Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-09-25/In the media

Discuss this story

Regarding the false quote persisting for 12 years on the German Wikipedia, "numerous scholars" is an overstatement on several levels. What the heck does "numerous" even mean here? A number somewhere between two and infinity? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous means that the signpost does not have enough writers, and I was in a rush to get it published quickly, so I picked a fairly apt number. In this case, numerous means "Looking for the false quote on Google produced only around 100 results, partial search increasing that number to only around 300 results." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Dubai project is using QRpedia; does anyone have a contact for Saqib Qayyum, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Science is shaped by Wikipedia

It's worth reading the paper. They say "Our back-of-the-envelope analysis thus has stark conclusions: even with many conservative assumptions, dissemination through Wikipedia is ∼1700x more cost-effective than traditional dissemination techniques. Thus, from a public policy perspective, funding the creation of content in public repositories of science like Wikipedia is compelling. We thus encourage governments, organizations, and publically-minded individuals to incorporate the creation of such articles into their activities and applaud those who are already advocating it". We should make sure this recommendation is also well disseminated. Leutha (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, the summary ought to put near the top, something along the lines of, "They got experts to write 88 Wikipedia science articles, randomly chose half to upload, and found that the phrases used in the published half appeared in later months in scientific journals far more often than those used in the not published half". I mean, this is what a randomized controlled experiment is. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was in the next building where the researcher from Pitt had his office, I invited myself over to discuss the research that he worked on with the other fellow at MIT. There were a lot more conclusions from the study that are described above. This study deserves a more detailed description in a future article in the Signpost. He even let me take his photo. I gently chided him for paying 'editors' to add is content and that there would be people watching out for him doing the same thing in the future. He thought that was funny and so did I. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Selfie

Am I correct in thinking that since the two have come to a settlement it doesn't set a legal precedent in the way that a court decision would? IE Animals still are not people and cannot claim a copyright on their works in the way that humans can? Ϣere SpielChequers 07:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the selfie is posted above, does that mean the monkey uploaded his own selfie into commons? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]