Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-08-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted (1,947 bytes · 💬)

A brief comment on two points here: (1) the climate change case proposed decision talk page is not a completely unstructured discussion. The page in fact includes an innovation not seen in previous cases, namely a separate section for statements to be made. Though it remains to be seen how successful that will be, several people have taken the opportunity to make statements as well as take part in the threaded discussion. The actual discussion section does lack structure - I had considered replicating the workshop structure to encourage specific comments, but the discussions I started about that didn't get many comments. JohnWBarber did set up a more structured discussion, and I've recently posted to the talk page encouraging the participants to self-organise the page to keep discussion more focused and easier to follow (this would normally be the role of the clerks and arbitrators, but with the volume of discussion seen here, some self-organisation by the participants is needed). (2) The period of comment for the CU and OS appointments has closed now. I'd like to thank all those that commented, either on-wiki or by e-mail. I'll try and post an update on this at the arbitration noticeboard tomorrow, though the schedule is still currently as given in previous notices. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- To add to that, for those who are curious, as of the report date, there were about 2680 words in statements while there was 17,236 words in unstructured discussion. As of this timestamp, the figure for statements has less than doubled to >4000 words while the figure for discussion has more than tripled to >60,000 words. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (2,042 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for having a more logical CotW this time. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the mini-bios of admins ... a personal touch (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. It takes a lot of work for something to be listed here, and a personal touch makes it all the better. (X! · talk) · @962 · 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, I think that's an excellent touch too. Another great Featured Stuff page for Signpost. Long may they continue. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    - I'll chime in and say that i too appreciate this comprehensive format more than the strict lists of six months ago. If only we could see more of the featured pictures; I open about half of them in tabs. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Agreed- why do we have pictures illustrating TFA and others when there are featured pictures which aren't shown? J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

←Where are the TFAs? We got rid of that a few weeks ago. Tony (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, that was a rather stupid comment. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality (5,161 bytes · 💬)

Regarding Net Neutrality, I have one message for the FCC: Please leave our First Amendment Rights alone! Chris (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly backwards. See Network neutrality. The message to the FCC should be: Please adopt the full 2005 proposal to require net neutrality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Net Neutrality is the Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine. This is part of the left's effort under Marx's The Communist Manifesto of 1848 which has one of its tenants in controlling all communications. Net Neutrality will do this. Do not forget that Google is very close to the Obama administration and FCC chair Genachowski. Chris (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You've confused me. Are you arguing that this Google/Verizon agreement is communist? Given that an absence of net neutrality benefits those with the most money, I'm not sure how you can take such a position, but perhaps I have misunderstood you. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that he's unaware of Google's recent 180. Yoshi348 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What I do know is that Google's founder Sergey Bren, who is Russian born, was recently invited to the most recent Bilderberg Conference. This cabal has been doing everything in their power to destroy the US and the very freedoms that we cherish. I don't wish to have this Internet used taken away by an overzealous government whether it be here or abroad. Chris (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Internet isn't broken. The Internet doesn't need fixing. The new FCC rules on net nuetrality have been in place for only two years. The Internet worked just fine without them before. The new FCC rules, while on the books, have actually been enforced for zero years. The Internet is working just fine without them being enforced. If they ever do get enforced (remember, the US just got a new president and a new FCC head...), we will have given more power over the Internet to the FCC. Here is an example from the past of what happens when you give more power to the FCC:[1] Also see:[2][3][4][5] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Per: "the 'Best Zionist Editor' would be awarded with a free hot-air balloon ride." ............................... Never mind, too easy! But seriously folks, this is going to be a very big, very noisy, highly publicized mess over the next few months. This effort in organized manipulation of content has all the subtlety of a freight train at a street crossing... ArbCom is going to be busy... Carrite (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah... it does promise to be a good intentioned (?) train wreck. A bit of further colour behind it all, from a New York Times bit about "Wikipedia for Zionists": “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.” In my opinion the speaker doesn't quite understand the inherent contradiction between "balanced" and "Zionist in nature" (or "Palestinian in nature" for that matter) especially with regards to NPOV. Tabercil (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a follow up NY Times article. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the mindset of the conspiracist: everyone else is against him, so his efforts to spread propaganda is in reality just an attempt to restore balance (see e.g. the Fox News slogan). Lampman (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a similar Arab initiative. What's next, a government-backed Wikipedia initiative to insure fair coverage of Rapture? These things make me sad. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Pending changes poll, Public policy classes, Payment schemes debate, and more (2,734 bytes · 💬)

Pending changes

Out of curiosity, I checked what "data indicates 84% of the articles under pending changes recieved an average of less than one anon edit daily." means. Assuming 1 anon edit daily (so an upper limit), with 1,393 articles under pending changes this gives ~500,000 edits a year by anonymous editors. Even halving that number (average of 0.5 edits per day), hence a quarter of a million, that's still an awful lot of edits... Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats a very good point actually. However, articles included under the program are constantly monitered by vandal hunters, since they are the most visible articles, and less then one anon edit daily, sometimes not even vandalism, isn't much. ResMar 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the pending changes would perhaps free up the vandal patrollers to clear other backlogs. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. All it would do is shift it off to other vandal patrollers. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does pending changes interact with transcluded content? If pcp was applied to a template, would subsequent edits to that template have to be approved before they would be visible in transclusions? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, if PCP was applied to a template, would it make the parser hallucinate? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Public Policy

Payment schemes

Brief news

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (381 bytes · 💬)

< Re: Wikitext, shouldn't the very nice discussion on David Gerard (talk · contribs)'s blog be linked to? Circéus (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology (1,743 bytes · 💬)

Yay! Published at last. My thanks to everyone who contributed. And my welcome to all who read.Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"First-hand experiences and sightings are really needed..." ?? Sasata (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well why not. If you see Bigfoot and manage to take a really, really good picture of him, you can improve the article and get an FP nom in in a single burst :) ResMar 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The members of this WikiProject should be commended for their diligent work in an area which needs to be covered, but due to misunderstandings over the rules & policy of what Wikipedia, by definition, covers complicates their success. On the one side, you have people who are unnecessarily concerned that what they sincerely believe is fiction or fantasy is being treated as Truth ("Wikipedia documents not truth, but what can be verified as what people believe is the truth"); on the other, you have people who are unnecessarily encouraged that what they believe is true is being treated as Truth ("Wikipedia documents not truth, but what can be verified as what people believe is the truth"). God save us from people who forget Wikipedia is meant as a first step in research, not the last! -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)