Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-07-26

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-07-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD (7,253 bytes · 💬)

Ok, so why on earth was that AfD special enough to be singled out here? Sounds pretty typical to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty typical, and there is nothing special about it. I choose a random AfD and write about that. If there is an AfD that you would like to see covered you can suggest it at our tips desk, if you like. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You chose a random AfD? Is there really nothing more important to cover? Alternatively, y'know, you could spend your time contributing to the encyclopedia... If there's nothing worth talking about, don't just make it up. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been here just over four months and in that time created 58 articles, contributed to one DYK, and spent countless hours working on my own to get an article up to GA status. So please, saying I should spend more of my time contributing to the mainspace is really a little patronizing. If you don't want to read the Discussion report, then don't read it. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's actually useful to remind people that simple content issues are unlikely to be grounds for AfD. Many AfDs could be avoided, many many more streamlined if more folk remembered this simple guideline. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Good question, Jclemens. Moreover, why was TreasuryTag's behaviour deemed deserving of a public commentary by the Signpost? This is a very unusual piece, and not one I'd enjoy seeing emulated in future weeks. AGK 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The intention of that section was not to highlight TreasuryTag's behaviour, but because I found the proposal that e-mails should be sent to users about talk page messages was interesting and something that the wider community would be interested to hear about. At the time of writing, however, almost half the report was taken up by the argument over TreasuryTag. I felt that if I covered half the discussion, then this COULD be considered censorship. My aim was to highlight this discussion so that users unaware of its existance would discover it and hopefully voice their opinions, which they have. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, this is a wiki, remember? Feel free to edit the article and add what you'd like to see rather than just berating the person who took the initiative to write something. Kaldari (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the last comment about TreasuryTag from the article, as I feel it's not worth highlighting here and just makes Wikipedia look bad. Let's remember that the Signpost is meant to showcase the best of Wikipedia, not comments we'd later regret. Robofish (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like talking about AfDs here. I think it just looks like the signpost has nothing better to write about. Even Cunard's nominations of secret pages is more notable than an individual AfD. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. I have the feeling that the author write these 2 stories just as a page filler. There're lots more discussion happening that are more worthy to mention (e.g. about relaxing Betacommand's restrictiong to run the SPI bot) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that partly because of the comments here, and partly because the page is very hard to write, it has gone on a holiday from now. The page labours under the burden that we are all suffused in the reading of discussions. However, if a few noteworthy discussions arise in the future, I guess they could make a good story. Tony (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the reporting of some discussions and AFDs in the Signpost. Wikipedia can be a puzzling place for a newcomer and this sometimes fraught activity needs a window where some of the niceties and outcomes can be observed without diving in. It also tends to be the perogative of news editors to decide what constitutes news. Lumos3 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a pretty good article. You're actually doing something right if it stirs up some hoopla. Keep it up. I like BLP1E AfDs that get tons of votes, when you go looking for your next one. They're usually pretty interesting. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I too don't see the need to report on individual AfDs. This one wasn't anything special. The email story is also too detailed, in that it centralize the debate around the views of two or three people, and encourages an "Editor 1 vs. editor 2, who will win!11!!" attitude. Report that the discussion is taking place, give a quick general summary of the for and against position, but there's no need to report "User:X said this, which was countered by User:Y who said this, which was re-countered by User:X who made this argument", etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know. I think that there are some AfDs that have interesting arguments and perhaps some policy ramifications and might be worth reporting. But this one was not one such. Why not report on debates in WP:Centralized discussion? I find some of those mystifying. Abductive (reasoning) 10:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (322 bytes · 💬)

• Maybe you could say how by how many GAs went up on this page? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade (10,343 bytes · 💬)

Customer satisfaction

I notice that the consistency of the user interface is regarded as one of the reasons for Wikipedia's popularity and wonder whether experts such as those who were responsible for the recent catastrophic skin change will ever get a clue that most users don't like interface changes? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Catastrophic"? You mean the totally inconspicuous skin change that most people barely noticed at the time and have already forgotten about? +Angr 06:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean the skin change that broke the site either totally or in important ways (like . . . search) for users of several popular browsers and that was promptly rejected by most registered editors, that turned out to have been beta tested in a manner that did not take into account the needs of unregistered users (i.e. users as opposed to editors) and large minorities in use patterns (such as regular switching between different language wikipedias) or, apparently, quantify how many "tried beta" and promptly rejected it, and that has lost us an unknown number of users and been reverted by a very large number of registered editors - see next comment. How is breaking the site and driving people away not catastrophic? (And the number of negative comments that piled up in at least 4 different places afterwards, despite it being very difficult for nonregistered users - again, these are our customers, this site does not exist for those of us who edit - to find where to leave a comment, speaks to the depth of dissatisfaction with the change.) A story that the Signpost utterly failed to cover, BTW. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signpost coverage of Vector/UI rollout:1 - (2009 prelim), 2 - (interwiki links), 3 - (search box), 4 - (logo), and 5 - (current user stats). So, yes, there could have been more, but there certainly was some. I do agree that we should have publicized the link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change better, but there were links to it from a variety of places (Talk:Main page, Village pumps, etc). So, not ideal, but not utter failure either. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What is really frightening is the 82 score for Fox News... As far as skin changes go, I went back to Monobrook and tend to forget Vector exists until I have to re-login.. Resolute 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Phoning up 250 people doesn't sound like a very large sample, I remember from the recent UK general election that a site which rounded up the various polls weighted heavily against any using less than a thousand! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lee, you're right. In many situations, 250 would be fine for a sample. But here, it's very tricky. No mention in the original of the demographic, the geographical area(s). Hard to tell. Tony (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Google Translate and Wikimedia's India strategy

There is also a current thread on Foundation-l (Is Google translation is good for Wikipedias?) which has more interesting information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

As SJ and DG point out, at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Citizendium#Growth_and_decline there are some potentially insightful infographics (and snarky commentary). -- Quiddity (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Some are also at citizendium:CZ:Statistics. And for my own talk about Citizendium at last year's Wikimania (abstract, slides) I prepared another graph showing the interesting development of the median article length (in words), which has been steadily decreasing since 2007. (That graph ends a year ago, but the trend has continued.) This has to be taken into account when examining the number of articles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(Follow-up question and reply at commons:File talk:Lessons from Citizendium.pdf.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The THE article is also discussed in a thread on the Citizendium forums - it appears that some Citizens were surprised to learn about Sanger's plans from the media.

A glimpse at the work on the Charter, still ongoing after one year, can be had here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo named as 47th most powerful person in media

Three cheers for Jimbo! Kayau Voting IS evil 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

Article on Censorship censored

The Wikipedia Signpost have decide that you should not be able to read commentary on the problems with censorship. This is the first time commentary has been censored from the Wikipedia Signpost, however, evidently, speaking out against Jimbo Wales' actions in the recent Commons debacle is too controversial. Since I started editing Wikipedia, I've created literally hundreds of Featured pictures, a dozen or so Featured articles, a couple Featured portals, a featured list, and various other things. What has my reward been? I've been harassed, bullied, and generally treated like dirt. An arbcom case was opened by Charles Matthews, then a sitting arbitrator, to punish me for not immediately agreeing to his request to reconsider a block, with no additional information than "I think it's a good idea". I instead sought opinions on ANI, and so Charles Matthews got his friends in the Arbcom to harass me for three months. After two months, they decided that they really should have sought other means of dispute resolution, and opened an RfC... which came out firmly in my decfense. This wasn't what they wanted, so they ignored it, attacked those who spoke out against me, and did what they wanted It took a year for the Arbcom to finally agree to withdraw the case, replacing it with an apology, and detailing the many procedural and ethical lapses. More recently, I've been blocked for having an arbcom statement slightly over the limit - while I was in the middle of a lengthy rewrite. The other user I was in dispute with also had a statement over the limit throughout that time... and was never so much as warned. Wikipedia treats its users like shit, but, ironically, only the long-time experienced users. If you ever begin to become jaded, your upset at Wikipedia will be used to implement more injustices. Here we see an example. At the start of the news cycle, I wrote an editorial, following the Signpost's stated guideance for such. When it was done, I was told that they no longer publish editorials, and, instead of raising a fuss, I offered to simply publish it as a comment to stories, and the thread discussing it was closed. Two hours before publication, the editor of the Signpost deleted the comment, without telling anyone. I objected; he had participated in the discussion, and the discussion had been closed for nearly a week, with the comment ready for publication throughout that time. I had dropped my insistence on publication of editorials, or any attempt to revise the article into a non-editorial overview, based on what I had seen as the agreement. Now, not only is talking about censorship censored, but even a private complaint about at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2FNewsroom&action=historysubmit&diff=375694073&oldid=375693486 editor making grossly inaccurate personal attacks against me, based on patently false allegations, has been censored. I quit. Both the Signpost, and Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

With no real knowledge of the issues you speak of, I have to point out: the Signpost isn't the venue for this. This week's story regards only his mention in The Guardian, and complaints about the recent scandal aren't particularly relevant. That's not to say that your point of view should be extinguished, but an essay, RfC, or the Village Pump would be a better approach; the Signpost is a community newspaper and not a blog or political organization. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

[Moving my comment to the newsroom talkpage.] -- Quiddity (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news (2,221 bytes · 💬)

• I find it odd that a person with no experience whatsoever with editing any Wikimedia project was chosen to do a study on Wikimedia. It seems like a poor choice to me.--Rockfang (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I think it was important that someone unburdened by our preconceptions did the study. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think they need to be experts on all things Wikimedia, but I don't think it is too much to ask that they have some sort of first hand knowledge regarding editing at least one of the various projects. That would be like someone being asked to give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read.--Rockfang (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Much as I agree with Rockfang's surprise about choosing someone with no experience to do this study, I'd say the analogy "give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read" is a little too far. Rather, I'd compare it to having someone review a given technical book who has no expertise in the field: all that the review will accomplish is determine whether the book is accessible to the general reader, not whether it is an accurate let alone good book. And far too often, an inaccurate but popular account will have a greater influence on the educated public than an accurate but difficult to read one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

  Your analogy is indeed better.--Rockfang (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like some reliable sources say we're the fifth biggest web site. I wonder what the difference is? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek (811 bytes · 💬)

• Appreciate David's shout-out! He did a fantastic job following up with the sources for the films and putting together Featured Articles of truly gold standard. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Great article. -- File:Thumbsup emote.gif œ^™ 13:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Live long and prosper! Lionel (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• +1 for the title. extransit (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)