Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-09-04

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 2013-09-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes; Infoboxes nears completion (698 bytes · 💬)

The "Tea Party movement" result has been appealed by several editors, citing the violation of stated ArbCom procedures, the apparent possibility that several members simply ignored the evidence and workshop phases according to one arbitrator, and that the "accused" were, in some cases, estopped from even commenting on the "findings of fact" concerning themselves. The discussions are at User Talk:Jimbo Wales and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Collect (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion report: Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more (847 bytes · 💬)

  • A photo of the United States Supreme Court building to simultaneously represent the annual ArbCom elections procedure fiddling and "WP Loves Monuments"?!?! Hmmmmm.... That immediately set me to writing a joke about the somewhat more appropriate alternative use of a graphic featuring a building in Baraboo, Wisconsin... Alas, it appears that a Wikipedian with a camera needs to make a road trip to that monument... Carrite (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Link for "Scope of the article "Italian dialects"" doesn't go to an RFC. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt (334 bytes · 💬)

In the media: Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (6,577 bytes · 💬)

  • @Jayen: I've removed the fair-use image for now. I heard a donation was being considered, but until such time we still need to follow the NFCC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Bless Sue Gardner. Some of the comments left in that discussion were really nasty (it's why I chose not to participate) and the whole debacle left a bad taste in the back of my mouth. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree - I've discussed the Chelsea Manning issue with friends who were misgendering her and complaining about their taxes supporting her treatment, and was able to explain things from my experience as a trans woman. They know and respect me, and it didn't take long for them to understand why that attitude is so troubling and came away with a much better understanding of trans issues. Then I saw her name changed back on Wikipedia, and didn't feel like I could give my opinion - some of the comments just didn't make me feel welcome. When people are making statements that imply that trans people are less human than them, it seems like there's no point in trying to explain things from my point of view. Katie R (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
      • But there is a point. You're changing hearts and minds, little by little. I'm sure it's hard, and I understand if you feel you can't handle it... but it's not futile. Believe me. Powers T 18:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
        • This issue has probably embarrassed me more about Wikipedia than any other (and that's saying something). I'm a hetero bloke from a conservative working class area and if I can see that both proper encylopaedic process and decent humanity would indicate that Chelsea Manning is the correct way to refer to her, then surely it's a no-brainer. And Katie Ryan; thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You are sorely needed here. --Roisterer (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • ArbCom + politics. What could possibly go wrong? In reality, the decision was sound and is not in ArbCom's purview. WP:COMMONNAME is the controlling policy, and must be interpreted in the context of WP:RS (and WP:TRUTH). On this, community support should be clearly in support of a change per WP:CONS. It was not. Just remember the old adage: hard cases make bad law. The best solution IMO is to let the liberal media have a good go at the subject, and let the Wikipedia editors flock to the article title change proposal en masse. Int21h (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "Liberal" media? What does political leaning have to do with a source's input into the acceptability of the name change? Powers T 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It has to do with editor consensus, as anything that influences editors also influences editor consensus. The liberal media happens to be very influential on Wikipedia editors IMO. Int21h (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
        • It sounds like you're implying that accepted media standards for handling transgender persons is a creation of the liberal media. I suppose you would favor the conservative media as a model to follow? Powers T 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Before unthinkingly quoting hard cases make bad law, you should probably have read that article and noted that among legal scholars, that adage is widely discredited. Every significant legal development has arisen from a 'hard case'; it would be more accurate to say 'hard cases make the law'. (Of course, here on Wikipedia laws exist to be ignored anyway...) Robofish (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It was an appallingly transphobic decision, in my opinion. Particularly as all conversation on the name is currently blocked over at the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Any action that pretends to block conversation is void on its face as a violation of WP:CONS, and WP:IGNORE obviously applies; in addition, "[administrators] may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process" which I assume would apply to any such pretension. Administrators have apparently blocked "a new proposal to move the page ... being initiated ... less than thirty days from the date of this determination", which is close but not quite the same, and implemented discretionary sanctions, which is just a fancy way of saying "I'm watching you while you edit". Int21h (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like we don't have an article on Consultum Communications, but an apparently good quality CC-licensed article exists in German on Lobbypedia. [1] I can riddle out the language with enough effort, but it would be much appreciated if someone fluent would a) look through the article on Lobbypedia and mirror whatever is appropriately sourced for Wikipedia to de.wikipedia, then (b) translate it here? Thanks! Around here it is not a threat but a promise that "when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you", and I'd hate for any of the firms to be left out. Wnt (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up (3,949 bytes · 💬)

Article creation bot finishes first run

Not only is Swedish Wikipedia now overflowing with hundreds of thousands of stubs based on outdated taxonomic information, but all of this outdated information is now being copied en masse to other language wikis and Wikidata, from which it will eventually work its way to English Wikipedia, polluting our hand-built mostly-up-to-date taxonomic data with boatloads of crap.

  • First rule of article creation bots: Never build article creation bots.
  • Second rule of article creation bots: If you're going to build articles based on 3rd party databases, only use the most specific, specialized, up-to-date databases possible, not huge, generalized databases that don't bother to keep their data up-to-date.

Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As an active Wikidata user, I'm always highly concerned with the prospect of bad information coming over to Wikidata. Where is the bot operator's plan for Wikidata published? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Even with all the resources of English Wikipedia, we have hundreds of thousands of poorly maintained and poorly watched articles that were created either by bots, or by users in systematic ways. A smaller wiki has no chance of maintaining hundreds of thousands of micro-stubs. I think the root of the problem is inherent or assumed notability for certain classes of things, but as long as we have the flawed notability standards, we need to at least use discretion in proliferating these articles, with a mind for the resources required to maintain them as thousands of microstubs vs fewer summary style articles. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that taxonomic bots create a lot of crap, look at this list of suspected duplicates on wikidata.
But, in defense of the swedes, their swedish-lakes-project is a rather good example for bot-generation of articles: Take several reliable sources, prepare, get consensus and generate articles that people can add to, more text and photos.
And i really like this: "Our next initiative we are working with is to get all data of Swedish communes, cities and towns 100 % correct in Wikidata (and also a semiautomatic update link to Wikidata from the Swedish statistical authorities databases). We thought our articles on these subjects were fine, but find we need to put in 6-9 month time to get the data from fine to 100% correct, and all the relevant data elements in place in Wikidata even if it only a few thousand articles . When we are ready we will have all the base data for these entities taken from Wikidata (not giving much improvement) but more important we will be able to provide 100% quality data for other language versions to semiautomatic get data (or generate articles) of these subjects, where we feel a special responsibility to secure global quality for." If other projects take the same initiative for polish, french, german,... communes, cities and towns, that would be a huge step for wikidata! --Atlasowa (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations and jokes

The Japanese have made this, so I'm not surprised by the 9:1 ratio. I'm happy that the foundation chose to experiment with that. --NaBUru38 (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible (4,473 bytes · 💬)

Accesibility

  • Talking of visual accessibility, I'd like to talk with some editors who have different levels of vision impairment, to learn what system/browser settings they use, and what other software they frequently find helpful. Things like screen-magnification levels, specific fonts, copying text into alternate text-editors, custom style-sheets, and everything else. I've started a thread at WikiProject Accessibility#Visual impairment, listing what I can find, and would appreciate any comments, or assistance in finding the relevant editors (please nudge anyone you know of who might help). Thanks! –Quiddity (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Afaik we still have no guidelines on what needs to go into an alt caption. There was a big push to include them in all FAC candidates, and elsewhere, a few years back, which collapsed when it appeared we had no reliable guidance on what type of information was needed (does anybody have a link to those discussions; I remember several alternative texts for a photo of Kings College Cambridge for example). The question is not simple. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Random page

Cool feature! I'd love to have an option to check for subcategories as well. By the way, you can make a direct link like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RandomInCategory&category=String_instruments. --NaBUru38 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A simpler way is [[Special:RandomInCategory/String instruments]]. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! :) --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

Copy and paste of richly formatted text has had a history of causing numerous problems for me. The people at the Computing Reference Desk have never been able to explain these problems. Same for people at email services who tried to help me.

If Visual Editor had become mandatory I would have either left Wikiepdia or been accused of frequent vandalism. Plain text is the only thing I can handle.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, for what VisualEditor is, copy-pasting of richly formated text is, if not a necessity, fairly near. As this is the technology report, we report on where major code updates are happening, which mainly means VisualEditor, not Wikitext. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds (8,613 bytes · 💬)

Meaningless. Given that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources with a time lag, serious readers would be turning directly to the secondary sources for reliable up to date information, not Wikipedia, on items like the Syria situation. NE Ent 02:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that, because some people use other information sources, the fact that people use this information source doesn't matter? Serendipodous 03:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, NE Ent, the programs that count page views can not distinguish "serious readers" from people who mistype Syriana. All this chart (and others like it) are measuring are page views, no program can determine a reader's intent or even if they read the article once they land on it. The chart still conveys information on what people are seeking information about online and I think it's not only useful but interesting. Liz Read! Talk! 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It conveys information on what people are seeking about on Wikipedia. The fact that folks rely on Wikipedia for pop culture crap and don't rely on it for breaking news is actually a good thing; thus snarky innuendo about "No accounting for the wisdom of crowds" and "some insight, perhaps, into humanity's priorities:" are not justified, and are actually an indication that some wiki folks probably need to get out more. NE Ent 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've been demanding a second opinion on my work since I started this. Care to join me? Serendipodous 17:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent, I disagree with your comment about "serious readers." If a reader knows nothing about a given situation, does it make more sense for them to read first from an encyclopedia or from a journalistic source? The answer is an encyclopedia, because the journalistic source does not necessarily provide sufficient background for our uniformed reader; hence why readers check out Wikipedia before they go to Foreign Affairs. Wikipedia is also free and more easily navigated. Furthermore, Wikipedia cites a significant amount of primary sources as well as recently-published secondary sources. I think you not only falsely assume our geopolitical content is based on months-old scholarly articles but also underestimate the size of our audience that doesn't care about pop culture. The Traffic report has proven this time and again to be the case. The woeful public appetite for titillation and gossip is worrisome, but is endemic to humanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Given the Syria uprising started in March 2011 page views for the last week aren't an indication of much. NE Ent 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, while this is getting attention, anyone want to try their wits at the newest raw data? Anyone want to guess why ham got a million views in the 3 days prior to Rosh Hashanah? Or why over half a dozen computer-related articles (such as Central processing unit, Integrated circuit, Computer program and, uh, Penguins) suddenly shot up in views between Sep 2-4? Serendipodous 09:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we're supposed to an encyclopedia. Reliable sources and all that. NE Ent 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You might have noticed this particular article is not in the encyclopedia namespace. The Signpost is a work of journalism and thus editorial opinions are justified. Powers T 17:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Journalism ethics and standards says most journalism codes include "truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability," Reputable news sources separate news and opinion. NE Ent 18:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Er, excuse me, I list every article on the page; I simply move the ones I can't find a rationale for to the bottom. If people don't want to read the bottom section, then that's their problem (and mine, since one of the reasons I posted this in the first place was to locate new sources of views). Serendipodous 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting what you (Serendipodous) are saying? Where did the content "in the manner customary to her profession: doing something in public to offend. " come from? NE Ent 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, fine. I'll try and be a bit more judicious when I repost the list onto the Signpost next time. Now unless you want to charge me with libel, can we put this to rest? Serendipodous 19:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I approve of the satirical tone, through I wonder how long till it is ruled "unfit for an encyclopedia" and made more boring? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I find Serendipodous's work to be both insightful and entertaining reading. What NE Ent called "meaningless" in the first comment is actually quite meaningful -- the internet's users spend much more attention on inane subjects than troubling crises that don't directly affect them. Yes, many many more people know more about Miley twerking than anything about Syria. That may upset folks, but I would suggest that this has probably always been the case, ever since the rise of literate mass populations. You find it throughout 19th century American history, for example, the most popular books and newspapers as the century progressed were often low-brow.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Twerking

I never saw the word before today. I saw it three times. I think all three cases were either in comic strips themselves or in the comments that go with the strips.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • This week's list has captured the moment that "twerking" became mainstream, I'd say.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia (7,339 bytes · 💬)

I'd love to hear more on how effective was the Association for Psychological Science program. Was it useful? Was it trying to engage the WikiProject? What was done good, what was done badly, what was improved, what could be improved? A similar project by ASA ([2]) as far as I know resulted in noone (but me) caring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The ASAAPS program has generated a great volume of content which is reliably sourced, thorough and reflects an academic view of the subject. The content could be made more accessible for a lay audience, and there could be less duplication between articles. So it hasn't produced a lot of top-quality articles but it is making a huge, huge, improvement over what was there before. When you find an experimental psychology article with a lot of citations to reliable academic sources, it was most probably created in a student assignment, and most probably one encouraged by the APS. A great many articles related to memory were improved by a Canadian university course (not part of the APS program) and there are some really interesting articles on the psychology of self and identity that were created or overhauled by final-year undergrads in the University of Southampton, UK (predating the APS initiative).
The APS has also encouraged academic members to contribute directly, as well as students: that's how the Stereotype threat article got improved to GA. Personally, I wish there were more attempts to engage the existing Wikiproject infrastructure, and to put more information on Talk pages about who is improving them and over what time period. Then again, as my colleagues and I say above, there aren't enough active Wikipedians in this area to do all that needs doing.
There's cleanup to be done, but I'd rather have an article that needs cleanup or simplifying than no coverage of the topic at all. It's when educational activities cause disruption that they get talked about on noticeboards or here in Signpost. That's understandable, but it's easy for us to ignore, or just not hear about, the very much greater amount of improvement that is going on quietly. And of course we are giving undergraduate students a real experience of publication and all the other great educational benefits. I used to despair about psychology on Wikipedia ever getting any good, but the arrival of educational assignments has lifted that despair. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:MartinPoulter: thank you for the answer, it's very interesting. Do you know what APS has done to attract people to this project? It would be a very interesting case study. (Also, I think you mean APS not ASA in your opening sentence?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
@User:Piotrus: Thanks for the correction. I'm not very familiar with how the APS encouraged participation because I don't follow their internal communication, but the initiative has been publicised in their internal newsletter and web site. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this was related to the APS efforts but one of the schools that contributed created a great deal of copyright infringement per [3]. As there are few long term Wikipedians in the topic area much of it still sits on Wikipedia making us look bad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I served as Campus Ambassador for a Psychology class under the APS-initiative. This class focused on biographical articles about psychologists, rather than articles about psychology, so it didn't have the impact discussed here. Beyond the normal stresses inherent in any student-program on Wikipedia, some good content was added and students were introduced to editing. Initiatives like these are great cover for those of us trying to bring Wikipedia in front of the generally-hostile faculty. I wish every association representing an academic discipline would hold similar initiatives. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@User:MartinPoulter, User:Chris troutman: Thanks for more information. I've been somewhat involved with launching the ASA initiative, which sadly seems to be a failure (as in - I am not aware of a single lasting series of Wikipedia edits that originated thanks to it). Compared to it, APS is as you've pointed out much more successful. Yet ASA initiative was also promoted in similar ways to your description of promotion for the APS initiative - it was endorsed by its leadership in speeches/newsletters, there is a webpage and a portal both modeled after APS ones, WMF had booths at two ASA conferences (at least in 2011 and 2012, I haven't heard if we had one in 2013); I helped manned the two former - we passed leaflets, held a workshop, send invitations for the Education Program, etc. So on the surface the projects look very similar - why is it such a success for APS, and a failure for ASA? I can't help but think that APS did something more (or better) compared to ASA, and understanding that something is a key to working out the best practices for such projects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry too much about "imperialism" by the philosophy project Martin. Like some other wikiprojects they had one or two people who went banner-crazy a few years ago. In reality I think they are just as sensible and undermanned as most other wikiprojects, including this one by the sound of it. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2013-09-04&oldid=1125229853"