This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
NOTE: a newer version (hopefully improved to the better Wikipedia standards) of the template has now been created - and, if interested, may be viewed below and/or here => User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts - Thanks again for all the earlier comments - newer Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
@Smallbones: The WMF just released this video recapping the year of 2019 on Wikipedia, probably worth a mention somewhere. I do question the choice of upbeat classical music to score going over the Notre Dame fire... -Indy beetle (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia - Edit 2019, Victor Grigas, Wikimedia Foundation
Extreme overcitation: Suggestion by Curb Safe Charmer (2020-02-05)
Yes, 145 citations for a 278 word article is impressive. I'm not sure where this would go in The Signpost, though, or if calling attention to it is a good thing. @Smallbones:, your thoughts? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It strikes me that there are many, many ways to do things wrong and we can't possibly cover all of them. But if anybody wanted t write this up, I'm not 100% against it. Remember though , no April Fools jokes. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised that I can't find any mention of that debate in the current version of the Signpost. The RfC was listed for a month at WP:CENT. Links (and my views, FWIW) are at User_talk:Whatamidoing_(WMF)#Holy ..., a conversation from a couple of weeks ago. I know that people who are smarter than me (everyone, basically, when it comes to understanding WP–WMF relations) believe that it's generally a good idea to let things go wrong first and then deal with it; the problem, in this case, is that unusually large sums of money (according to various comments) are going into a world-wide effort to convince a lot of people that they should stand up for their right to have whatever it is they're doing called "Wikipedia", whether it has anything to do with encyclopedias or not. Some people claim that we'll be fine, because the final decision will be up to the Board, and they'll make the right call ... but by the time they vote on it, so much money will have been spent in an effort to tip the scales that they may not, realistically, have a say in the matter. That's why the "let things go wrong first" strategy might be dangerous, for this issue, given the feelings expressed in the RfC (roughly 10-1 against, with a lot of anger and astonishment ... and there's no indication that the WMF is taking the RfC seriously). FWIW ... I don't actually have a position on the issue (except for my one-liner in the RfC), rebranding issues go way over my head ... my concern is the likely loss of editors, given what was said at the RfC. Also FWIW ... the Board issued a statement yesterday here. I'd characterize it as "unhelpful", but you be the judge. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, it's been added to the upcoming Discussion Report ... thanks. A little sparse, but enough to spark some talk page comments I think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging User:Whatamidoing (WMF): since it's in the Signpost, there's probably going to be discussion. You know my thoughts, which don't (I think) line up with yours, but it would be helpful to get a WMF point of view into the discussion. I don't think it's realistic to shoot for the best possible outcome (I don't even know what that would be) ... but I also don't think it's unrealistic to try to avoid the worst outcomes. My next step is to wait and see how Signpost readers react. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
WMF-funded events cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic
This article includes a county-level map showing the percentage of households in the United States who edit Wikipedia while not logged in, as well as other county-level data including political, religious, and income information and population density and broadband availability. It also has an interactive "by year" timeline of IP edits per county.
It also includes worldwide information about how many households edit from various countries without being logged in. It's no surprise that English-speaking countries dominate, but some countries with large populations such as China and Russia also show up in the middle tier. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the data is over on Github so that we could make our own graphics/maps/etc. (Technically our data but grouped appropriately for easy graphs). No reason some of this cant' be put to our mainspace articles on WP, at least, for example, country distribution. --Masem (t) 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow! Yes we need this for The Signpost Can anybody make one (any) map out of this? For the short term this will be the lede story in "In the media" if I (or anybody else) has the time to write up a couple of paragraphs. A few thoughts:
Mandiberg says they are a Wikipedia editor - I couldn't quickly find them (their pronoun). Could somebody let them know I'd like to discuss this with them. Try my user talk or Smallbones. I've found them now.
The first thing the story reminded me of is this map of NRHP sites:
Completion % of NRHP sites photographed ((via Wikiproject:NRHP). "Same map" different colors. Different data
The second thing (I'm an egotist) was that the international data reflect Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-11-29/Special report. While the 2 datasets are nominally about the same thing - international editors, the inclusion criteria are almost exactly opposite, IP editors vs. very active editors. Without making a detailed comparison - it looks like the same results either way.
Short term goal, get this into "In the media". 1 month goal, get a good statistical/graphical write-up from whoever has the skills and wants to do it. @Masem, Davidwr, and Bri:
I'm unable to comprehend the Github data, but I went ahead and created a map for the U.S. state of North Carolina (where I live) based off of the US map Mandiberg created with his data:
Map of North Carolina showing Wikipedia IP editing activity 2018
I'm also noticing a some trend which Mandiberg does not explicitly observe. Namely, that there are several liberal/Democratic leaning places in the south where there is a a dearth of Wikipedia activity, not just conservative/Republican places (One of the hypotheses Mandiberg considers is that low-editing happens in conservative areas and may be due to conservative distaste for Wikipedia's historical left-lean and the existence of Conservapedia). These Democratic areas, such as north-eastern North Carolina are mostly rural and have significant black/African American populations. Historically, black Americans since the 1960s have voted mostly for liberal/Democratic candidates. The lack of editing in the "Black Belt" thus can be used to demonstrate the hypothesis that the political leaning has less to with editing activity than low population density (one of Mandiberg's observations is that low activity correlates with low density, but he seems mostly concerned with the overwhelmingly-white Western US). This North Carolina map is also of some more interest to me because while the cluster of the worst counties for editing in the northeast are very rural and have significant black populations, they have also been economically weak for years and are shrinking. For the sake of considering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it may be important to consider that we might have problems on African-American figures or the places they live due to this low editing activity. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Indy beetle:, Michael Mandiberg here. This is precisely what I posited in the article: "The pattern of editing activity in Appalachia and the South appears to match population density, income, education, and broadband access. [...] the persistent and well-documented poverty of the rural South seems the more likely cause. This area of low editing, from East Texas to Virginia, includes the highest concentration of African Americans in the country, raising the likelihood that income, education, and internet access intersect with racial inequity as factors that prevent participation." I also noted that "The absence of participation from majority Native American counties, and rural, poor, black counties in the South, is troubling. [...] Wikipedia community’s forms of outreach are ill-equipped to reach these rural regions." I would also note that I specifically say that these patterns in the data do not match up so well with political beliefs/voting patterns, rather I note that outside of the South, religious adherence appears to match the pattern better. --Theredproject (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Copy of my complaint about Russian Wikipedia at Meta "Universal Code of Conduct" talk
Here is a copy of my complaint about Russian Wikipedia at Meta "Universal Code of Conduct" talk. You may find it useful for Signpost (or not). It describes global Wikimedia issues and has a link to Signpost. He original link is m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions/Russian community. The text is as follows:
The problem with Russian Wikipedia is *not* with "codes of conduct". Such "codes" are not needed, because all the necessary rules are already exist. The problem with Russian Wikipedia is that there is a group of administrators that systematically insult and harass other users, sometimes treating regular editors like vandals or spammers (no one cares when they insult spammers, but insulting regular editors is a big problem). This is not a sole Russian Wikipedia problem, it's a global Wikimedia problem that is very hard to handle. I call it a "czar problem". We may take an example of English Wikinews where there are 2 or 3 "czars" who make normal participation in English Wikinews almost impossible for regular editors. And Wikimedia Foundation seemed to be unable to solve that before "Framgate". The "Framgate" looks like the WMF is finally able to solve such issues. The behaviour of aggressive admins have 2 effects: 1) notable hatred of general public towards Wikipedia 2) excessive deletionism that distracts newcomers. These 2 points are in full contradiction to Wikimedia movement values. Arbitration Committee of Russian Wikipedia is unable to solve the issues partially because some of the arbiters are part of the problem. "Blue wall of silence" problem also is present. Aggressive group members sometimes say that they don't care about Wikimedia Movement values, they only want strict rules. This is also a total contradiction to Five Pillars of Wikipedia. As Russian Arbitration Committee is unable to solve this, something like "office action" is needed. How will WMF solve the problem with Tatar Wikipedia where a bureaucrat has indefinitely blocked Farhad Fatkullin because of personal conflict? No hope for "Tatar Arbitration" there, only hope on WMF. Russian aggressive "admin group" consist only of several people, I think no more than ~15 people (there are non-admins also, I simplify the term). Those who suffer are thousands of editors and millions/billions of readers. Efforts to promote Wikimedia values to general public to make Wikipedia bigger and better are severely damaged by this situation. Many people flee from Russian Wikipedia and later criticize it in many public places. --Ssr (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Six Million Articles! Wikipedia has officially reached the six-million mark. This is quite the milestone and should be discussed, as well as a reveal about what the six millionth article is!
Wikipedia has reached the six-million-article milestone, six million articles that anyone can edit. And the six-millionth article is...
I don't know whether you are commenting upon it but I noticed we have had an unusually high number of successful RfAs in the past two months while at the same time as we have 3 arbitration cases going on regarding admin conduct. Make of that what you will, but the coincidence seems striking to me. I guess we are going through a process of the community realizing we need more active admins but wanting more influence over how they, at least longterm admins, conduct themselves. LizRead!Talk!23:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by User:Sm8900 (2020-03-05); Re community event notices compilation
The Signpost should write about...
I have created a section at the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board which compiles a whole variety of events, edit-a-thons, contests, etc etc, taking place around Wikipedia, mostly at WikiProjects, but also elsewhere as well.
I was wondering if we could provide the same information, here at the Signpost page? If so, let me know where, and I will copy and paste this compilation of items. I am proposing this at the suggestion of Andrybak. I appreciate any help, guidance, or input. Please ping me if you reply. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Vikivestnik
It may be also interesting for you that we at Russian community have revived the Vikivestnik (Викивестник), literally "Wiki Herald" — Wikipedia/Wikimedia news bulletin in Russian language. It existed since 2008 in Russian Wikipedia as ru:ВП:ВЕСТ and was abandoned in 2015 and we have recently revived it at Russian Wikinews as n:ru:Викивестник. We use some material from Signpost, translating summaries. In 2016, an user created a project called "Signpost-digest", ru:Проект:Сайнпост-дайджест, a short summary of Signpost, but it was also abandoned after about 10 issues. --ssr (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Another Believer (2020-04-01)
Just wanted to share some additional COVID-related coverage:
If we wrote a paragraph on every slip of the tongue by Trump we might fill up the Signpost each month, so I'm a bit skeptical. Also I can't see a link to Wikipedia except in somebody else's tweet. OTOH, he did miss it by a long way. In our List of largest cities, Tokyo has the largest numbers on the table (city proper, metropolitan area, urban area) of about 37 million in the urban area. Ouch. Smallbones(smalltalk)03:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Closure of libraries
With libraries being closed due to the quarantine, it's more difficult to supply references where needed. Good time for an article drawing our attention to under-utilized on-line resources? Vagabond nanoda (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Within the library world, there has been much press about how some vendors have relaxed the constraints on some resources that are usually limited to use within libraries. One problem is that it differs from vendor to vendor and library to library, depending on what kind of contracts have been signed. I know that within a day of closure the New York Public Library publicized its enhanced access and I know individual academic libraries did so either soon after or eventually. But since each library's availability differs, I think it would be hard to give more than a generalization. Perhaps the most appropriate one to publicize and promote this would be The Wikipedia Library - although curiously I've not heard anything from them. - kosboot (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by slatersteven (2020-04-05)
The Signpost should write about...
A personal statement Corona Virus
In the first time in our (as in Wikipedia's) history we are actually living (and writing about) events that have a truly global scale that will have repercussions decades (if not 100's of years) from now. Every article we have related to this is far more important and significant than any article we have ever written before, both from a historical as well as contemporary viewpoint. What we say will have a very real impact on people living. We must all ensure that disinformation is not allowed to be expressed here, and we must expose it when it occurs. We must ensure that our readers are not only informed about the virus, but about those who would (and/or have) mislead them. Now we actually are important, in a way we have never been before. What we write here will be of historical importance, both as an example of how society dealt with this crisis, and a record of it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
And adding another article that is praised WP's coverage of COVID, also acknowledging @Doc James: and a few others as well as not only Wikiproject Med here but the Wikimedia Project Med to be ahead of the game. [1]. --Masem (t) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Hurricanehink (2020-04-06)
The Signpost should write about the tropical cyclone WikiProject for its October 2020 edition. The project was formally started on October 5, 2005, in the midst of the active 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The WikiProject standardized the many season, storm, and science articles about tropical cyclones, spawning 155 featured articles, 70 featured lists, 135 A-class articles, and 986 good article (as of today, it changes rapidly). There are 2,704 articles in the entire tropical cyclone project, meaning 49.77% of all articles in the project are a GA or better (just six good articles away from a 50/50 GA+/overall articles in the project ratio). By the 15th anniversary of the project in October, the project will likely be on month 8 (stuck inside), writing furiously to distract from the ongoing disaster around us. Indeed, even right now, members of the project were busy about Cyclone Harold, which yesterday and earlier today struck the South Pacific island of Vanuatu as one of the strongest cyclones ever recorded.
So the many tropical cyclone editors are busy these days. We have formed our own community here among editors, and engage regular with other tropical cyclone communities, such as on Facebook or Storm2k (a web-based tropical cyclone forum). I think our project could be an interesting one to interview for our 15 year anniversary in October. I hope anyone who comes across this message is safe and healthy ^_^ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: 👍 should be able to do this..@Hurricanhink: Great plan, in the meantime, if you could round up some prospective editors to participate, that would be fantastic! If you can drop me a talk page message with a list of people to participate, I'll get that down. Take your time, still 8 months. =) Thanks, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?)23:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to the both of you! The best place to ask about a report would be on the talk page for the GOCE coordinators I mentioned above. Puddleglum is indeed an active member of the Guild if that affects how the Signpost would do the report, although I'm sure Puddleglum would do a great job! Tdslk (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Puddleglum2.0: you can certainly write such a report or do an interview. Just mention that you are an active member of the Guild in a brief paragraph between the byline and the lede. (Or I could write it.). If you wanted to do this as a "Community view" piece, which parts of the community tend to write up themselves, it could be even less formal. Smallbones(smalltalk)02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a great idea. Let me know how I can be helpful. (FWIW, I am the GOCE's lead coordinator for the first half of 2020.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, there will be a paragraph or so in News¬es about the 10th anniversary (Somebody remind me if I forget. My schedule, like everybody else's is a bit disrupted these days). For the "Community view" get 2-4 editors from GOCE together to write a piece for the end of May issue. I'll write something like "The authors are all active members of GOCE" for right after the byline. Puddleglum2.0 can be an author just like all the rest and you then write whatever you have to say. Easy enough. And hopefully, less copyediting for us to do! Smallbones(smalltalk)05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Like JSTOR, Project MUSE contains digitized versions of scholarly literature. From an email this morning: "More than 80 of MUSE's participating publishers have temporarily made all or some of their content freely available on the Project MUSE platform, in response to the crucial need for remote access to reliable, vetted teaching and research materials during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Over 25,000 books and 300 journals are now available to any user worldwide, with no restrictions on access or usage. MUSE has also made available tools to help libraries with discovery of the free resources." - kosboot (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: if something comes up in 2-3 days could you just add a line or 2 at News & notes. More of course if y0u have the time and info. I'll also keep an eye on it, but it might be another 200-300 days! Smallbones(smalltalk)00:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
HathiTrust opens up a bit, but ...
HathiTrust has created an Emergency Temporary Access Service https://www.hathitrust.org/ETAS-Description which allows people to access some material when the paper copies are unavailable. On paper it sounds great, but the process sounds so bureaucratic that I suspect only the most desperate will avail themselves of the service. - kosboot (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Ssr, I actually put a link to this in N&N before coming here to see this. I'll expand it to a full mention, and keep an eye on the discussion. If you'd like to write something on it, even if just a few paragraphs, please feel free to let me know Eddie891TalkWork20:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: I have written at Jimbo's talk, and maybe it is also relevant here. In the beginning of 2017 there was an alike project from Russian authorities called "Virtual front", here is the big year-later report in Russian, autotranslator may help to understand, or please ask, but I a have no full information and will have to ask other people by myself. In short, they failed because they couldn't organize anybody for that. --ssr (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm reading that as "Open to already-participating institutions and potentially to libraries" not to the whole public. That is, if your university has a partial JSTOR license, you now have a full JSTOR license. --Masem (t) 22:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, clarification from a librarian who said that a lot of misinterpretation is going around: "JSTOR is currently NOT opening their database to the public beyond what they already made freely available pre-Covid. That open access content can be searched here: https://www.jstor.org/open/. The exception to this are several journals in Public Health related directly to the virus, which they have made freely available." - kosboot (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Indy Beetle, Liz, and Kosboot: - if anybody could sort this out, it sounds like it's good for at least 2 paragraphs in News & Notes, perhaps much more. If you want to start it please let us know on the newsroom talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Czar: JSTOR confirmed with us that everything listed on this page was already in the Wikipedia Library collection, but ebooks aren't, so the short answer is no. Ebooks are something we've been asking for for some time, and they're going to take another look into it (the agreements on their end are slightly different so it's not a direct change they can make). Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@Samwalton9 (WMF), this ebook collection is amazing—a wide collection of major academic publishers. Might be worth sharing more widely (along with any other databases opening their collections) in a special Books & Bytes? czar21:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost should write about... Now that most Wikimedia activities are being held online, geographical distance is no longer a hurdle to attending open chapter meetings/user groups all over the world. Might someone want to compile a running list/calendar of such activities? kosboot (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kosboot: - Any idea where to start looking for these? Or better yet, could you get a completely list for next month? or even write it up yourself? Is there anybody else who would be willing to try this out? Once we get started, I don't think it would be that difficult to do. This fits in quite well with some ideas I want to pursue, and I'm sure we have a place to put it, e.g. in News & notes for a short list (which might be best in just getting started). Thanks for the suggestion. Smallbones(smalltalk)15:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
kosboot Perhaps it belongs in Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar which currently lacks online events. I suspect it's rather skimpy even on last year's in person meetings. I guess making it effective would require first getting some of the major chapters to list their events there. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry not to get back to you sooner Smallbones. I think it used to be that, at least in the U.S., there was a communal calendar or list indicating all the monthly meetups. The pandemic seems to have done away with that and now everyone is acting as if feudalism is back in style. Then perhaps the solution is to use the Signpost as a call for online meetings that anyone can attend. Then the Signpost could collect and publish them. (I know Wikimedia NYC's next meeting is June 17 (although the page has not been created yet). -kosboot (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a blurb in the next addition advertising our desire to have people share event dates with us would be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Fox News article
Larry Sanger's upset again [2]. I'd normally put this in ITM without any question, but it is Fox News, and considering it reviews a lengthy blog post by Sanger perhaps we can do something more with it. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Charlesjsharp (2020-05-04)
I have just produced a new free magazine that gives tips for photographers in lockdown. It encourages photographers to contribute to Wikipedia and to Commons. Each issue will have a guest spread on another Wikipedian's work. The link is on my user page User:Charlesjsharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, the essay is the very picture of Trump Derangement Syndrome found here on Wikipedia. Mother Jones is an ok source but Fox News isn't? How does Foreign Policy lean right when made up of never-Trumpers and lefties? This, I think, is what Atsme was talking about in her recent op-ed. Writing an essay about concerted community opposition to Trump-sympathetic editors = noteworthy and good. Challenging the implicit left-wing bias of over-educated underemployed recent grads = impossible and unthinkable, probably a hate crime to even consider it a possibility. The WMF, if it weren't wasting its money on furniture, overseas travel, and questionable grants, ought to be spending money to really prevent further bias from all parties before this website becomes an even-worse dumpster fire. Chris Troutman (talk)17:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Another Believer re: WikiProject Black Lives Matter (and Wiki Loves Pride)
By the way, I've asked here if any members of WikiProject Black Lives Matter are interested in working on a special report for The Signpost, similar to one recently published re: COVID-19. ---Another Believer(Talk)18:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Internet Archive-legal issues with their digital library project
Thanks, I'll take a close look. The Internet Archive and maybe Creative Commons are about the only 2 organizations that I'd usually cover unless there was a very direct conection in the specific news about them . Smallbones(smalltalk)04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Coverage of us and our harassment policy, inclusion, etc.
Thanks, it is a good article. There will be at least 2 paragraphs on it in "In the media" likely more when others write similar articles. Smallbones(smalltalk)23:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Considering that Merkley has revealed practically zilch about his plans, hopes, or even idle thoughts about the Wikimedia projects, I think a write-up would be welcomed by many people. -- llywrch (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: I was thinking of this as a short paragraph for "In the media", but if you wanted to make that a long 2 paragraphs or its own article, that would be ok too. I listened to about half of the podcast, jumping around a bit. The 1st half sounds pretty much like most of the current WMF stuff - though maybe I listen to more of that than is healthy. What I heard from the 2nd half sounded more interesting, e.g. editing by (non-US?) governments and what we can and can't do to stop it. Go for it! BTW I think I had a short interview with Ryan in last August's issue. Smallbones(smalltalk)04:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: your memory is getting almost as bad as mine: there was no interview with him, just a short profile & a link to his Wikimania talk. (I still have no idea what he intends to do as COO, & since C-level hires who don't share their dreams/plans at the beginning tend to have a short tenure at the Foundation, I'm mildly concerned he may be gone before we notice.) As for the podcast, it was clear from what he said that most of his information about Wikipedia is second-hand, which does not portend good things. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I've since listened to it; I'm rather displeased with the podcast hosts. I think Ryan came out well; he gives all credit to the editing community. I'm going to mull this over before I write a draft. Chris Troutman (talk)23:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for posting Eddie891! We just deployed Authentication-based access which makes most of the library's content available through a single login instead of many individual accounts, and opens a bunch of content up to not requiring an application at all. Approximately 25,000 users can now access paywalled research immediately for free! Please let me know if you have any questions :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes please do cover this, as mentioned above it's now supereasy to gain access to loads of content, I was put off by the rigmarole before but now it's great, I have access to things like the Oxford Dictionary of Biography :) Mujinga (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost should write about the new tool "The Book". I want to inform the English community about my new project "The Book". This project shows the Wikipedia like a old lexicon in a multi-column page. You can turn to the next or previous page. All article are in alphabetic order and "The Book" shows only the first text section and the first image. Also you can go to a specific title or random page. It is in 300+ languages available.
It is fun to explore our Wikipedia with this new way. You will find many interessting articles on your way in "The Book". --sk (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost should write about... New Research on the Effects of Thanking Others on Wikipedia(s).
CAT Lab partnered with Arabic, German, Persian and Polish language Wikipedias to answer whether using the thanks button could increase participation, in two new studies.
In a field experiment that organized experienced Wikipedians to thank thousands of editors, we found that receiving a Thanks increased two week retention by 2 percentage points on average. Receiving thanks also causes recipients to send 43% more thanks on average (preprint [3]).
A partner study looked at the effects on senders of giving Thanks. While we did not find an effect, this could be because many volunteers already felt emotionally drained from their efforts on Wikipedia and weren't able to complete the study. Because of this, we made valuable discoveries about who spends time supporting others, how they think about the intentions of newcomers, and how they feel about their work (preprint [4]).
The Signpost should write about... the current discussion on WP:COIN about the paid editing company known as Wikiprofessionals, and how they might be related to other sockpuppeteers. SuperGoose007(Honk!)19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I kind of suggested that the ball get rolling actually [5]. Which puts me in a strange place as a Signpost contributor. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggesetion - Is Wikipedia a freebie political election campaign tool
I don't know if you could use this, but I've noticed a trend at AFD, on articles I didn't know existed, or that we even allow. Since the outcome at AFD is up to the community to decide - often more so than Wikipedia rules or guidelines - these things go both ways. Along the lines of WP:NOTNEWS, we seem to be reporting news events, anyway. Please see Category:Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and Category:Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign. We keep updated/current events articles listing the endorsements both have received, and continue to receive. Shouldn't such lists be on an individual candidate's website, not Wikipedia? We have articles covering their individual rallies, fairly quickly following same. Some of them are up for AFD. I believe I saw (somewhere) one of each candidate that had been deleted through AFD, but it looks like which direction that swings, depends on who can amass the most "Keep" votes. Democracy is great ... but is Wikipedia being used a freebie campaign tool? — Maile (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a symptom of our appetite for 24-hour cable news, which is always starved for something to report. Now we have stupid articles such as Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. I always lived by the philosophy that if an endorsement was important or impactful (such as Jim Clyburn's endorsement of Joe Biden), then it should be incorporated into the text of an article about the candidate, their campaign, or the election. But alas, these all technically pass GNG. I'm in agreement with Chrish, though; this isn't something for The Signpost to address directly. Might make do for an opinion piece. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Another Believer (2020-07-22)
"How volunteers created Wikipedia’s world-beating Covid-19 coverage"
Also The New York Post. What's really interesting is that the Wikipedia edit volume (>500 edits) is being cited as proof that Harris will a vice presidential candidate. [7] Are Wikipedia edits now a reliable predictor of the future? Hawkeye7(discuss)20:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
A member of WikiProject Palaeontology discovered a hoax article Mustelodon. This is the longest-lived hoax to be documented on English Wikipedia, at nearly 15 years from creation to discovery. I wrote a small snippet for the Tree of Life Newsletter for this month, and you might find it interesting enough to include in the Signpost. For more info, see the talk page at WP:PALAEO here. Enwebb (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a heads up. We have a ton of users who would likely be interested in speaking about the project. It is a record-breaking hurricane season after all, and there are some changes going on. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
It's almost certainly too late for this next issue for anything more than a paragraph in News & notes. Send a 2 sentence quote in any case (here) and we can cut it down. Question: why is this project something special on Wikipedia? @Puddleglum2.0: would you like to do a project report on this for the October 26 issue? Smallbones(smalltalk)20:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The Tropical cyclone WikiProject, founded on October 5, 2005 in the midst of a historic hurricane season, turns 15 in early October in the midst of another historically active season. The project has produced more than 1,000 good articles and 234 featured articles/lists, meaning 48% of the project's articles are rated "good" or better.
That's a short little summary, hope that establishes why it's special. I could've gone into there being more than 100 TFA's, or that weather agencies use Wikipedia, such as their track maps, or sometimes even the information mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by A bit iffy (2020-08-25)
{{done}}The Signpost should write about this highly upvoted Reddit post assertion that the Scots language Wikipedia is largely the work of one person who doesn't know Scots and is just using a dictionary to "translate" from the English Wikipedia.
Gizmodo has beaten you to the story. If you need a comment from me, Scots Wikipedia is proactively reaching out to native Scots speakers and institutions and is trying to identify and correct any incorrect translations. (edit conflict) –MJL‐Talk‐☖00:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
And The Guardian. There really needs to be some discussion about having a plan in place for shutting down and rebooting small-language Wikipedias that seem to be solely the work of one bad actor. (Does anyone remember when the Wikipedia article on bras got taken over by one male weirdo who wanted to discourage women from wearing them and filled it with bogus theories that wearing bras causes cancer?) Simply saying "We do not own or control the Scots-language Wikipedia" doesn't seem to be enough when there's evidence that large amounts of content is polluted and untrustworthy. I think the best response is to delete all articles only the bad contributor made substantial contributions to. Blythwood (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps WMF could take all that cash they have lying around and contract some language specialists to do some spotchecking on the smaller language Wikis to make sure things haven't gone awry. Either way, we definitely need to cover this. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
To get an idea of what we're dealing with, take a look at this. It's painfully obvious that it's the work of a twelve year-old taking English text and swapping in Scots words and Scots-looking spellings, it's like blinkenlights. Clearly this wasn't the guy's intention, but (as I said on meta), it's like blackface and minstrel-show English. It's like someone created a fake AAVE Wikipedia that calls white people "Massa". It's also very like the Billy Connolly sketch claiming that Scottish folksongs always turn out to be written by weirdos obsessed with the Auld Country who've never been there. But I've come to feel that he's not all of it, following issues raised by an IP editor here and here, who notes that one page was written by "a user born in California, who resides in California and has Filipino ancestry. The Lesotho article was created by [name redacted to avoid dogpiling] an American who states on his profile page he does not speak Scots at home, but has dictionaries". I started off thinking that this could be fixed by blanking all pages edited only or mostly by this user, but I now lean towards closing the entire Wikipedia and starting again. I blame Braveheart... Blythwood (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
{{done}}The Signpost should write about... recent developments on the Door County, Wisconsin article; a good example of tall poppy syndrome. It might also help illustrate the [10] US map of editor frequency; that Wikipedia has an inherent bias towards and against certain areas; one area in particular is reflected in the username of a significant editor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently leaning towards requiring registration to edit mainspace, but keeping access open to Talk and Help spaces. FYI czar02:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a paragraph on this in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-05-31/News and notes when EN Wikipedia had a spike back to levels of editing last seen in 2010. English Wikipedia has since dropped back a little (other projects doubtless vary). I'm sure there are two big stories to research and write as to how editing has fluctuated with lockdown. One a human interest story, telling how some of the regulars have had to step aside, some have died of Covid and some new people joined us in lockdown, plus a lot of people got together to make our COVID coverage as good as it has been. However i would see that as either an end of year story or an end of COVID story - the time isn't right for it. We also need a detailed stats based story which needs to go into a lot more detail than May's story that when lots of people were cooped up at home editing increased..... I'll put something on the research list, ask if anyone is working on that topic. ϢereSpielChequers19:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with with @WereSpielChequers:, but a 2 line statement that stat x went from y to z is easy enough to do. Getting the meaning of that by waiting for 2 years for an academic research preprint to come out is also easy to do, but doesn't really inform people for the next 2 years. OTOH if somebody wanted to do a little basic research showing some basic descriptive stats and graphs, maybe some correlations of edit data with pageview data, or comparisons across the top-10 Wikis, I'd love to see that and our readers might get some of the best of both worlds. Smallbones(smalltalk)20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf, Pigsonthewing, and HaeB:. It looks reasonable enough to put a paragraph with both sources in "In the media". I do think I've seen this somewhere before and wonder why the Guardian story came out now. The preprint was uploaded over a year ago. I also have some questions about using Wikipedia as a laboratory (but enWiki was not used) and having a "policy implication" that you can increase your hotel room occupancy by writing 2 paragraphs in Wikipedia. The paper's title "Wikipedia Matters" doesn't help track it down at all. HaeB, have you seen it anywhere in The Signpost before? Smallbones(smalltalk)20:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
We already covered it briefly in "In the media" and extensively in "Recent research" (based on an earlier version of this preprint/working paper, but the conclusions and the underlying experiment are the same). The latter also had some information about the reaction of the editing communities (see the comments as well). Note that the paper has still not been published in a peer-reviewed venue, although the researchers advise that it is fortcoming in an economics journal.
Man oh man! @Psiĥedelisto: I didn't realize that you're a Wikipedian. This should wait until next month, but you - and only you - should write about your own story, experience, opinions. There's an important caveat. Your Signpost contribution cannot violate any Wikipedia rule, e.g. WP:BLP, no harassment, quotes have to be documented. We absolutely have to check this and enforce it. Sorry, but no exceptions. The remainder of what you might want to write would be clearly labeled as your opinion. I'm really sorry if this seems like I'm not AGF, but I'd guess you realize why I have to be careful. email me here - nothing onWiki until the October issue. Smallbones(smalltalk)15:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Coolest Tool Award 2020: Call for nominations (2020-09-25)
{{done}}
The second edition of the m:Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations.
Tools play an essential role for the Wikimedia projects, and so do the many volunteer developers who experiment with new ideas and develop and maintain local and global solutions to support the Wikimedia communities. The Coolest Tool Award aims to recognize and celebrate the coolest tools in a variety of categories.
The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in November. Deadline to submit nominations is October 14, 2020.
So what happened? Are we being invaded by the Martians? Probably not, but if I read this right it was a security issue. Anybody have an idea what kind it could be? Smallbones(smalltalk)02:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by kosboot (2020-10-09)
The Signpost should write about datasets on Commons. Maybe everyone knew about this except me, but just a few days ago I found out that datasets are on Commons and have their own namespace, Data:. I'm not the person to talk about this, but maybe someone super familiar with Commons and its datasets can talk about them. kosboot (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
20th birthday and 1000 millionth edit
Hi, we know that Wikipedia's birthday will be on 15th Jan, and we have predicted for a while that the thousand millionth edit will come in the first quarter of 2021. But one of the less obvious effects of COVID19 has been an uptick in editing, and that has brought forward the date when we see our thousand millionth edit. Looking at WP:Time Between Edits the thousand millionth edit could be in the same week as Wikipedia's birthday. ϢereSpielChequers13:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
20th birthday and billionth edit?
Thanks for this @WereSpielChequers:. Wikipedia started about January 15, 2001 and January 15, 2021 will mark our 20th birthday. The 1000 millionth edit coming about the same time makes it even more special. BTW does anybody mind saying the "billionth edit"? There's book coming out in a week or so called "Wikipedia @ 20" which celebrates the birthday with 22 fairly academic chapters on just about everything Wikipedia. We'll be celebrating the *book* with (probably) 3 articles: I'll be doing a book review (email me if you want to help), an interview with the 2 editors - Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner, and Reagle's 1st chapter (from the final draft because of license restrictions). WSC - if you want to write-up 2-3 paragraphs for News and notes on the birthday + billion edits that would be great. We should also have something for the January issue where editors can add something, e.g. "How I first found out about Wikipedia (or my first edit on Wikipedia) and why I'm still editing". If that sounds like a good idea, let me know and I'll set up a page for the comments. If it doesn't sound like a good idea, think of a better one! and then let me know! Smallbones(smalltalk)02:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I tend to use thousand million to avoid the billion v billion discussion. At the moment I am trying to avoid taking on additional commitments, some real life stuff is going to upend my life for the next few months, so I may be able to contribute something in Jan, but at the moment I can't promise to. ϢereSpielChequers21:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I'm so late on this one. I had assumed that given the overwhelming respond to the RfC on meta (98-5?) against, that there would be no way that the WMF would go thru with this. But apparently, there is no way that the WMF is going to take an absolute "no" on this - it's a legal imperative. Right now it looks like any choice is between IP masking and banning IP editing on individual projects (if that choice is even allowed). @Bri and Rschen7754: and anybody who is interested. Would somebody be willing to write a neutral article on this? How about an opinion piece. We'd need a fairly finished piece by Friday! Smallbones(smalltalk)15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Independently of this suggestion, I reached out to one of those who commented on our March story for their take. Maybe we could round up some more input from non-Signposters? - Bri.public (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I see some technical things that would need consultation with somebody at the WMF, e.g. when a non-registered editor tries to edit, moving a them to a new page offering registration or sign in. But I don't see anything going on like - the WMF board needs to approve this. Could you clarify or point me in the right direction? Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk)14:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
The bid passed, a Wikipedia user won it, here is a large interview with her, unlikely that it will be translated to English, an autotranslator may help. Farhad says he is going to answer email from Signpost in about 2 days, also he is going to send an English mail to Wikipedia-l maillist on this topic. --ssr (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Bri (2020-10-22)
The Signpost should write about the problems with blocking IP addresses. Maybe the time is right with new discussion about IP masking. I have a draft at User:Bri/Misapplication of blocking that would need to be refreshed for current stats and examples. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has a nice article on an editor's attempt to add citations to the article sichuan pepper. (The editor is apparently User:Mozby.) But unlike most newspaper coverage of WP, this one talks about how important it is to engage with the Talk page as a way to discuss research. A very nice quote from the article: "...visit a Talk page or two to understand what research is. It’s not just looking online for stuff; it’s a process of assessment, of re-searching through what you’ve found to determine what’s superfluous, what’s missing and what requires thought. The nakedness of this process on Talk pages makes it accessible. Professional researchers can be precious about our work, but research is a skill we can and should all acquire, given the abundance of information and misinformation mixed up at our fingertips." - kosboot (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1338 sols (1375 days) (3 years, 280 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
. I've found them now.
Like Fantastic! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
pt:Wikipédia:Votações/Necessidade de registo para editar a Wikipédia lusófona