Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2011-02-14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-02-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events (2,395 bytes · 💬)

  • Thanks for the excellent write-up. When I have a little more time, I will try this with some events in the US. – ukexpat (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Bloody brilliant! It never occurred to me that Wikipedians could get press access to games. My hat goes off to the people who thought this up, and to those who took all those excellent photos. Keep up the good work. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't Wikinews give out some sort of press cards? See wikinews:WN:Accreditation policy, maybe Commons photographers can get accredited there. -- œ™ 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the best Wikipedia idea I've heard in a long time! I would love to get involved in this! Will have to read more. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It would've been nice if Wikinews had had some credit. I mean, Wikinews has been doing this for quite a while. It's by no means a new idea – if we'd been notified, perhaps we could've given some tips. — μ 13:13, February 20 2011 (UTC)
The story by no means said that it was a new idea. It mentioned that they themselves have been doing it since 2008, and linked to a Signpost article from last year about other Wikimedians getting accredited at a very high profile event via Wikimedia Sweden, and of course there are other examples (see e.g. this page on the German Wikipedia). I am not sure if Wikinews can claim credit to have done this first, although it is of course possible, and the experiences of Wikinewsies might be interesting to hear too. In any case the purpose of this story was not to award credits, but to give interesting information and solid advice.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more (387 bytes · 💬)

  • Signpost needs copyediting? Something I've never saw before. --Perseus8235 18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought (18,305 bytes · 💬)

What has been seen cannot be unseen. How unfortunate, given some of this week's featured pictures! --Danger (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I start, I'm a huge fan of this page, and would like to say thanks to everyone who works so hard to put this together week-in, week-out.
Now, RfA. While the statistics here are well compiled and on the whole relevant, nothing in this piece points to a specific problem with the rate of promotions slowing.
Let's say for argument's sake that it is a problem. In my humble opinion, people are failing at RfA because while the tools are not a big deal for 98% of the possible tasks that they could be used for, making difficult blocks and judging consensus is considered to be a big deal. Granted, ANI is a great venue to deal with the former (although it is not manditory for admins to use it). But while deletion review arguably deals with questional deletion decisions, in practise it merely acts as a rubber stamp for anything short of a blatant, no-research-needed wrongdoing. Meanwhile, there is no practical way to overturn a dodgy RfC call.
Although admins rarely vote en-masse, in any well-participated community discussion, !vote or vote they are the swing block. I'm pretty sure that Jimbo has said so with regards to arbcom elections. Similarly, it's inconceivable that an RfA could pass if >25% of the admins involved in the discussion were opposed. Or that a well participated AfD discussion would end up being deleted if the majority of admins participating in the discussion argued that it should be kept. I have no issue with any of this. But if there are enough admins to be the key to most discussions, how can we so definitely assert that there aren't enough admins, period? —WFC— 04:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur, and find the whole premise that the declining number of promotions is a problem to be a concern; participation in many Wikipedia processes is declining, and the premise of this (somewhat biased article) is that we need to promote lesser qualified admins, while other processes are also in decline. That won't bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you've hit upon the important issue WFC; is this a problem, or simply an observation? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that WFC has identified another symptom of the problem - admin voices carry far too much weight in a discussion. The fewer they are, and the larger the editor-to-admin ratio becomes, the more perceived authority admins will carry. There should be a sufficient number of admins that their opinions on any subject would reflect a similar range of opinions of ordinary editors. Anything else is evidence of a disconnect between the administrators and the consensus of the editors. This is a result of a policy that says that, unless they are using the tools or determining consensus, admins are ordinary editors. The common perception of their status gives their comments additional weight. IMHO, it is the policy that has a disconnect from the community and should be changed to follow the perception - i.e. all actions performed by an administrator are "admin actions" and reflect upon that status. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to take a practical approach for a moment, what are the specific areas in which we don't have enough admins at the moment? If I asked people to provide in order of decreasing urgency, say, the current top five backlogs/duties for which admin input is either essential or important but too thin on the ground, what would they be? Tony (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
And, how would the answer to Tony's question compare to the similar backlogs at all content review processes? For a frightful example, see WP:GAN, consider that very few editors do the bulk of work at WP:PR, and note that we have long been in a mode of holding down the FAC backlog by archiving nominations that aren't gaining support or getting review, and requiring nominators to wait two weeks before subsequent noms. All Wikipedia processes are backlogged-- why is RFA special, and how can we avoid promoting unqualified admins simply because of an issue that is Wiki-wide? Can someone explain why this alleged dearth of admins is such an issue when ANI continues to be a circus, while worthy content review processes are lacking participants? What I'm missing here is why adminship continues to be a "very big deal", while content review is so important and not as highly valued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Who's suggesting promoting unqualified admins? Everyone quoted above talks more about getting more qualified editors to apply. Powers T 15:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ask WSC that question. Or ask the right questions: if we have increasingly fewer editors actually engaging content, where are we to find these "qualified editors", without encouraging them to learn policy and understand why we're here? If some of the endless bickering at ANI were focused on content, we'd see much less bickering at ANI from editors who haven't ever engaged content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Although I think there are technical problems with the current solution, I think the idea implemented at DYK is interesting. I gave up on FA and GA due to the problems outlined above (I'm primarily interested in esoterica, good luck finding reviewers!), but have kept up with DYK because it seems the process is being driven forward. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
What "idea [was] implemented at DYK"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "the idea" refers to the new DYK system in which all editors who submit a nomination must now review another nomination in return. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, DYK has a pretty good system (in terms of how smoothly the process itself runs). FAC is close behind, although as I understand it a candidate with two well reasoned supports and no actional opposition would be archived and the nominator subject to the two-week rule, which seems somewhat draconian. —WFC— 23:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dabomb-- I can see how that would work well for DYK (while not so well for FAC). WFC, if it indeed happens that an otherwise fine nomination is archived on two supports, and must wait two weeks, I can't recall a case like that. If a nomination has nothing else discernibly wrong, and two solid supports, I usually let them ride, or go to WT:FAC and ask for more review. or ping someone and beg for a review. Anyway, sorry for the off-topic query there; I didn't know DYK had enacted that idea; FACs are harder to review and won't necessarily benefit from obliging others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"I can see how that would work well for DYK (while not so well for FAC)." Why? Anyone who has nominated a reasonable FA candidate should be capable of reviewing another in at least one respect of the criteria. And there's a significant learning aspect from experiencing the process as a reviewer. Tony (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WFC didn't say anything about "avoid[ing] promoting unqualified admins". You suggested that a goal of increasing the number of admins would make it hard to "avoid promoting unqualified admins". I don't see how that follows. Powers T 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how closely you follow RFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, actually. I don't have the time or patience to peruse candidates' contributions. Powers T 02:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Re Ltpowers point "Who's suggesting promoting unqualified admins?" I don't think anyone is suggesting that - certainly not me, I'm an RFA regular who rather frequently winds up in the oppose section. Appointing a batch of regulars as admins is the normal tactic on wikis with insufficient admins, and if that happens some are bound to be underqualified. I hope that even with a 1% monthly decline in active admins we may be some way from that happening, and if we can fix RFA we can avert it.
Re Tony's query, Currently there are permanent backlogs of admin work only at a few unfashionable areas like history merges, though occasionally AIV or cat:speedy are unmanned for more than a few minutes. We need enough admins 24/7 to promptly delete attack pages and block vandals; I suspect that if the decline in active admins continues until we have a serious incident it will be a gap in coverage of one of those areas. Things like AFD closes, prod deletes, userights requests and most speedy deletions can if necessary hang around a few hours until a time when we have lots of admins about, and I suspect that will be the case long after we hit serious gaps in our coverage. As for how long we have before we reach some sort of tipping point, no-one really knows, if we were employing people you could organise shifts to make sure you always had the right number of people, but we are volunteers who just turn up - inevitably that means you need more people to be sure of 24/7 coverage.
WJBScribe made an important point, we could already be at a point where admins are not being sufficiently scrutinised by their fellow admins. Of course that isn't important if the community is comfortable that all our admins are making good decisions in their blocks and deletions, especially deletions as non-admins can take a view re blocks unless deleted content is involved. But my experience and some of the off wiki criticism is that deletion mistakes are happening.
I hope we can fix RFA before we run short of admins, hence my current focus on trying to find out why so few editors who joined us in 2008/2009 are now running at RFA. As for unqualified admins, you only have to look at Snow closed debates such as the recent WT:RFA proposal to autopromote admins after a couple of years editing to see how the community won't buy that. Underqualified admins are a different matter, not least because, as I keep pointing out, RFA criteria vary dramatically between !voters and debates as to what we expect of candidates at RFA keep breaking out in individual RFAs rather than being thrashed out at WT:RFA. So one editor's excellent candidate is another editor's hopelessly unqualified candidate. For example one of our recent crop of admins had several opposes per WP:Notnow... ϢereSpielChequers 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't get me started up on that specific NOTNOW discussion. Wikipedia does not have the technical ability to cope with the amount I could write on it. Suffice to say that, despite a vocal minority (that may or may not represent the majority) makinng a big deal out of it, some of the NOTNOW'ers had valid grounds for NOTNOW'ing in that specific case. —WFC— 04:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTNOW is for newbies who stand for RFA despite having so few edits it simply isn't practical to see if they are ready for adminship. If people use it for a candidate with several thousand edits then I'd suggest they read Wikipedia:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW. If someone meant to say "having checked the candidate's edits I don't think they are ready for the following reasons:" then it is unfortunate that what they actually said was in effect "the candidate has only a few hundred edits - far too few to assess their suitability for adminship". ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The present draft of WP:NOTNOTNOW has the foundations of a good essay; the overarching set of principles is one that few reasonable people could disagree with. The problem is that (whether by design or oversight), the wording used has the effect of acting as a substitute for this failed proposal. Several editors interpret NOTNOW to mean "I consider your contribution history insufficient to judge your suitability as an admin. The best advice I can give is to give us a bit more to go on." Crucially, "contribution history" is loosely defined. In 95% of cases, NOTNOW clearly does not apply to someone with 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 edits. But in the particular case that you have eluded to, the judgement of several was that it did, due to the nature of what that candidate intended to do balanced against what the candidate had done with his time here. —WFC— 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Obliging FA writers to do FAC reviews

Sandy, writing a review, even a Sasata-Wehwalt length review is WAY less work than writing an FA article itself. Depending on the level of care, it's an evening's work. Maybe a long evening. But still. Not that big a deal. Give people something to do instead of RFA/RFC/ANI slapfights.  ;)

Why not give it a shot? You complain about dearth of reviewers, but when an idea comes up that's different from what's done before, it gets shot down. I totally appreciate that you are operating the bucket brigade, but I don't see why this would not work.

Are we better off with the open review and Piano-56es as reviewers? I mean even if the reviews are indifferent, they can still be discounted by the delegates that do the close. And I really doubt that someone who has produced an FA can not with an evening's work, produce a decent review. People that do an FA are EXACTLY the kind of people that would take a review responsibility seriously. I'd be MORE worried about the DYKers gaming the process and gaffing off the responsibility than successful FA authors.

Are you worried that the few reviewers you do have, will be pushed away from there being more people on the page? I doubt it. And besides the whole thing could use a shot of new life.

Even if it's a failure, why not try it for a couple months and then get rid of it or keep it? If you want some skin in the game, I'll bet you a bottle of bubbly or whatever, and we can just see who's right. Could be a fun experiment. What's the worst that happens? It works? If not, you can just go back to using your same small stable and occasionally putting out begging notices.

Here's what I propose. Make anyone submitting an FA from now on (or when you enact it), who has already been a SUCCESFUL FA author (ever), to have to give a general review (we can define it and give an example, not a dablink check, you can even require a source spotcheck...more dead birds from your rock), before they may submit an FA. Say between the dates of the previous pass and the new submission. I would hold "conoms" responsible too. If they want to put two names on an article, then they can suck up doing a review each. TCO (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not my decision to make: it has been the subject of extremely long RFCs, and rejected. That I happen to agree with the reasons it's been rejected is tangential, since I'm only one voice in consensus. Quid pro quo may work for DYK, but the feeling has been that it's not desired at FAC. We have long archives on this, but you could open a new discussion at WT:FAC if you want. We used to have a Dispatch workshop as part of the The Signpost that helped further interest and info for reviewers, but that was cratered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a volunteer site, and I'm not convinced that obliging volunteers to do anything is a good idea. Or that distracting FA writers from FA writing is in the interest of the project. If FA needs more reviewers I can think of a couple of ways to recruit them, when I've worked up the thought I'll post it at WT:FAC. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news (11,732 bytes · 💬)

  • Everyone blames Wikipedia, when they need to blame the community. Nascar1996 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The ChristWire interview is obviously a fake one. Amusingly, Conservapedia uses ChristWire as a reference on several pages. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Nicolas, you made my day :-). --Chriswaterguy talk 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism as an assignment

"Lorcan Dempsey from the Online Computer Library Center ... reported that his daughter had been given an assignment in high school to insert errors into Wikipedia"

  • Why the heck would a school give a student an assignment to vandalise Wikipedia? Can we find out the name of the school and chew them out? – ukexpat (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    That was my first thought as well.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Really, high schools? That is like an assignment to vandalize street signs. Teacher! Leave those kids alone! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Unbelievable! What were the students supposed to learn from this? Was the teacher only trying to prove a point? How irresponsible! -- Ϫ 07:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've heard of this sort of thing. And I've seen edit summaries from people who seriously trashed articles, claiming to be teachers illustrating to their students why Wikipedia Is Bad...aaaaaaugh! - The Bushranger One ping only 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I hope they also 'demonstrated' how quickly they got blocked afterwards! -- Ϫ 11:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Like any hack, this is a test of the robustness of our defense system. Teachers resent Wikipedia, not because it's unreliable (allegedly), but because it makes homework obsolete. Who would actually do their textbook reading when they can just search for the article? Ocaasi (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't even the first time I have heard of a teacher doing this. It is absolutely unacceptable for a teacher to vandalize Wikipedia. It is deserving of a formal reprimand at the least for severe lack of judgment. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Remember what you and your classmates were like in high school, then put yourself in the shoes of a teacher trying to help those teenager develop critical thinking skills. Why not have the class attempt to creatively vandalize articles: one would hope that with all of the automated, semi-automated, and manual counter-vandalism tools at our disposal, a certain percentage of the students would find their changes reverted. Whatever vandalism remains afterward would slowly disappear, but in the meanwhile that class had a hands-on experience that actively demonstrated to them the need for healthy skepticism about what they read online. Sounds like a teachable moment to me. 67.100.126.117 (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Except that's not why they do it. They do it to demonstrate that Wikipedia is unreliable. (The example I mentioned used...rather more colorful language in the edit summary.) It's not anything close to educational, it's pure vandalism for the sake of vandalism - or for the sake of spite. And considering the way high schoolers are, odds are that even a good faith attempt to instill skepticism would only succeed in teaching most of them how to vandalise Wikipedia and that "vandalising Wikipedia is fun and cool". - The Bushranger One ping only 06:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I second The Bushranger's reply. And regarding, your comment, 67.100.126.117, if a teacher cannot think of a better way of explaining how vandalism gets repaired that actually introducing deliberate factual errors into the encyclopedia, they are a poor teacher. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
A "teachable moment"?? Instead wasting time vandalizing to demonstrate how supposedly unreliable Wikipedia is, why not do something more constructive like teaching them how to actually conduct proper research, using all available sources instead of relying on just Wikipedia. I really feel sorry for those kids, to have such a poor teacher as that. -- Ϫ 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The comment by The Bushranger mentions counter-evidence regarding the reported motivation of the teacher. But the follow-on comments seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding about what a teachable moment (TM) is, which could have been avoided if either of them had clicked on the wikilink and read that "It implies "personal engagement" with issues and problems.<ref>Parker-Pope, Tara. "It’s Not Discipline, It’s a Teachable Moment," New York Times. September 15, 2008.</ref>" The engagement is the issue, and having them actually edits articles on topics that interest them fits the definition. If I were the teacher, I would have them do several edits: one with petty vandalism ("teachers sucks!"), another citing a blog entry the student created at the same time and using that blog post as a reference, and a third, legitimate contribution based a cite-worthy reference. I'd expect a bot to take care of the first (TM #1), a semi-automated or manual counter-vandalism tool would--depending on how clever the student was--have a decent chance of taking care of the second item (TM #2 in either case), and the third would probably stand (barring those patrolled by an over-opinionated editor). So if presented in a suitable context by the teacher, I think it fits the definition of teachable moments, and any bogus contributions that survive the running of the gauntlet provides the student with an engaging lesson about skepticism that is a lot more memorable than a teacher expressing his or her opinion about Wikipedia. 72.244.206.125 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Websites like PBS provide classroom resources online...I wonder if Wikimedia Foundation has classroom resources within Wikiversity or some other project that attempt to educate teachers about the quality assurance processes behind Wikipedia?
Well, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination, as well as Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control & Wikipedia:Quality control. -- Ϫ 12:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Other
  • Zed Shaw needs to get a clue. We have notability requirements because we can't handle nested namespaces?! Powers T 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not only college students who are largely unaware of the revisions, discussions, and editorial considerations behind the articles. Negative perceptions of Wikipedia in the general public might be very different if there were greater awareness of this information, and awareness of how to use it. Teachers: even if you tell them it is unreliable, your students do use Wikipedia, and they will use Wikipedia as adults. Teach them how to use it intelligently: Wikipedia contains the tools for its own evaluation. Though one might not expect tabloids to so, one should be able to expect any high school graduate to be able to use this information for critical evaluation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo's comment about the Daily Fail was appropriate... – ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Epistemological ignorance in reader use of WP—how we can nudge to minimize it

The piece says that most people aren't aware of the history page (and the epistemological insight that it provides). One thing about the usability and UI upgrades that I don't like is that they made the name of the tab longer ("History" changed to "View history") (no need for the extra word as far as I can figure), and, much more annoyingly, they made it so that it's often, by default window-sizing behavior, hidden behind a tiny drop-down spinner arrow that "Mr/Ms Average Epistemologically Dull-witted User" is never going to click on. At least if the "History" tab was always sitting there in plain sight, with a short label, asking to be clicked on, people would bother to mindlessly wander onto a history page more often, and maybe even learn something about where info comes from and how it's vetted (ie, epistemology). In the words of James Bridle, "Everything should have a history button." And the button should be big and shiny—not tiny and hidden. If we really care about de-idiot-izing Mr/Ms Average Reader about the epistemological guidelines of consuming content from Wikipedia, there's the place to start. And by the way, Wikipedia is more trustworthy than at least half of the traditional-editorial-mode content out there. The idea that traditional-editorial-mode content, just by being produced by that mode, is likelier to represent Real Truth™ than is WP, is a popular misapprehension—a socially sanctioned fairy tale—in other words, an emperor's-clothes situation that hasn't been properly exposed (heh) yet. About as etically accurate as, say, the idea of fan death. — ¾-10 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news (6,871 bytes · 💬)

DMCA "take down" discussion
  • DMCA take down requests should be filed on Chilling Effects. The fair-use takedown request is especially worrying. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I recently asked to make it standard operating procedure to file these with chillingeffects.org; this may not have happened with this request yet but it should going forward.--Eloquence* 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I have started filing DMCA notices with chillingeffects.org; I'm working on having all notices received since the beginning of the year filed with them. They were having site issues the day I started getting them uploaded, so I only got one or two in, but I'm hoping to get the rest of them submitted today. Going forward, we'll be filing with chillingeffects.org each time a DMCA notice comes in. Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Somehow i wasn't logged in when i initially signed this, sorry! Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Are we bothering to fight back about fair use takedowns? - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't see what's wrong with the takedown notice. It was a professional, artsy photograph by a professional photographer, who may very well still have a legitimate commercial interest in licensing it out for republication. We were not using it under a "transformative use" justification; in particular, we were not discussing the photograph as the object of critical analysis, but were merely using it as a vehicle to illustrate an article unrelated to the photographer's work. While we habitually do that with photographs of deceased people, we'd better make sure we stay very much on the safe side of NFCC#2 in each case, avoiding all items where commercial value may be at stake. If the matter was important enough to the photographer to go to the trouble of a takedown notice, then the most likely reason is that it actually was infringing on his commercial opportunities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Anyone can file a DMCA counter-notice with the Foundation. It takes about 15 minutes. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "We" aren't the ones that get to make that decisions. The original uploader is the one who gets to decide whether to fight back or not. The foundation's duty is to protect itself by complying with the safe harbor requirements. This is exactly what the put-back provisions of the DMCA were made for, so that providers like the WMF don't have to second guess these decisions. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
        • And that's sad, because even if it's law and WMF policy to not take further action other than delete the content, these ridiculous takedown notices are simply removing legitimate material. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Not just the original uploader, anyone who's content is removed due to the DMCA notice can file the counter-notice. Anyone that wants to can upload the content, have the Foundation remove it, and then file the counter-notice. Of course, it's better to do it with a throw-away account since you'll be blocked as well. 208.64.187.110 (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I'd like to think users with legitimate counterclaims should be able to re-upload works without being blocked, but they should be clear about what they're doing before they do it (explicitly acquiring the legal right to issue a counter-claim by means of a strategic re-upload), and they should warn Christine about this as well. Otherwise editors whose works are indirectly damaged by the removal have no recourse. Dcoetzee 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Not seeing anything ridiculous about these particular takedown notices. They clearly own the copyright. Fair use doesn't mean you get to use copyrighted material willy nilly. It's a good thing we don't fight cases like these. It'd be bad publicity, and if it ever got to court we would likely lose. On top of that, it'd make it that much more difficult to fight against the takedown notices that are clearly fraudulent. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Merchandising

After 10 years, we are finally deciding to merchandise T-shirts? LOL! Well, better late than never! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They've been selling stuff on CafePress for some time, see here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That's silly. Who edits wearing a shirt? Ocaasi (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. They should sell underwear. Oh wait... :D -- Luk talk 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/Technology report

WikiProject report: Articles for Creation (3,142 bytes · 💬)

  • AfC could always use help from experienced users. I suspect a system where new users are required to submit articles would also make for a good trial. However, the one issue that I always see is less-experienced users reviewing articles that should not be in mainspace. AfC could use a system where two users must agree to approve a submission, but that would cause even more of a backlog. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if 'confirmed' were 100 edits/1 month, then the reviewer would at least have reached some minimal level of experience (because, non-confirmed cannot move pages, right?). And 'problematic' users could, perhaps, have their confirmed status removed, instead of blocking. Maybe.  Chzz  ►  07:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2011-02-14&oldid=1125229099"