Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-01-21

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 2015-01-21. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Anniversary: A decade of the Signpost (4,215 bytes · 💬)

  • Happy tenth, Signpost, and many thanks to the many volunteer editors who have in past years directed my attention to important issues and goings-on across the Wikimedia projects! Snow talk 11:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What Snow said... APK whisper in my ear 11:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
What AgnosticPreachersKid said about what Snow Rise said. Cheers to everyone who made the Signpost what it is! Resolute 14:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I want to offer my apologies to Ed and Gamaliel, who asked me to add my voice to this... and I let it slip until it was too late. In the spirit of this anniversary issue, some of the things I remember fondly are the book reviews. Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed to — and read — the Signpost over the years!--ragesoss (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow, I forgot about the book reviews as well, and I've written two of them! Gamaliel (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but worse if input has been sent for consideration and swallowed by an uncoordinated process. At least two other people had prepared and emailed suggestions for improvements to this story. However, for the second time in three weeks, suddenly it was published without warning, leaving out important things in preparation (or ready for publication, like News and notes two weeks ago, despite prior email exchanges with the publisher—an omission that had to be laboriously fixed after the event).

    While this story is better than nothing, it's just a nicely put-together laundary list of "things we covered". It says nothing about critical aspects of the SP’s development, like the two successive changes that made reader feedback the norm. It's silent on the introduction of bot-driven subscriptions on en.WP, or later of bot-driven subscriptions beyond en.WP—critical to the wider reach and scope of the publication. So when did these changes happen? (Someone dug up and communicated that information, but it again fell foul of early publication without warning.) It says nothing about how reader numbers have grown and plateaued—a glaring omission. It provides not even a thumbnail sketch of the SP’s social, political, and administrative roles and how they have evolved (worth a very important paragraph). It misses opportunities to be interesting, such as by reminding us of the connection with a previous world, starting with the fact that when the Signpost was launched, en.WP was gloating about being in the top 100 (yes, 100) sites on the web; and that the WMF was thinking of hiring its first paid staff (both are in Snow’s articles early on). Tony (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • ~Gives Tony a party hat and party favour~ Well, it's done now, and I daresay the next edition will not be too late to continue discussing these elements of SP's impact. This is a nice milestone, so I say, for the moment anyway, celebrate what The Signpost has gotten right over the last decade and save the rest for the water-cooler over the next few days. :) Snow talk 03:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration report: As one door closes, a (Gamer)Gate opens (2,400 bytes · 💬)

  • @HJ Mitchell: "There are no pending case requests at the time of writing. Three cases remain open and on was closed by motion." should be fixed to "There are no pending case requests at the time of writing. Three cases remain open and one was closed by motion."? — Revi 10:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
     Fixed All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
  • The GamerGate case is notable, not for any new ground that has been broken, but for the number of established editors who were induced by the topic to shed the normal means of discourse. Off Wikipedia we have one well known editor saying "my POV is winning" and another describing person or persons unknown as "vicious assholes". This is a case where it would have been most useful to be able to write with the distance of a century, although there seems no doubt that historical narrative is also bent to the service of modern day ideologies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
  • That's an excellent summary. Thanks Harry. One thing, though: I don't think there's been any assertion that Wifione has abused his access or status as an administrator - at least not on the case pages - that I can recall. Cheers, Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Great job, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Yachts, marmots, boat races, and a rocket engineer who attempted to birth a goddess (3,662 bytes · 💬)

United States Capitol

  • I have a real problem with describing the Capitol as having been finished in 1800. A lot has been added to it since then, and the most distinctive feature, the dome, wasn't even built until the 1860s.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Ops, sorry. We have to fix that. Check. Hafspajen (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess it is about the Senate in the North wing that was completed in 1800 and the Capitol held its first session of the United States Congress with both chambers in session on November 17, 1800, even if the House of Representatives didn't moved in their House wing in 1807. Also there were fires and reconstructions and stuff--Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
And I was under the impression that the British burned everything in The War of 1812. I've heard different versions but apparently The White House was almost completely rebuilt.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You are probably right. I am waithing for a a response from WPPilot who wrote that entry. Otherwise we have to correct it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I was unaware and simply did a copy and paste of the sections of the content, please correct ASAP it that was incorrect. I apologize. talk→ WPPilot  22:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Then I correct it if it is OK with you - unless you want to do that yourself. After the in 1814 Burning of Washington, by British forces that set fire to the White House and the Capitol, it was rebuilt again and further expanded in the 1850s, with the desigh of Philadelphia architect Thomas U. Walter. The East Front of was rebuilt in 1904, following a design of the architects Carrère and Hastings.... Hafspajen (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Old buildings are tricky things. Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for covering that. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
No trouble at all. Hafspajen (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Olympic marmot

  • There is an essential word missing from: "The closest species are the hoary marmot and the Vancouver Island marmot." I suspect is should actually be:"The closest related species are the hoary marmot and the Vancouver Island marmot." -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Added related. Hafspajen (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

From the editor: Introducing your new editors-in-chief (3,059 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for all your work, The ed17. Best of luck to the new editors. APK whisper in my ear 11:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 ---kosboot (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks indeed. I always find the signpost interesting and informative, and that is down to your good self, Ed. I wish the new editors the best of luck.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Great work over the years, Ed -- thank you! Congrats to the new editors as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
+! EllenCT (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 — ¾-10 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
+1+1+1+1+1, and thanks to the new volunteers. Best of luck — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks also from me Ed Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ed, you've done an admirable job of keeping the Signpost relevant, neutral, and informative. Thanks for your work, and thanks to the new editors for stepping in. Big shoes to fill! The Interior (Talk) 08:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I also greatly appreciate the Signpost. Thank you for your work, The ed17, and best wishes in the future. I look forward to continuing to read the paper under the new editors' leadership. Superm401 - Talk 02:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The ed17 : Thank you for the great work ! The Signpost staff should be pleased to know you around, because you will do a good job. Regards, Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Good bye, Ed! It's been a pleasure to read your reports. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your service. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In the media: Johann Hari; bandishes and delicate flowers (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/In the media

Interview: WWII veteran honors shipmates through Wikipedia editing (2,862 bytes · 💬)

  • What an interesting story. Of course one reason the Caribbean and European theatres were quieter was that Germany had by this time surrendered (indeed so had Japan although the final documents relating to the Japanese surrender were signed a little later). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC).
  • Thank you for bringing this to The Signpost, and thanks to Mr. Pendergast for his service and for his improvements to Wikipedia. There aren't many individuals of his generation editing the extensive web of articles surrounding the war, so his contributions are greatly appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the past is a foreign country (according to David Lowenthal) and the World War II generation may only be the ones who can really relate to those times. I am interested with further developments because I also work on Filipino military history. Hopefully, we can work together in the future. Keep it up Sir Pendergast. Arius1998 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • How fortunate to have that first-hand historical contribution to these pages. Few veterans of Mr. Pendergast's generation are computer literate and his participation here speaks well of his own devotion to WWII history and to the support newbies receive in the Teahouse. Blue Riband► 03:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading Pendergast's interview, I was reminded of my own connections to WWII: my father fought in the European Threatre as part of the 10th Mountain Division, while my mother was a teenager during those years. For a long time, the only memories he'd share of the War were things such as the huge size of the rats he saw in Venice -- although a farm boy, he'd never seen such large rats. Now that he's older (he turned 90 last year), he's started sharing some more of the details. For example, first day in Italy & lining up in the mess line for dinner when his unit was overwhelmed by a swarm of starving children begging for food. (The MPs were called to drive the kids away until after dinner, when they were given what was left over.) Or moving up a hillside at night to engage the Germans in a surprise attack, his first battle, & when some fool lost his helmet & hearing it clatter down the scree behind him. Details serve as a bridge to that foreign country. -- llywrch (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: Annual report released; Wikimania; steward elections (6,185 bytes · 💬)

Stewards

I have read the Stewards article but still find the role of steward to be somewhat mysterious. Can anyone give a simple explanation of their importance, in particular to the English Wikipedia, comparing them with Arbitrators and Bureaucrats and any of the other mysterious powerful Wikipedia jobs? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a handle on it myself. Someone outside of Wikipedia wrote this article about them last year, this might help. Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of that article! I think that article is probably misleading (it says that Stewards are the most important Wikipedians and basically run Wikipedia), but I would love it if someone knowledgeable about these things gave us a brief summary of these jobs and how they interact with the encyclopedia and Wikipedia. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: I'm not a steward but I know how they operate. Stewards are users who can perform almost any MediaWiki action (rights, deletion, blocking, CU, etc.) on any public Wikimedia wiki. This includes granting adminship on small wikis without bureaucrats and dealing with routine maintenance and emergencies on wikis when no local admins are available (either because there are none, or they are not around/inactive). They are also the only community members who can grant the CheckUser and Oversight groups to others; therefore they are the ones who close and verify the ArbCom elections. A large portion of their work involves handling "global" or "cross-wiki" vandalism and spam, such as globally blocking spam bot IP addresses, and locking their accounts (which prevents even logging in). Stewards can also grant trusted users (who pass a request) other global groups like "global renamer" or "global rollback", and modify the list of permissions assigned to each. They are very different from ArbCom, in that stewards usually only implement community consensus and deal with obvious abuse. Or at least that's what they're supposed to do. I think they are more like bureaucrats and admins than ArbCom. πr2 (t • c) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So, what do you think of this article, which characterizes them as "The 36 People Who Run Wikipedia"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: It's mostly accurate, but IMHO it overstates their role. They don't really "run Wikipedia" in any meaningful way; they mostly perform anti-spam/anti-vandalism work and help with other cross-wiki issues. They certainly have no executive control over the content of Wikipedia. On IRC, I know most of the stewards and many (most?) of them know me, and I agree they are very diverse, although I think natively English-speaking, Dutch and German users are overrepresented as stewards and global sysops (and Africa and East Asia are underrepresented). I don't think giving barnstars for steward work is all that common, but it does occasionally happen. "Global rights" don't only mean "the ability to edit anything" per se, although that is one of the global rights stewards have. Global rights actually refer to rights that apply to all (or a subset) of Wikimedia wikis. I have "global rights" (global rollback and global sysop, which is not really "global"), but I can't edit everything (for example, I can't edit protected pages on enwiki; of course, stewards can). Stewards can even change which global rights they have! I think it's true that they rarely meet up in real life, but they do during Wikimania. Other than these details, I think the article is accurate. πr2 (t • c) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that was my understanding of what the article says, but it seems to me that the article is fundamentally misleading, starting with the headline. But I guess there's nothing we can do about that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I quite agree, I found the headline quite distasteful and inaccurate. We don't run (and don't want to run) Wikimedia, let alone Wikipedia. I think PiRSquared gave a good summary of what we do, but if there's anything else that's confusing, feel free to ping me. Snowolf How can I help? 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. It is clear now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Annual report

The Wikimedia blog says that "this year’s Annual Report has a whole new format and caters to a much larger audience: everyone who reads Wikipedia." Well, if it had been translated to other languages, that would have been better. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: Let's make WikiProjects better (2,770 bytes · 💬)

  • How can WikiProjects be improved when the Signpost no longer publishes a dedicated column each week about the topic -- something it stopped doing after User:Mabeenot left? -- Ottawahitech 15:23, 22 January 2015‎
  • I look forward to learning your findings, James! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You know what would help WikiProjects revive? A checkbox for every item on your watchlist to get email when that article is changed, so it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. EllenCT (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • +1 - Wikipedia's community signaling mechanisms are generations behind the state of the art, and it's not that we don't have the brainpower or technical chops to do it. We need to get over the attitude of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, which I feel has created a fear of putting in anything that resembles useful notifications you see in Facebook, Quora or other modern sites. Sadly, I think the Visual Editor and Media Viewer tensions make any kind of innovation in this area pretty bleak. Here are some of my thoughts on why WikiProjects are part of a confusing landscape for editors, at the WikProjectX page. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Fuzheado: Thanks for the link above to you toughts, however, it does not look like anyone is still around to view it. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-01-21&oldid=1125230233"