Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/News and notes
Discuss this story
Arabic WP vids
[edit]- Arabic WP vids: I looked at the first part of one and it seems very professionally produced. Is there an English translation or subtitling? Tony (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can give you a general idea. The video starts with the importance of Wikipedia (Wikipedia appears in the top results of most web searches). Then explains the general idea behind Wikipedia and that YOU can contribute. Then compare the Arabic version with other versions in terms of the number of article to the number of language speakers. On the positive side mentions the Arabic version exceeds other large versions in the percentage of growth. Then mention different ways you can contribute (writing an article, translating one, correcting a mistake or even fixing a typo). 46.153.195.194 (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Tony (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can give you a general idea. The video starts with the importance of Wikipedia (Wikipedia appears in the top results of most web searches). Then explains the general idea behind Wikipedia and that YOU can contribute. Then compare the Arabic version with other versions in terms of the number of article to the number of language speakers. On the positive side mentions the Arabic version exceeds other large versions in the percentage of growth. Then mention different ways you can contribute (writing an article, translating one, correcting a mistake or even fixing a typo). 46.153.195.194 (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikiproject Conservatism MfD
[edit]- It's too bad I didn't hear about the Wikiproject MfD, I would have definitely voted Delete. There's a reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism redirects to a task force in Wikiproject Political Culture. And I think even that is too much. We shouldn't have Wikiprojects based about political ideology. Having Wikiprojects for articles about political parties would be, potentially, fine, as they would be dealing specifically with well-defined articles that are about the political party. But using ideological terms like conservatism and liberalism that, by their very definition, are vague and can mean different things from one day to the next is useless and doesn't benefit theproject at all.
- The only thing that Wikiproject Conservatism shows and which was pointed out slightly in this Signpost is that it exists to push that Conservatist ideology on Wikipedia and that is completely inappropriate. SilverserenC 15:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Users have the right to assemble, to organize themselves, and to collaborate with each other. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and WikiProjects facilitate collaboration. The MfD process shouldn't be used to disorganize users. The project has produced and maintain 23 FA's and 38 GA's. Why should such a productive project be disbanded? The Right Stuff's first and only issue only talks about the WikiProject, its users, and the work they've done. In its current format, The Right Stuff doesn't even include anything resembling political advocacy. There isn't anything wrong with keeping its project members informed with a newsletter. Even if individual members seek to push a particular ideology, I don't see any evidence that the WikiProject as an organized group is doing the pushing. Wikipedia is about making information accessible, and if the project is expanding and improving Wikipedia's documentation of conservatism, then it's working in line with Wikipedia's goals. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it's not doing it as a group, it also shouldn't allow such activism by the members that join and it's quite clear if they're joining with statements like the one exhibited in this Signpost, they are joining for an activist reason. SilverserenC 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like politics-related userboxes to be deleted as well? Users have the right to have opinions and to express them openly. As long as they aren't inserting claims that aren't reliably sourced into articles or removing claims that are reliably sourced from articles, they have the right to express themselves outside of the mainspace. Wikipedia is home to users who are openly anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, and more, yet we allow them all to edit and create articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with what i'm saying. Comments from people that join like "enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism" shows that they aren't meaning to join for a neutral reason. Expressing an opinion on your userpage is one thing, joining a Wikiproject so you can work at pushing that opinion is not the same thing. SilverserenC 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Jjrj24, [1] – I don't see any misinformation from that user. You're giving too much credit to a cherry-picked quote. If anything, that user is simply the victim of being unfamiliar with Wikipedia. His or her user talk page history shows clear signs of newbie-ness. Perhaps someone should try to talk to him or her instead of quoting him or her on a page he or she might never look at (in effect, criticizing the user without letting him or her know about the criticism). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW, Wikipedia users have no rights except the right to vanish and the right to fork. Any other activities they may engage in, singly or in combination, which disrupt the goals of this project can be prohibited by the community. That has included disruptive userboxes and projects. Will Beback talk 03:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/Jjrj24, [1] – I don't see any misinformation from that user. You're giving too much credit to a cherry-picked quote. If anything, that user is simply the victim of being unfamiliar with Wikipedia. His or her user talk page history shows clear signs of newbie-ness. Perhaps someone should try to talk to him or her instead of quoting him or her on a page he or she might never look at (in effect, criticizing the user without letting him or her know about the criticism). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with what i'm saying. Comments from people that join like "enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism" shows that they aren't meaning to join for a neutral reason. Expressing an opinion on your userpage is one thing, joining a Wikiproject so you can work at pushing that opinion is not the same thing. SilverserenC 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would you like politics-related userboxes to be deleted as well? Users have the right to have opinions and to express them openly. As long as they aren't inserting claims that aren't reliably sourced into articles or removing claims that are reliably sourced from articles, they have the right to express themselves outside of the mainspace. Wikipedia is home to users who are openly anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, and more, yet we allow them all to edit and create articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it's not doing it as a group, it also shouldn't allow such activism by the members that join and it's quite clear if they're joining with statements like the one exhibited in this Signpost, they are joining for an activist reason. SilverserenC 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservatism isn't the first active WikiProject to be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- WikiProjects were nominated for deletion many, many times: [2], [3], [4]. The WikiProject Conservatism MfD shouldn't be described as "the first MfD of its kind." This MfD is far from being unprecedented. I'm shocked at how little research and effort Jorgenev placed in creating this Signpost article. As seen by Silver_seren's comments, Jorgenev's Signpost article had the effect of transforming the newbie Jjrj24 into a poster-boy for what's supposedly wrong with the WikiProject; meanwhile, no one ever told Jjrj24 face-to-face about what they felt was wrong with his comment. Jjrj24 never received any warnings or complaints about the comment on his talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Projects such as "WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship" or "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency", despite having Wikiproject in their names, are hardly Wikiprojects in the usual conception and everything found your link, Michaeldsuarez, were either projects nominated for inactivity or projects that had just been started with only one a two users. As far as I can tell this is the first serious Wikiproject with a topic that that had sustained activity to be subjected to a serious deletion nomination and in that way it was unprecedented. I used Jjrj24's comment because his was used as an example at the MFD. JORGENEVSKI 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad that I'm finally gained your attention. Perhaps you should start clarifying and improving what you've written. Its present state gives the wrong impression. My comments should be a sign that it's giving the wrong impressions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Projects such as "WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship" or "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency", despite having Wikiproject in their names, are hardly Wikiprojects in the usual conception and everything found your link, Michaeldsuarez, were either projects nominated for inactivity or projects that had just been started with only one a two users. As far as I can tell this is the first serious Wikiproject with a topic that that had sustained activity to be subjected to a serious deletion nomination and in that way it was unprecedented. I used Jjrj24's comment because his was used as an example at the MFD. JORGENEVSKI 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pleased that the Deletion challenge ended a keep, I wish I had known about it so that I could have weighed in before closure. There have definitely been a couple missteps by this fledgling project in terms of advocacy, but I think the general output has been good and level-headed, outside of the inevitable fisticuffs that are going to spring up over hot-button topics like abortion. Carrite (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rather biased presentation. I demand that the editor in chief of this rag-newsletter resign right away. Actually, I'll start a RFAR and nominate the Signpost for MfD as well. After that you can start a RfCU on me as it happened to the guy that started the RFAR on WikiProject Conservatism, and who also trolled several other places as well. Go left/right Wikipedia! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, my impression is that this project is unusual in that it avoids advocacy to the point of suicide, and I have thus argued on its page. I think people have their heads in the sand. Do you not think that the "Israel" and "Palestine" projects exist to large extent (although not totally) to counter each other? Have you not seen remarks in IRS like "reality has a liberal bias"? Why do Conservative writers seem to get immediate RfDs? The project's purpose is to work on topics related to Conservative ideology, and this is what it does. However, I have argued that it should also act as a watchdog against anti-conservative POV's, so as to add the conservative POV and achieve actual NPOV though the balance. I have not had an easy time of it, I assure you, so you can all feel better. (By the way, if political ideologies may not have projects, I expect to see one of you purists issue an immediate RfD on the Feminism project.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
← Back to News and notes