Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-09-20. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more (824 bytes · 💬)

I think we need more arbitrators. -- œ^™ 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any particular reason(s)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  - Oh I dunno.. it just seems like they have too much on their hands to handle expediently. Maybe a few more arbs would ease their workload and help avoid any delays such as the Eastern European mailing list request noted above. -- œ ^™ 19:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories (6,738 bytes · 💬)

Wikihistory

Another page history tool that wasn't mentioned in the article but is also very useful is de:Benutzer:APPER/WikiHistory, a downloadable (and closed source) program that runs under Windows. The documentation is entirely in German, which was a reason not include it here, but the program itself is in English and can be applied to pages on many different Wikipedias including the English one, and Commons. Apart from a "blame" function, it can color an article's text according to which editor contributed it, meaning one gets a direct overview of all text authored by a particular user. The German Wikipedia fork "Wikiweise" offers such a coloring function directly on their site (accessible by the "Einfärben" link next to each article, example). IIrc, this was based on an earlier version of APPER's code.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Signpost articles about tools

I'm concerned this is becoming too much. 3 whole articles of tools gives a very, very nagging feeling that we are getting seriously out of scope-especially considering it was originally one. ResMar 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a software review should be a regular feature on the Signpost - a entire article devoted to one tool in each issue. An article devoted to policy discussions would be good too but I'm afraid I'm not volunteering to write either of these. filceolaire (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the wastebin of ideas =) ResMar 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concept is terrific, implementation could be improved. I'd prefer: Tool of the Week. Tools are incredibly useful, and in many situations separate effective from ineffective editors. At the least, they separate newcomers from old hands. Try doing recent changes patrol without Twinkle (or Huggle), or checking diffs without pop-ups, or fixing syntax without Auto-Ed. It's possible, but why would you want to? Let's keep bringing attention to the important but undercovered ideas, just do it in a less haphazard fashion. Ocaasi 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "haphazard fashion"? The first two parts already represent the result of quite some effort to bring into a more systematic form what was initially, in the view of some commenters, a too arbitrary selection. This was done by grouping the tools into topics, and striving for some level of completeness regarding each topic (i.e. try to cover at least the important, widely used tools related to each topic). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, haphazard wasn't about it being messy or chaotic, just about the inherent randomness of tools. I appreciate the general effort as well as the specific intentions to group things better. What I mean is that tools are such an important but niche item, that they might be best categorized individually or broken down by very specific themes (like anti-vandalism, citations, User Interface, templates, etc.). It might be best for readers if only one tool, or two or three from a single category were presented each week. Once you have more than that I think it takes on what I meant by haphazard, which is a bit of a hodge-podge quality, since you have a collection of new, technical things which are interesting but maybe overwhelming when grouped together. Is that a better explanation? Ocaasi (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As for specific themes, well that's what we tried here - the "citations" idea has already been realized in the first issue (as "References"). "User interface", on the other hand, seems very general.

I think that most tools don't warrant a separate article. And grouping should actually help to make things easier to read (example in this article: The reader only has to grasp once what a "blame" functionality is, in order to understand the description of several tools providing it). Of course there can always be debate about the relevance of a particular tool for Signpost readers, but I think it's good to strive for a certain completeness regarding each topic, in the sense that at least all widely used or highly recommendable tools regarding that "very specific theme" are covered.

You are welcome to comment on the (draft of the) next installment, which will likely be postponed until next week: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-11/Dispatches.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be getting beyond the viewers at this point, so to clarify:

This was only (only!) intended to showcase tools useful to article writing. Please strive to understand that. Whatever else you want to do is separate. ResMar 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is understood that your personal intentions may have been different in the beginning, but do I really need to remind you of the huge concerns and lengthy controversies that they generated? The scope and form were changed to bring it into a form acceptable for publishing. Even in this second part, several quality problems stemming from the initial text (such as a completely wrong name for one tool) had to be fixed before publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah calling a Banan-a a Banana is soooo wrong. >.> ResMar 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (957 bytes · 💬)

re the image at the top, I thought they were clogs! :P -- œ^™ 06:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:Wackywace chose it; striking, isn't it! Tony (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  - The tooth will set you free! Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC).
    - Haha, I *just* noticed that =) ResMar 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost (5,332 bytes · 💬)

Great work on those Share tools. That was really something that was missing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was some way to make the Share tools use the short URL http://enwp.org/, e.g. http://enwp.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-20/From_the_editor . --pfctdayelise (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be useful, but I'd hesitate to recommend it as long as enwp.org doesn't have a privacy policy (all URL shorteners are in a position that enables them to track surfers. Using logs from enwp.org, one could conceivably gather the IP addresses of many high profile Wikipedians entirely without Checkuser access. Not that I have reason to suspect Tl-lomas is doing this; it is a general, long-term concern). I hear that there are plans at the Foundation to set up its own shortening service, which would be covered by the Foundation's privacy policy. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's great that you chose an unobtrusive approach, but maybe it was a bit too unobtrusive: I didn't notice the share tools until it was pointed out that they were in the upper right corner. Maybe if the "share this" text had an icon next to it (http://www.openshareicons.com perhaps?) it would be more visible and discoverable. --Waldir ^talk 07:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I partly agree; but it's very hard to prevent an icon from being obstructive of the images and text we put at the top of the articles. We tried one mid-last-week that was difficult in this respect. Actually, I find the design of the current arrangement just first-class (User:Mono's work, I think). Tony (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about a grey version of the Open Share icon ? File:Shareicon.svg ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was done by Pretzels, like most of the current Signpost design. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

One slight adjustment that might be considered is to bring the [show] button closer to the "Share this" button, so that there are three words in the bunch—that might be a little more prominent, without affecting the nice design and the unobtrusiveness of the function. Tony (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the share this option. You should report on the most shared items like the Wall Street Journal and Time do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Clicking on "share this" is intuitive, yet doesn't do anything. Users need to click on the "[show]" button, which may or may not relate to "share this" as the size and weight of the text is different. Get rid of the "[show]" button, make it so when you click "share this", it shows the options as it currently does. Get rid of clutter, make it easier to use. 192.93.164.28 (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to, but there's no way I know of doing this on the English Wikipedia. We're severely limited to the code we can use, and templates have to be super accessible and display on all types of setups. Let me know if you find a safe way of achieving that. — Pretzels^Hii! 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No clue how to do it, but I first tried clicking on "Share this". Whoops. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well there are a few things we can do. We can make it a full CSS hover menu. We just add a small Wikipedia namespace specific css to the global css. To make it a click menu as well however, we need to resort to JS. Again, we could add this to global JS, I don't think anyone will really mind, as long as it is not usable in article namespace. Note that such elements won't be accessible for screenreaders if they don't have JS enabled. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia (9,538 bytes · 💬)

Rush Limbaugh

The user who did this, claimed trough a sockaccount, that it was a personal experiment to see what journalists would do, in the 15 minutes of fame this judge was enjoying. He was kinda shocked to see this in the NY Times and apologizes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, maybe this is a teachable moment for one of my longstanding objections about Wikipedia's potential to do damage to people. There's situations where someone gets a blip of media attention, and in that relatively short time-frame, the potential harm from vandalism is enormous. I suspect too many people think this is a speculative concern, or dismiss it saying bad edits will quickly be reverted. But I've seen other instances, and the issue should be proven by now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a vast difference between a breaching experiment amounting to a prank, and malicious inclusion of unsourced information into a current biography. In neither case is the Foundation liable for libel, as I see it, unless we have been notified and fail to take reasonable steps to remove such information and prevent recurrence. It's my experience that most biographies are highly watchlisted and that unsourced negative material is removed within a short time; that some might slip through that net is perhaps more an indication of the notability of the subject of the article than anything else. Seth is IMO creating more heat than light, as usual, and as an advocate of a free internet, should realise that this is bound to happen in an open model. Bottom line is that I doubt we have anything to worry about. Rodhull andemu 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Not that I'm a fussbudget, but can I note, just for making the point, how WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are suspended when it comes to critics? To address your personal accusation, if my goal was to "generate heat", I wouldn't be doing it in obscure comment threads. My whole point is trying to establish that this is something to worry about, and showing the evidence to belie the tendency to dismiss it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So where is it, and where is any evidence of lack of due diligence, mutatis mutandis? The problem with self-proclaimed critics, as I see it, is that they may be keen to highlight the deficiencies without balancing that with the benefits. Also, they have never practised law in any real jurisdiction. Unreal. Let's put it this way: if you sought to brief me, I'd advise you hadn't a leg to stand on; if WMF briefed me, however, I'd feel more confident of success. Rodhull andemu 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Seth is right in both in the dangers of WP's current BLP system and how outside criticism is too often treated by Wikipedians. Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly where pending changes can be useful. Actually, it is the only place where it can be. These little watched BLPs. Of course, if not Wikipedia, then Twitter, so it's not really gonna solve anything in the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, Pending changes is still not quite there yet, technology wise, it needs another iteration or two before it can be widely deployed, and then we still need to agree on WHERE to deploy it. Low quality BLPs seems an obvious choice to me, and trending twitter, google and google news items could possibly be another good choice. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes is all very well, but doesn't address the problem of libel; publication is still publication, even to a limited audience, in my experience. PC has a way to go before it is going to satisfy everybody to an acceptable level. Meanwhile, we still have to assume that if "Low quality BLPs" should qualify for some sort of protection or gate-keeping, if you will, there is no reason not to extend the principle to all biographies, since it is only from those articles that a libel action may arise. Perhaps we should be grateful that we have defensible protections in place and that perhaps because of that, no individual has yet taken the point. However, it would be an unwelcome and potentially expensive diversion if they chose to do so. Rodhull andemu 00:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

During "political silly season", it is clear that WP must be extremely vigilant against any POV-pushers adding defamtory content to any BLPs at all. This is, indeed, a far greater real concern that the myriad "unsourced" BLPs which were so hotly discussed earlier. And, as noted above, another strong argument for Pending Changes. Collect (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes is a partial solution and I look forwards to it being improved and implemented more widely.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an article of faith that Pending Changes will help. It would be nice if it did, but no one has yet provided meaningful results or a useful analysis of the two month test. Instead, everyone is busy arguing over whether the test should be continued indefinitely. -- llywrch (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this sense of security all based on certain legal rulings? Surely it's only a matter of time before the courts take a different view and decide to punish Wikipedia - here in the UK being a prime likely candidate for such a punishment - with a swinging penalty it cannot afford. From that moment, the model will be broken. I suspect one day all BLP articles will either come down, or only a few will be allowed through after the most rigourous vetting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just rulings but law. US law is very clear that Wikimedia cannot be held liable for the libels posted to Wikipedia by others. And any crazy judgement in the UK would probably be unenforceable in the US, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based. Pending Changes are good for ethical reasons - they have nothing to do with legal liability, which remains unaffected either way.--greenrd (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Libel tourism#Laws addressing libel tourism and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the SPEECH Act of 2010, I agree it's likely someone will try to "break" Wikipedia. Amidst the discussion over Pending Changes, I've come to speculate wondered if the Foundation's best defense in such cases is to deflect the responsibility from the Wikipedia in question (& the WMF) to the person who made the edit. Doing that would solve the problem of defamatory material in biographical articles on living people far more effectively than Pending Changes, while allowing the necessary depth of information on public figures that is not necessary for, say, intellectuals. But I seem to be a minority of one when it comes to applying that legal concept to the BLP question. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Section 230 in essence means that the person who made the edit is primarily responsible for it. And it is safe to assume that the Foundation and in particular Mike Godwin have put a lot of thought about the "best defense in such cases" already, see e.g. here (there's also more thorough references on this question). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the reputation of the UK libel laws, it is unlikely that any significant risk is involved to the WMF, more than legal costs, and the willingness to revert, delete or otherwise remove egregious libel, plus the ability of the libelled to do so themselves (pace Pending Changes!) is going to remove a lot of force behind any arguments. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes (1,529 bytes · 💬)

Just to clarify... the Contribution Taxonomy Project was an experiment in having a couple volunteers (myself and Damian Finol) collaborating with the Foundation, and it's not actually my initial project in the Community Fellows program. That will be announced (probably via the blog) when things are finalized. Steven Walling 21:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, it wasn't intended as a guess at what the initial project might be, but as a way to squeeze in a mention of related earlier Signpost coverage, as we always do ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Raiders?

Should be something in there as to why these French people are called "Raiders." I haven't a clue. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, because the event they took part in is called so (cf. Raid Paris - Cap Nord).

If "raider" has somehow bad connotations in English, then I apologise, and assure you that it does not in French: in sports, "raid" refers to an endurance race such as this one.

(One of them is French, but the other one is Swiss, actually ;-)

Jean-Fred (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (673 bytes · 💬)

Just a note, that I'm the author of the quote that I just edited with a small factual correction (since I saw some comments that editing quotes might not be appropriate otherwise) Best Regards -- Samuel / SHL-at-Sv (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And I tagged all the pages for article feedback. —I-20 the highway 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am left wondering what a non-semantic fact is. Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains (149 bytes · 💬)