Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-04-23

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-04-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

News and notes: Wikimedian passes away (8,811 bytes · 💬)

Why there is no age? How old was she when she passed away?--Mishae (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The obituary says she was 37. It is standard NYT policy to include the ages of all individuals in a news story (provided that they consent to it, so I would guess that the reporter asked a close party for the information, if her age was not immediately available in the information about her death). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz, who we covered last week, was 37. I'm not sure how old Cynthia was. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cindy's death is a huge loss for women's outreach, advancement of the Wikipedia Education Program, and Wikipedia community outreach in Cascadia (the Pacific Northwest of the United States). Her organizational management expertise, so far as I know, had not yet been exercised on the Affiliations Committee but I expect that there she would have had the same ambition she had for the Seattle area. In response to the question, she was not so old that her health would have been expected to fail. She had a debilitating chronic condition which, from what she said, I thought that she managed well and which ought not to have taken her suddenly. I worked with her a bit in the context of Seattle outreach and I enjoyed the enthusiasm she had for providing administrative support for activists. It is really upsetting to lose a community colleague. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• One doesn't enquire a lady's age, and Cindy was a lady. I knew she had had problems, but I thought that they were now under control. Never mind a colleague, it's upsetting to lose someone regarded as a friend, albeit a distant one. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article just says she died in her sleep so it's unwarranted to say that her death was due to some "problems". It's unclear if additional information on her cause of death will be released but, as of now, I doubt that anyone in her immediate circle will say more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use

The turnout on the Terms of Use amendment looks like a record for any RfC, with 1389 !votes (1103 supporting - just below 80%). It should be clear that paid editors are over-represented in the results - voting for their paychecks - so that it looks like 90% of all Wikimedians favor at least minimal regulation of paid editing.

With the previous lack of regulation, paid editing was one of those stories that just kept coming up. Every 3 months or so, there was another paid editing scandal. Can you imagine these stories being repeated with the addendum "paid editing is not currently regulated by Wikipedia even though 90% of the community wants it to be regulated." That would simply be unacceptable. Pete Forsyth may find the requirement that paid editors disclose their paid edits to be too complicated or confusing, but I'm sure that that the community can come up with simple regulation that anybody can understand, if we put our minds to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, that has to be one of the most insulting things I've ever seen on Wikipedia: that half of all editors who oppose the proposed change to the TOU in its current format are paid editors voting for their paychecks. Please stop making such unfounded allegations. A huge proportion of the "support" participants in that so-called vote made it obvious in their comments that the did not understand the proposal and/or did not, in fact, support what was being proposed. Indeed, you don't support what is being proposed either, based on your own comments in the Signpost. I also put you to strict proof to show that half of the people who openly opposed the proposed amendment are paid editors; oh wait, that would undoubtedly require you to provide non-public personal information about editors. Instead, I believe you should withdraw that offensive statement. Risker (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No insult intended. You've said that "We are all paid editors," even going so far as to accuse me of being a paid editor. So don't you think that it is logical that paid editors would vote against a proposal to regulate paid editing? If I'd meant to insult them, I would have compared them to turkeys voting against Thanksgiving. But I don't think they are turkeys, just people trying to protect their paychecks. That's the most natural thing in the world to do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you've cast aspersons on hundreds of editors from multiple projects. You've equated those who oppose the enactment of a terribly worded, unenforceable proposal to a group of people you've publicly reviled. If anything, you've exactly proved the point of what is wrong with this TOU amendment: you're painting everyone who opposes the proposal as written with the same brush. I could quite easily support my position that everyone gains a benefit by editing (by the initial definition of paid editing, any kind of benefit was "payment"), whereas you are completely incapable of illustrating that half of the people who oppose the proposed amendment are earning a living editing Wikipedia. Simply put, there are probably fewer than 50 people who make enough edits on this project to to turn it into a livelihood (as opposed to pocket change), and I'm quite certain the majority of those who edit that much are doing it for reasons that have nothing to do with financial gain. Risker (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I must correct you, I don't revile paid editors, rather it is paid editing that I revile. It is tearing down a wonderful structure that has been built up by many volunteers, that provides good information to whoever has access to the internet. If that information is poisoned, and people can't trust us, then the whole structure may collapse.

The situation reminds me of a news story from a couple of decades ago. After the fall of the Soviet Union people started cutting down and selling copper cable from high power electrical transmission systems (nominally still in use), forcing even more people out of work. I don't revile those folks who cut down the cable - they were doing what they had to do to survive. I did hate the fact that the transmission systems were being destroyed. It just seemed like there must be a pretty simple enforcement system that would stop the destruction. Everybody likely knew who was buying the cable - these folks could be stopped fairly simply if anybody took the obvious steps. Similarly, most people likely knew who was cutting the cable and where to post just a couple policemen to stop folks from cutting more. So the system was messed up, but the parts of the system that led to the destruction of the cable could easily be fixed. The actual folks who cut the cable, in my mind, were less responsible than the authorities who couldn't be bothered to take a few minimal steps. That's my reading in any case.

As far as the ToU change being "unenforceable" let's put that to rest right now. It's usually very clear who benefits from an ad being put in one of our articles- it's the company whose products are being advertised! Now if they don't require disclosure, they are facing a slam-dunk law suit against them by the WMF, along with the usual public shaming in the press, and a possible action by the FTC (once all the info comes out in the press and in the court). No reputable company will take that risk, and the revenue for paid editors will dry up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Op-ed: Five things a Wikipedian in Residence can do (3,581 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for this interesting - and very well written - article. The most successful Wikipedians in Residence I've seen are those who put a strong emphasis on #1, but all the others you raise are clearly important. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not aware of any advice better than this for explaining what makes Wikipedian in Residence experiences go right. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for this article. Pritzker [1] has had Wikipedian in residence for almost a year now. We've just expanded the program to bring 4 in for the summer 2014. Really liked "chat it up", because one of our biggest issues has been letting Wikipedians know that they can use our content for articles. Also, many of our Wikipedian in residence are new to Wikipedia. So building those social connections are very important.TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• These days I think GLAM COI matters go further than just the Wikipedian themselves making prominent disclosures, they should also act to educate their organization on COI matters as well, the same as they do with copyright. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you all for the comments. If you enjoyed this article I hope you will look at the more complete version on my blog! @Gigs:, I very much appreciate your point. I was trying to get at this in point #5, but perhaps I didn't state it very explicitly. You might be interested in a couple other recent blog posts I have written that get into this point in more depth. See [2] and [3] -Pete (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Wonderful! At Wikimedia UK we have been looking at how to make the program better, analysing some of the residences that were delivered so far. We are now working on a report that will aim to flag up recommendations for making the program even more effective. One of the things that came up so far is that often when the resident starts it can be unclear to him what the components of the role are. So having a list like this can be helpful to break things down and get understanding of the scope of the job earlier. Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Daria Cybulska (WMUK):, I am so pleased to know this is helpful in those kind of efforts! Please keep me informed if you put it to use. At the same time, this really shouldn't be regarded as an authoritative resource -- it really is, more or less, "five things off the top of my (pretty well informed) head"! Before being incorporated into a formal program, it would be important to have some other experts review it, and put some thought into what five things (or ten, or whatever) are most important to list. This was more intended as a conversation-starter, than as an authoritative list. -Pete (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact? (6,847 bytes · 💬)

• Thanks for the write-up Tony! It's always interesting to see how these events seem from the outside. I agree that there ought to be a greater focus on learning and development in the movement (certainly, at least, among and between movement organisations). I felt that this Wikimedia conference did that better than many previous ones, but there are still a number of problems to overcome. First is that it is not currently any one person or organisation's role to make sure this happens; second that people are not necessarily sure enough about "what the right answer is" to put their heads above the parapet and offer their knowledge or experience to others.
• Also I'd observe that it is difficult to judge an interactive training session from its documentation. As one of the people delivering the "Your organisation and hiring staff" session, I felt it was actually a big step forward in terms of developing the participants' understanding of the issues that actually happen when hiring staff, and better than any previous equivalent discussion I'd seen. I haven't yet seen the participants' feedback but I doubt many would describe it as "egregiously inadequate" ;-) However, creating good written documents is very a different (and in many ways a bigger) challenge to running a good 75-minute session on a topic. I would love it if there was a "recipe book" for setting up a Wikimedia movement organisation that covered all of this stuff in adequate detail, but we aren't there yet. Regards, The Land (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• hmmm... Seems there's not been much progress on how to hammer out programs for a large, disparate movement since the 60s (that would be the 1969 SDS convention, say, in the US). The rotating groups at Wikimedia 2014... deja vu all over again. I hope the resulting statements point to a more successful path (SDS split).

Further, and more incisive, coverage by The Signpost of world-wide Wikipedia movement meetings can help provide sorely needed institutional memory. The size of the budget for ~ 100 person conference is, well, a shock. How much of that went to bring greater participation from the less rich countries? And other outreach? Please make that part of your follow-up! (And thanks for your good start.) - Neonorange (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• People came from all over the world -- 40ish countries, if I recall correctly. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• From having recently been involved in developing budgets for and organising international conferences of about this size, I can attest that they don't come cheap (and the conferences I've been involved in don't require us to meet travel, accommodation or out-of-meeting meal costs for delegates, which get really expensive very quickly). The Wikipedia/Wikimedia community tends to not understand how much these kinds of things actually cost to conduct. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors contribute millions of hours of editing (and donate money). On the other hand, careerism is a constant danger. Upwards of $200,000 USD divided by 100 > $2000 USD per participant; show us the line item budget for that mini-conference. Overall, Wikipedia is a huge value for the money spent. But some details I find troubling, and counter to the volunteer ethic. - Neonorange (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• This appears to be the budget for which the WMF provided funding. Most of the funding appears to have been allocated for delegates' travel and accommodation (presumably economy class flights, with delegates staying in hostels or single rooms), and the estimated costs for the meeting itself look pretty low for a four day event involving 100 people. The total WMF funding sought (and presumably granted?) appears to have been "117,600€ (~$162k)". Was there other funding received to take this into the hundreds of thousands? I note that Tony1 scrutinised (his word) the budget on the talk page in December last year, and the organisers explained their estimates, so you might find that useful as well. Whether the event delivered worthwhile outcomes is good question to consider, but the costs do seem to have been kept to a reasonable minimum given the requirement to pay for delegates' travel and accommodation. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Jumping in on the budget point: the description of the grant says that "This grant funds some of the hosting and organization expenses for the Wikimedia Conference 2014 in Berlin." (my emphasis) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note, the "meet the board of trustees" session was structured in the following way: each of the attending trustees hosted a table on a different topic. My topic was communication, Sam's was technology, Alice's was movement structures, Jan-Bart took on strategy, and Stu's was money. We did this so people interested in that topic could discuss it at our tables and ask us questions (we each took on a topic that we are personally interested in, as well). So what was reported in the documentation is a summary of the conversations that we had, rather than necessarily our personal views. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• As one of the volunteers that created the documentation (under the supervision of Jcornelius), this was a very interesting read for me. I was previously unaware that my records of Hiring Staff included truisms ;-) Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'm really grateful contributors such as Tony1 are writing these kind of pieces. As Neonorange says there is a bit of a lack of institutional memory within the movement, and this helps provide some. It's important that conferences such as these provide as much value as possible, and although it's very hard to even measure something like that, it's vital to look at these events critically, with an eye to improving them in the future. -- Shudde ^talk 00:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane (4,914 bytes · 💬)

• Slight error, Game of Thrones appears in positions 1 and 4 of the traffic report. Novusuna ^talk 03:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have had at least one person in my acquaintance go offline for a week while they upgraded their computer due to the end-of-support for Microsoft XP. If more people were doing that it could account for a slight drop in page hits all over. Jane (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Possibly for this week, but this trend has been going on since the start of the year. Serendi^podous 07:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the unmarked GoT spoilers I guess... --Closedmouth (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Are they still spoilers if they're after the fact? Serendi^podous 08:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  See WP:SPOILER--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Good grief, really? Of course I'm aware that main namespace Wikipedia articles don't have spoiler warnings. I wasn't reading an article, I was reading the opening paragraph to a blog in the Signpost which, until I read a major plot turn in the opening paragraph, I wasn't aware had anything to do with the show. It's like opening the August 7, 1999 financial column with, "The markets did poorly yesterday, probably because everyone found out Bruce Willis was a ghost the whole time." I mean, we all watch everything the day it comes out, right?
  Anyway, I hate to sound melodramatic, but if this is your policy for writing these things, you've lost a reader. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Closedmouth, it may be worth noting that the writer isn't pointing you to the spoiler policy. Anyway, I don't think that Serendipodous should avoid all possible spoilers. Sometimes those spoilers play major roles in Wikipedia view count swings. Furthermore, the Purple Wedding aired a full ten days ago, and the books have been out there for years. On the grand ranking of spoilers, this isn't very high... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should take a list like this as an indication of interest. There are charts that show trends on Twitter and those also aren't exactly a sign of interest, they are a sign of topics that people are talking about at that particular moment in time. Something dramatic happens on The Bachelor? It'll trend. Do people have any interest in this event after the show is over, well, only a few die-hard viewers.
Likewise, the majority of readers (non-editors) come to Wikipedia to seek information. They are looking for answers and details on a subject. The Purple Wedding didn't trend as high as the Red Wedding? It could be after that devastating storyline twist, more viewers are reading the books or looking ahead for spoilers. But there are a LOT of topics that have high interest but don't lead to people coming to Wikipedia to read up on them. Think of how often people who are featured in Google Doodles trend...that's because, for the most part, they often are individuals who the average person doesn't know and so readers come to WP to find out why they are famous enough to have their own Doodle. But that doesn't necessary mean that there is a lasting interest, just a curiosity and the reader ends out being better informed.
So, maybe the Top 25 isn't a chart of popularity or interest but just a gauge of what subjects people were curious about this week. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good Friday isn't dark (that's a superficial reading), hence the name. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
  

Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015 (4,771 bytes · 💬)

• To the extent that it can be done in good spirits by people who are not exhausted, I would enjoy reading any comments about the bidding process this year, perhaps from the bid leads. Do Cape Town's Discott, Mexico City's ProtoplasmaKid, Monastir's Vivaystn, Dar es Salaam's Francis Kaswahili, or Bali's Aldo samulo have any comments? Was the bidding process informative and enjoyable? Will those in your area participate in developing future bids? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I am going to need some time to properly digest this question so I can properly articulate an answer. I guess that's a wordy way of saying 'I don't yet know.' But let me take a stab at it anyway. I found the process both useful and invigorating for a number of reasons. First was that in the process of making connections and getting support for the bid I met many people and organisations in Cape Town that have been helpful in other ways out side of our Wikimania bid. For example the Open Society Foundation of South Africa invited us to apply for funding and out of that we got a grant from them to allow Wikimedia ZA to hire an administrator. A person who has been very helpful to us getting more properly setup and greatly increased our capabilities. As a chapter we also connected with supportive people in local universities and the technology sector here. People we would never have met otherwise. Although Cape Town was unsuccessful this time the bid did give us a cause to focus on and rally around as a chapter. The down side is that it was a lot of work and took up a good six months of my off time organising the ground work and getting quotes, making bookings, investigating options. This is time that could have been used doing other projects or running edit-a-thons. On balance I feel the process was more of a positive than a negative experience, both for the organising team here in South Africa as well as for myself personally. It is some thing I would consider doing again.--Discott (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That is very insightful. I commented more on your user page. Thanks for sharing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Was the bidding process informative and enjoyable? Absolutely yes! Initially it was just an idea, then the bid was supported by JCI-ENIT and many people joined and worked with enthusiasm, then we got a lot of encouragements from organisations... But at the end the dream was broken into pieces. It was so severe to know that we didn't win for reasons that we cannot control. I share many ideas mentioned by Discott, including the advantages of networking and our off time that we oriented for preparing the bid. Many got to know Wikimedia projects thanks to the bid. We didn't win, however we lived the experienced and we made a lot of changes though it. Now there is a concrete effort to establish a user group and a chapter later on in Tunisia. Will those in your area participate in developing future bids? The bidding team will meet this week and share thoughts about the future. Personally I will not lead a bid in 2016 and my focus will continue on edit-a-thons and the promotion of wikipedia Arabic (and maybe wikivoyage) Vivaystn (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I regret to say that in the United States I hardly know anything about Tunisia and I worry a lot about the fair treatment of Wikimedia participants in other countries. To the extent possible I would prefer that all help and resources go to anyone prepared to manage them in whatever places are less represented, and if the community in Tunisia could manage a conference, then I want them to have all support at all stages of their planning. I hope that in the course of doing edit-a-thons you continue to identify good people who will make another bid in the future and continue to participate in the annual Wikipedia conference and other international events. Thanks for looking to Wikivoyage also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)