT agreed to actually allow Scotland to secede if the referendum passes.

Am I missing something here? Thanks. Jojo Fiver (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be in the nature of a political promise. Meaning, if the referendum passes but by only a very slim margin, Westminster could say that the desire for independence has been insufficiently demonstrated. And, indeed, it would probably be folly to enact independence on the back of such a slim margin. Exactly where the point is where they can no longer ignore the wishes of the Scottish people, is an open question.

I can't help recalling the Australian Capital Territory's path to self-government. Three times the voters of the ACT were asked in referenda whether they wanted to be self-governing or not, and three times they said NO, very clearly. Nevertheless, in 1989 the Federal Government enacted legislation to give them self-government, and the rest is history. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Scottish independence referendum, 2014, while lengthy, doesn't seem to address the one key question of whether such a vote is binding, or is merely an opinion poll. If I've overlooked the answer to that key question, maybe someone could quote it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is what you (Jack of Oz) said documented in writing in any law or treaty between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament? I ask this because obviously a lot of policymakers are draughting concrete plans for what to do in case of independence, such as what to do with the EU, Queen, military, currency, etc., but is there any prior understanding of what actually will happen if Scotland votes "yes" to independence? To Bugs, yes I thoroughly read the article in question, as well as having read the actual white papers and law passed allowing for the referendum... and I did not see any mention of the implementation or enforcement of the referendum should it pass. That's my main question. Jojo Fiver (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I know is what I read here, here and here etc. These talk of laws needing to be passed by Westminster post-referendum, and of matters needing to be negotiated between the UK and Scottish governments. We think of parliaments being rubber stamps, but that would be folly in a case like this. And with negotiations, who can ever predict the outcomes? That's why I believe that if the vote is in an undefined and fuzzy "grey zone", even if technically pro-independence, there's no guarantee that independence will follow immediately. Or ever. We need a legal expert to look at the Referendum Act to divine its real implications. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited is basically talking about independence as a "done deal" with a yes vote. The site compares Maltese independence to the Scottish situation and does not at all ask the question "what if England refuses to recognise our independence?" Jojo Fiver (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, it would be asking whether the UK Parliament (which includes Scottish members and Lords) refuses, not whether England refuses. Not all Scots are for independence, and it's not impossible to imagine the final outcome depending on a crucial vote in Westminster, which fails because of Scottish anti-independence MPs. Sorry, but I don't know the answer to your question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be very difficult for Westminster to not enact the legislation allowing Scotland to secede in the event of an overwhelming "Yes" vote. The outcome of the referendum doesn't trigger independence per-se, but would set the wheels in motion. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats are due to have their party conference in Glasgow shortly after the referendum, which (if Scotland votes to leave), would put them in the awkward position of trying to hold their party conference in what is now, essentially, a foreign country. Horatio Snickers (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer lies in the question, "Should Scotland be an independent country?" it's nothing more than an invitation to express an opinion. What happens next, in any event, is in my opinion, a matter for negotiation between the two governments. And following on from the Bank of England's Governor Mark Carney's comments about a monetary union last week, true, unfettered independence seems extremely unlikely. How can one country chain itself to the economic policies of another, and call itself independent? Ridiculous. 77.99.122.245 (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the world is economically dependent on larger countries in one form or another. Hack (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably be discussing the proposed sovereignty of Scotland rather than its independence per se. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cloverleaf holes in shutters

could someone tell me why there are cloverleaf holes in window shutters please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.9.77 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you google [decorative window shutters] you will see a variety of decorative carvings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to let a little light or air in like the crescent on an outhouse door? Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's puzzling - true shutters are intended to keep the rain out. That's harder to when there are holes cut in the shutters. That's what makes me think they're purely decorative shutters, not functional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article on the history of shutters that says: "Sometimes panels are pierced with ovals, circles or hearts to allow a small amount of light in even when closed." (The "even" in that sentence is unnecessary.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it, Raquel. When the shutters are open, light obviously comes in. The default assumption is probably that no light comes in when they're closed, but this is saying that, even in that case, some light still comes in, because a hole has been made for that very purpose. You could leave it out, but I think I'd prefer it be there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]