Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-11-20

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-11-20. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee election opens; WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators (776 bytes · 💬)

• From a purely technical point of view, Isarra, Kraxler, and The Devil’s Advocate are not the only three candidates that are not currently admins. They, are, however, the only three candidates that have never passed an English Wikipedia RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• What is the closest a non-admin has ever come to being an arbitrator? Wincent77 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Book review: Peter Burke's Social History of Knowledge—ambitious, fascinating, and exhaustive (488 bytes · 💬)

Nicely written review - thank you Gamaliel. Tangentially, I recently read The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood, which, based on your review, would probably be of great interest to anyone who enjoys Social History of Knowledge. –Quiddity (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures (2,630 bytes · 💬)

You could say "Tippett", "Sir Michael", "Sir Michael Tippett", or even just plain old "Michael", but "Sir Tippett" is not the correct way to refer to an English knight of the realm. Pedantically yrs, Ben MacDui 13:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's if you want to reinforce a system of inherited wealth and power (knighthoods are predominantly a class-based institution, of course). I refuse to acknowledge them in writing, and no one has to do so on en.WP. Tony (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC) PS Dank, if you're going to add it to Tippett's name, perhaps to Britten's as well? Or neither. BTW, superb page this week. The top pic is a dramatic gem. Tony (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of the honours system either but whether we ignore or use it, it's best to get it right - and yes, it is as ever an excellent page. Sir Ben de MacDui, CBE, KPMG and bar

Thanks much guys. Just saw this. "Sir" is gone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that the first group of "fractional currency" is correctly referred to as "postage currency" due to the unique status of US stamps even prior to the Civil War. The Post Office noted that people were already using stamps as money (see Encased postage) as of July 1862. The Secretary of the Treasury was not the inventor of this in any way. What is most noteworthy is the hubris of several living people in having their own portraits on the fractional currency - the only time living persons have (identifiably) appeared on currency in the US. Collect (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

File:61st Academy Awards.jpg appears to have an invalid Fair Use rationale. It does not cover all points needed to be non free content on Wikipedia. Someone might want to take care of that.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

From the editor: The Signpost needs your help (3,467 bytes · 💬)

• "Circulation" doesn't technically count me. I keep a link to the signpost in an email I send myself each week with other links in it. That way my talk page doesn't get cluttered. Some weeks I take so long to get around to reading I end up having to go to the archive. I did work my way back through the archives to the very first one.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Re In the Media - we could definitely use a few more editors to help write up stories on a weekly basis. As I am sure many have noticed, this section is hit-or-miss week-to-week due to the fact that all four of us have been incredibly busy in real life lately ... we would love to make every week a "hit". Thanks! Go Phightins! 17:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am more than willing to write for the Signpost. Please consider this a request. Just directed here from a Signpost article asking for new writers.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a one time contributor to the sign post. I spent several hours working on an article about a feminist organization working on an improvement drive. I uploaded it to the appropriate spot and felt pleased with the contribution. When the signpost went live, literally one sentence was used. Apparently another editor or group of editors was duplicating the same effort on Google docs.

How am I supposed to meaningfully contribute if editing is not done in a place accessible to all, ie the wiki? It certainly felt like my contribution was a waste of time. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I love the signpost. Wincent77 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• I'm mildly interested in helping out with the featured content feature. But, to be honest, I feel that it could use a bit of a shake up. The Traffic Report, with its lighter style and nice list-style formatting is so much easier (and more fun) to read. So I'd push for the featured content articles to be a bit more like that. At the very least, I'd write summaries that were just a little playful. I'm sure someone will reply to this comment with a dozen well-reasoned arguements against this, and fair enough. I'm totally new to this part of Wikipedia, and I have no right to tell the old veterans how to do their bizness. Just thought I'd let you know what I was thinking. Bobnorwal (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been keeping the FA summaries short, so there's room for more ... give it a shot :) - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting (9,164 bytes · 💬)

• In regards to the education program, I've started a thread at VPM where I raise the possiblity that the WMF might have effectively supported forced paid advocacy editing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Re: Elections:) The community volunteers are not "self-selected"; they are selected by the community and appointed by Jimbo Wales. They aren't "apparently" called the "Electoral Commission"; they are. And I think you may have confused Electoral Commissioners for the Election Coordinators: the latter help set up the election pages and are self-selected; the former regulate the election and (I think) help scrutinise the results. AGK [•] 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, confusion because of the name changes. I hadn't bargained on such grand titles as "election commissioners". Tony (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You hadn't? Surely you know Wikipedia better than that… ;-) Thanks for correcting the article. AGK [•] 17:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hum difficulty with affcom [1]? Seems a common story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Considering that they are not universally accepted as having any place at all in the elections process, I am disappointed that the Signpost has devoted coverage to humor guides. As a guide writer myself, I've put two dozen hours into creating something that people will find useful, and that might help result in a better committee. To have the guide listed alongside guides that were written in bad faith (I won't name the ones that come to mind) is bad enough, but to have the guide listed alongside someone that just typed out a bunch of childish jokes is insulting to the amount of effort I put in to my guide. Sven Manguard Wha? 16no:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I strongly maintai I have not had a woodshed since 1994 - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Childish"? Sven, you need to stop thinking so highly of your own opinions. Several of us are enjoying the humorous guides (and having them listed alongside ours), and there's no need for you rain on others' parades. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • • I'm sorry (it's not in my nature to be uncharitable), but one just can't help feeling that Mr Manguard is just sore that my beautifully crafted and perceptive guide is attracting more attention than his rather dull ramblings. He needs to lighten up a little, and be more like dear, late friend Lord Beaverbrook and give the readers what they want The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't want to edit this article myself, but I believe the statement you attribute to candidate Guerillero is presented here in an inadvertently misleading way, in that he was referring in it to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC), not the Arbitration Committee itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, NYB. My apologies to Guerillero. Sentence removed. Tony (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• (Re: Wikimedia Germany elections) Only 1727 members are active members and eligible to vote, the others are sustaining members only. Christoph Jackel (WMDE) (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the note on Peebles (RIP) state how he died (presumably, an accident of sorts)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, there's no reason (other than curiosity) why we might need to know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Your point being? This is a newspaper, and isn't its purpose to satisfy people's curiosity? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, that would be insensitive and rude to his family. The point is that we've lost a friend and colleague. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It is strange. His death is mentioned in a lot of places (several news articles, facebook posts, etc.), and none of them say why. But, I found an earlier unrelated article that indicated that he had recently been hospitalized for depression, so you can probably guess. Wincent77 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to even speculate. The sad thing is that he's gone. We should take the lead from the numerous reports, which are unconcerned with how his life ended. End of issue, I think. Tony (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Wincent77, User talk:Tony1. I strongly disagree. If the cause for a Wikipedian passing is physical or accidental, and thus unrelated to Wikipedia, yes, there is nothing for us to do but to offer condolences. But if the cause is at least partially psychological, then it might have been related to Wikipedia, which means that it is likely that we, his colleagues, have failed him, by not creating a friendly enough environment to prevent this from happening. Not discussing this is to me akin to avoiding responsibility. If there's a chance that it was our system, ourselves, who contributed to this tragic event, we need to do everything in our power to avoid this happening again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry to hear about the death. One of the worse ways the number of active Wikipedians can decrease. Wincent77 (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say the coverage of the ArbCom election is pretty shabby. If a casual reader can tell how the author feels about the candidate pool, you're doing it wrong. This looks more like an opinion piece than journalism. The long list of quotes without attribution or context probably should not be there at all, it seems to be intended to mock the candidates with cherry-picked portions of their statements deliberately presented out of context. Is there a managing editor who reviews this stuff or do you guys just print whatever gets submitted? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Honestly, we've covered so many ArbCom elections it's becoming hard to minimise the boredom factor. I supposed you're talking about David Gerard and the woodshed; he saw the joke. I thought the Lady's voter guide was hilarious. I have difficulty seeing whom I'd have voted for personally from this text. Tony (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you said anything about a specific candidate. I said the candiddate pool, which you have represented witht a long list of partial quotes and sentence fragments down the right side of the article. This list seems deliberately formulated to create a negative impression of the candidates as a whole. I don't know how you could not have realized that is what I am referring to from my previous remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Ill Winds (3,617 bytes · 💬)

Could I respectfully point out that various cricketers have scored "a hundred hundreds" (e.g. Sir Geoffrey of Boycott) and that Tendulkar's remarkable record refers to his international career. Perhaps "was the only person ever to score a hundred hundreds at international level" or similar? Ben MacDui 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Truth be told I know zilch about cricket, so I was bound to make some kind of mistake. Serendi^podous 13:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• and "best cricketer"? Really? {{cn}}. {{pov}}. Champion, very good, highest profile, sure, but although twenty million Australians and anyone who believe in averages over totals are outnumbered by the billion Indians, there are plenty of alternatives, specifically the top two votegetters in the Wisden Cricketers of the Century. The-Pope (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)‏

I'm a bit skeptical of the rationale for the view count of Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The views of Typhoon_Haiyan peaked on the 11th, and 12th, corresponding to media attention, then dropped off, to between 10 and 30 thousands views a day. That pattern seems plausible. While the CRU article page views jumped up on the 7th, the day the typhoon landed, the absolute level and patterns are very different. The peak day for Haiyan had almost 70K views, while CRU had almost 300K. Why on earth would there be four times as many views of the 2009 event as the current event? Haiyan views dropped a couple days later, but CRU views went up, over 375K on the 16th, and still over 200K yesterday, while Haiyan views are at 10K. Why are there 20 people viewing CRU for every person viewing the typhoon article? Why have Haiyan views dropped materially fromt he peak (as xpected) but CRU have not? Something doesn't add up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the whole global warming surge was manufactured; Haiyan views in the latest data are gone from the top 25, but the global warming articles are still there. I'm not sure though. Serendi^podous 18:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical about the assertion in the Signpost that climatologists separate weather events from climate change. While that would be scientifically sound, increasingly climatologists are fueling the "extreme weather is climate change." In fact, it was the main topic at the recent conference where the Phillipine representative cried while asking for "Climate Change reparations." --DHeyward (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)