Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-03-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Bradspeaks—impact, regrets, and advice; current cases hinge on sex, religion, and ... infoboxes (4,936 bytes · 💬)

Hi HJ Mitchell, wanted to point out a technicality: the Eastern Europe ARCA didn't actually overturn the block; it simply removed AE status from it, allowing any admin to modify (block was later removed as a normal admin action). Modify (or not) as you see fit :) Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, thanks for pointing it out. I suppose it was the invocation of discretionary sanctions that was overturned, but I'm not sure that's not a little bit too nuanced, especially for a brief roundup. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Most users, indeed most editors, will never know what ARBCOM does, and most that do know would just like to avoid it. For doing countless thankless tasks that needed doing for so long and so well, NYB deserves a thousand thanks. Jonathunder (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm very grateful to him for his willingness to take part in this and hopefully shed some light on ArbCom's work. I know that they do an awful lot of things we never see, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for that—I'm sure most of us are very happy that there is a body to do those things and we can get on with the business of writing an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting interview although some specificity would have greatly helped us ARBCOM-watchers put its history and past cases into proper perspective. I read a lot of old ARBCOM cases and decisions (though not often all of the evidence and workshop pages) and I remain in the dark about which cases were considered, in hindsight, to be bad decisions and which were considered to be on the mark. We have the community's response to decisions and, in almost all cases, it is the discontented editors who speak the loudest and not those who are satisfied with decisions. And editors have no ability to know how a case was talked about on the email list or what information the committee had that was not shared and was kept private so I find it impossible to pass judgment on decisions because we are not privy to all evidence or the entire decision-making process.

Without access to this kind of specific information, I think it would be "challenging" for anyone but those arbitrators who were involved to go back through old cases and decide whether particular case decisions had a positive or negative impact on both the culture of Wikipedia as well as admin relations and content disputes. I also realize that there will probably never come a time when a current or former arbitrator will feel free to speak with absolute candor about the give and take of how individual cases were decided as well as (what I've been interested in), what mix of personalities and abilities makes up the most balanced committee.

It truly has been eye-opening though to go back to the earliest days of the committee and see what cases were taken, what decisions were made. One element I was most surprised by was that it often took only 4 "Accept"s to take on a case because years ago, some arbitrators seem to disappear for long periods of time and the number of active arbs wasn't that great. I don't think that happens any more!

Thanks for a nice interview and I hope this is just Part 1! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My sense has always been that Brad has been a very diligent, level-headed and knowledgeable arbitrator. From the interview above, it sounds like he thinks the current system basically works. Thanks, Brad, for all your good work over the years! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good job all around. Personally, I would love to see Brad maybe commenting somewhere in the Signpost regarding any particular proposed policy changes and any legal impact they might or might not have as well. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Blog: Black History Month edit-a-thons tackle Wikipedia’s multicultural gaps (3,860 bytes · 💬)

It's nice to see such programs. I wonder if Asian editors or editors with an interest in Asia would be willing to do something similar. The dead white men bias remains too prominent in Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 I agree that a true encyclopedia must be as unbiased as possible in its coverage and obviously this isn't the case of wikipedia yet. However, this bias is not voluntary but rather comes from a bias in who edits wikipedia. In turn this reflects variations in the general level of education (especially higher education) among minorities, due I believe to both history and societal constraints. It is important to encourage editing on non-"dead white men" subjects but the most important thing to do is really to encourage non-white-men people to edit; the article bias will then disappear. This holds true for black history, articles on women etc. Wikipedia suffers from at least another pervasive bias receiving far less attention, the named topic bias. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of getting non-White men to edit, but getting interested parties in general. Although I am pretty much the stereotypical Wikipedian, my own area of expertise (both professionally and on Wikipedia) is Indonesian literature, history, and cinema; hence, our coverage of that is generally better than the related subjects in neighboring nations. My ethnic background has little to do with it. I'm not saying that everybody can write equally well on everything, but that interest in a subject is more vital in getting coverage than editors' own ethnic backgrounds. One of the nice things about the editathons was that they drew together people from all backgrounds with a shared interest in black history, to get better coverage of this important but underrepresented field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 Well I assumed that non-white-men would edit mostly on other subjects that those which interest white-men. Of course this is not a rule: the variablity of interests in any important population of editors guarantees a large coverage. For example your editing of Indonesian literature while being (from what I gathered on your user page) a white(?) male Canadian demonstrates this point. Yet it is the average behavior that matters the most when it comes to covering extensive topics, such as Black History: on average people edit what interest them and, on average, populations with different cultures tend to be interested in different things (their own culture in particular). Thus, while editathons are important in improving under-represented topics of importance and creating momentum for these, I doubt that they change our average behavior. Therefore, while I would like to spend a day improving articles on Black History (under guidance given my ignorance of the subject), I would still likely spend the 364 other days working on my usual set of interests. Hence, I believe that attracting editors from minorities is likely to increase the absolute number of editors whose average interest is the under-represented subject in question. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, if we look on average, and we should definitely be increasing the number of non-White editors, both men and women, no matter what. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Editorial: Conspiracy theories distract from real questions about grantmaking report (23,669 bytes · 💬)

I'm the first to comment? I agree with this editorial. I read the article and I said to myself, "what the f***k?" However I have to say (adding to my comment and will adjust the time stamp) isn't it a bit weird to run an "editorial" criticizing an article in the same "publication"? Coretheapple (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The editorial isn't criticizing the Signpost news article, it's criticizing the Examiner.com article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The Signpost article essentially replicated the Examiner article, so it read to me like you were criticizing your own publication. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least you correctly called this an editorial, I'll give you that. In summary: Greg Kohs did it, Greg Kohs is bad, Greg Kohs, People normally spend time crafting articles about obscure concepts coincidentally coined by WMF consultants so AGF y'all, Greg Kohs Conspiracy, Greg Kohs, Oh yeah the report seems to have been worthless, Wikipediocracy, Greg Kohs's paid editing... Whatever... Carrite (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The style of Wikipedia monetizing Kohs proposed - and was banned for by Jimmy all those years ago - is exactly what Jimmy now trumpets as the "bright line" policy. That's the main source of the seemingly inexhaustible resentment that drives Kohs's contempt for Jimmy and his acolytes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I get that. And maybe if that happened to me, I'd express inexhaustible schadenfreude about every failing, real or imagined, in the encyclopedia for the next eight years. But I hope I would just declare victory, proclaim myself ahead of my time, and get on with my life. Gamaliel (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Who says he hasn't done exactly that? But we all have our hobbies, eh? Carrite (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignored the report since I assumed the Foundation or Jimmy did something wrong. Love the project but there aren't exactly high expectations. I suppose I could care and actually read hat is going on but would rather provide content as a hobby and not tell anyone about how shameful it sometimes feels.Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I take this as a welcome piece of self-criticism from the Signpost. Very appreciated. --Nemo 06:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted it that way as well, but Gamaliel says that it was not intended as criticism of the Signpost but of the Examiner.com article. See his response to my post at the top. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk · contribs) has been using the Wikipedia Signpost to attack a living person, in the above signed opinion-piece(not an "editorial") and in the comments. It is especially strange that this opinion piece doesn't link to The Examiner's piece, particularly after last week's Signpost competently reported that
"Shortly after the blog post was published, Gregory Kohs, a long-time Wikimedia critic, published an article on Examiner.com alleging misconduct on the part of WMF staffers, specifically regarding Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline."
— Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs), Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm [1]

Linking to the relevant Examiner article was easy last week, and it should have been easy this week. Why were junior-high journalistic standards abandoned this week? Which Signpost editors objected to Gamaliel's BLP-violating attacks on Kohs, in his signed opinion piece? Which editors on Wikipedia object to Gamaliel's BLP-violating personal attacks on Kohs also in the comments section?

Greg Kohs republished his expose at Wikipediocracy, "Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", with a free-culture license (CC BY 2.0). Perhaps this license will facilitate proper quotation? Were there updates by Kohs? (I did not compare the publications.) Gamaliel's signed opinion-piece is discussed at a Wikipediocracy forum.

Kohs should be invited to give a reply, since he was so unprofessionally treated here.

LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 11:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he did, as I assume the Examiner article wasn't written by a dead person. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You could have easily corrected this minor oversight by adding a link, as I have just done, but I realize it's more fun to get on a soapbox. Kohs, as is anyone else, is invited to respond in comments, and since he's already responded in the comments of our news story from last week, I'm surprised he hasn't shown up here already. Gamaliel (talk)

@Gamaliel: Did you declare declare any conflicts of interests with respect to the Wikimedia Foundation? (For example, by declaring the monetary value of any travel, food, per diems, hotels, or other grants, either direct disbursements or reimbursements).

Journalists often declare such COIs up front. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 16:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from being a volunteer account coordinator (an unpaid position) at The Wikipedia Library, I have no connections to the Foundation at all. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thank you for your service to the Wikipedia movement. So your meetings for the grant committees were done electronically and you received no hotel or flight or per diem or meal allocations for meeting in person? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never served on a grant committee. If TWL distributes money, that's something I have no knowledge of or involvement in. I have never even had an in-person meeting with anyone from the Foundation. I've already told you the extent of my extremely minor involvement with the WMF; at this point you're just indulging in fact-free speculation in an attempt to find anything that will stick. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You only disclosed your COI as a WMF officer (unpaid) after I asked. In the future, you should remember to declare such COIs with even greater alacricity than you share details about your past romances. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 10:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be like declaring a conflict of interest because I edit Wikipedia, which is run by the WMF. We all do volunteer work on a volunteer site with servers owned by the WMF. Shocking, I know. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

While I realize why there is a need for coi declarations, I can't understand why you felt it necessary to ask that here... other than a misguided attempt to intimidate the author. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Professionals (and amateur journalists) declare a COI in their publications. Many academic journals require a declaration of COI or an explicit declaration of "no_COI" in every article---likely as an attempt to have integrity (rather than as an attempt to intimidate). LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Except that being a volunteer account coordinator for a program is about the same level of COI as me being a volunteer ambassador in the education program ... when I wrote an editorial on a completely unrelated subject a few weeks ago, I never thought to mention that as a COI (as it isn't), and I'm guessing Gamaliel thought the same way. Go Phightins! 10:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that Gamaliel did not attend Wikimania events, which typically are associated with substantial disbursements or allocations from the WMF.

Reports that the WMF hires editors with experience at The Signpost [2] also suggest that the English Wikipedia community should be concerned about relations among the WMF and Signpost editors, particularly if Signpost editors are defending the WMF and attacking its critics. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 11:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Viewed on a sliding sale of COI seriousness, with 0 being "no concern whatsoever" and 10 being "Greg Kohs," I'd say that what you're describing is somewhere between 1 and 2. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You Wikipediocracy folks love to see everything as part of your Manichean battle against the WFM, so much so that you've completely ignored the fact that my editorial is heavily critical of the WMF report. That's not exactly the best way to audition for a WMF job. And I see you are still beating the disbursement drum. Somewhere, somehow, according to you I must have received some money from the WMF, or at least free hors d'oeuvres at some swanky WMF event. The more you comment, the more you convince readers that "conspiracy theory" was exactly the right phrase to describe this line of thinking. Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Kohs reported that the WMF removed his comments on the initial report[3], and he reports that critical comments here were removed (lately in the same thread). Full disclosure would have been better for all parties.

Generally, Wikipediocracy has among the highest page-ranking for discussions of Wikipedia, so it is obviously of interest to many editors and the public. Speaking only for myself, I consult it (with a skeptical eye) when I encounter a strange personality behaving oddly on Wikipedia..., because I find its diversity of informed opinion and intelligent and often funny discussions more refreshing than a York Peppermint Pattie [4]. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy is hard at work, apparently. No comments were removed here, as anyone looking at the edit history will see. Please stop wasting everyone's time with obviously false accusations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To his credit, Kohs has retracted his accusation. It seems it was all a simple misunderstanding. The Signpost and I thank Kohs for his correction. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was the first to comment on this post, and I did so pretty soon after getting the Signpost on my talk page, and I see no oversighted edits in the edit history. My very very dear friend Gamaliel (who I have never heard of in my life before this exchange) is correct on this matter. ODear, you seem like a real COI militant. Good for you! I take it you agree with me that it's strange, to say the least, that Kohs does not disclose his rather enormous COI in his Examiner text or bio? Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "enormous", see below. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

After having violated our WP:BLP policyies with attacks on Kohs, you and The Signpost editors should welcome him to comment. The continued attacks on Kohs just make you look cultish. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 06:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Darn, that is just so reminiscent of Mr. 2001's same line of bullhockey (and of course, we all know who Mr. 2001 was). By the way, welcome back! I see you were permablocked under a different username. And congratulations on ducking the question. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So many personal attacks (back with no evidence) in so few words. Who is the remarkable Mr2001 (talk · contribs) and why do you accuse me of being him? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, and I'm reasonably confident you are fully aware, despite your rather small number of edits in your current account, that I am referring to the IP who inhabited Mr. Wales' user talk page some months ago. The fact that this discussion has drifted into "make believe ignorance" is giving me a shocking feeling of deja vu from that time-wasting discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You find this a time-wasting discussion, after your previous contributions to this page! Please link where you find that you have been in a useful discussion. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think that Mr. Kohs should have identified his rather enormous COI in his Examiner article and bio? Perhaps you didn't notice that I had asked that. If you don't want to respond, that's fine, but I'd appreciate hearing your opinion on that. Then we can have a useful discussion. If you don't, I'm not wasting any more time engaging in a ridiculous conversation with a person whose real-life identity couldn't be more obvious. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are curious about anything enormous of Mr. Kohs, you should ask him directly. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 17:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't expect you to respond (and the thing about "asking Mr. Kohs" is amusing under the circumstances). Good luck with your new account and try to stay out of trouble. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ludicrous. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I've talked with this gent in the past, and it's always interesting for a short period of time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little confused here on a couple of things. The editorial read to me like a criticism of the Signpost's article, an interpretation that I believe was shared by another editor, but I accept Gamaliel's explanation that that was not it's intent. Secondly, it seems to me that the "editorial" label is possibly problematic. That is utilized in newspapers to state the view of the publication. I am not clear on this, but this appear to be an "op-ed" not an editorial. If it was an editorial, it really belonged in the same issue as the Signpost article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be correctly labeled as a signed opinion piece. The id of the author may identify him as a member of the editing team. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 18:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It may have been thematically best placed in the previous issue, but I didn't even think about writing this piece until after publication of last week's issue. So it goes. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it intended to be the Signpost per se expressing this opinion or yourself? I agree with it either way, just to be clear. But "editorial" implies that the Signpost publisher or staff was expressing a collective opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The disclaimer, which is standard, makes it clear this is my opinion. Here we use "editorial" for opinion pieces from Signpost editors, such as this editorial from last month. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. They should call it something else, like "essay." Anyway, this is all a side issue. I think your basic point is correct, and also that the Signpost was mistaken in devoting so much space to the Examiner conspiracy theories. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How would an editorial not be an opinion piece? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For many newspapers, editorials are printed on the left-side of the letter to the editors page, on behalf of the entire editorial board. Some editorials are signed by one or more board members. The right of this page, above the letters, features signed opinions by editors or syndicated columnists. The succeeding page often has more syndicated columnists and freelance/syndicated writers. While the organization differs among papers, a clear division between signed opinion pieces and editorials is conventional. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 19:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hence "editorial" versus our usual "op-ed;" we don't operate in print, nor do we have syndicated columnists. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is a ridiculous choice of words to describe Kohs's essay. A dictionary and a concern about the reputation of The Signpost should be used. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (~~is a~~) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a word in the dictionary that defines "an article on Wikipedia ethics from someone in the paid editing business, who was banned from Wikipedia for paid editing, whose agenda is to justify paid editing, who does not disclose in his Examiner article or in his bio his being involved in paid editing and his long history of conflict with Wikipedia over his conduct, his socking and paid editing, including that he was banned?" Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, "Conspiracy theory" seems pretty accurate. MoreTomorrow (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

shouldn't have deleted the article if there was no conspiracy. Now it looks like there was. Instead defend the article, don't write an article like this after the fact saying there was nothing wrong with it. Popish Plot (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Participatory grantmaking" sounds like a euphemism for some corrupt practice. And as far as I can tell, that's just what it is.Maproom (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a conspiracy theory and a real issue. Both is part of a tunnel vision in some WMF departments. Found by someone with an agenda, who is not trustworthy at all unless his allegations are not thoroughly fact checked. --78.34.73.188 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Ploughing fields and trading horses with Rosa Bonheur (4,398 bytes · 💬)

WTF is going on in the bit about St Cyprian's Church in the Featured Pictures section?--ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Humor. # - ( because 38 entries FP are too many. It said for quite while: ^{Sanctuary of St Cyprian's Church, Nave of St Cyprian's Church, Ceiling of St Cyprian's Church, Rood screen of St Cyprian's Church (created by [[ ]], restored by [[User: | ]], [[ |nominated]] by [[User: | ]]) - well, there is no such church, all is faked.} Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw that joke during the copyedit, and ran with it. I think there's another similar joke in here somewhere where a sentence got left unfinished. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you select the featured articles to be shown here? You claim that two articles have been promoted this week, but there is at least a third one, Shepseskare, which became featured the 28th of February. I was kind of expecting to see it in the new Signpost.... Iry-Hor (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The note at the top of the page indicates this edition includes promotions during the period 15 to 21 February. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. The Signpost currently shows articles and other content featured two weeks prior. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's one of those things where we haven't come up with a better phrasing yet. Maybe "last week"? That's mildly more accurate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it is not so important, but it is true that until now I thought the articles displayed were those promoted in the week prior to the Signpost and not two weeks prior. Something like "became featured between the 21st of February and the 28th of February" would be more accurate. I feel like the "last week" thing would still have me believe the articles date to the week immediately preceding the Signpost. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We do say that, but only under the first image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel bad now. I have been reading the Signpost regularly for some time but I had never read this one sentence beneath the first image.... Iry-Hor (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Noone does. Thinking I might try bolding it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it seems that Sagaciousphil did, but then it is not surprising given his username. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, nice writeup about my anthology FL! Props to whichever editor knew so much about the fantasy field to put in all those details. --Pres N 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(User:Gamaliel, as it turns out) --Pres N 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a fanboy. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

**From the editor: A sign of the times—the Signpost revamps its internal structure to make contributing easier (2,183 bytes · 💬)**

Some earlier snafus with the polling template have been dealt with. ResMar 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, a poll. It feels like we have almost caught up to the 21st century. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks to Resident Mario for the hard work, and I look forward to reading the new and exciting signpost. I will also give some thought as to any contributions I might make! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Any place we can check out the raw date from the survey? I for one am interested in seeing what everyone had to say about the paper and their suggestions for where and how to improve it. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Survey results are publicly up here. ResMar 21:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: Thanks for putting the results up to read. My quick summary is that the Signpost is doing a pretty good job because it is getting criticized for being too much whatever in several directions. There were also a lot of good ideas for future articles. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In the media: Kanye West rebranded; Wikipedia in court; editors for hire (857 bytes · 💬)

A HTTP request to loser.com returns the following:

 HTTP/1.1 302 Found
 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
 Connection: close
 Status: 302
 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 2.2.5
 Cache-Control: no-cache
 Location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West
 X-Runtime: 4
 Content-Length: 106
 Server: nginx/0.7.65 + Phusion Passenger 2.2.5 (mod_rails/mod_rack)
 P3P: CP="IDC DSP COR ADM DEVi TAIi PSA PSD IVAi IVDi CONi HIS OUR IND CNT"

 <html><body>You are being <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West">redirected</a>.</body></html>

...which is a standard 302 redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interview: Meet a paid editor (16,650 bytes · 💬)

Fascinating! I wonder how many folks like Fergus are lurking around, just trying to supplement their income.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I carefully estimate that there are about 40 people on Earth who, in the past 2 years, have earned more than $200 specifically for writing content for Wikipedia and/or publishing content on Wikipedia, where that was not "already" a tacit part of a wider job (such as a Communications Director for an organization or a PR firm touching up a client's article). There are probably 500 people who have edited Wikipedia with an undisclosed financial conflict of interest of some kind, just in the past month -- it's just that they weren't specifically paid for those edits. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:54CB:8780:9667:BB31 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (banned paid editor) (Smallbones, feel free to delete this, if you feel that need to silence useful information, just because it came from a banned editor)

The problem that a paid advocate has when he openly edits is that his readers realize that he will lie when it suits his wallet. The problem that a banned editor has when he edits openly is that his readers know that he is lying every time he edits. ("Who me? I'm following the rules" he might say.) So nobody will believe him. 40 paid editors on Wikipedia in the last two years? Aren't you afraid that people will think you are lying for your own benefit? See below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's boll. I have User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult on my watchlist and routinely there pop up articles about some minor companies by a red-colore user name which are carefully crafted with dozens of references which take long time to verify they are mostly press-release fluff plus occasional mentions in lists. "I carefully estimate that there is" no way a newbie is capable of going thru pains of crafting an AfD-survivable article from a piece of crap. Normally newbies just cut and paste the "about" piece of their fav business. So "I carefully estimate" that both paid editing and paid consultancy is alive and kicking. And if you put a hook on "wikipedia" in the news, you will be notice lots of adverts of wikipedia handymen. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Its a black market of sorts so it's not easy to determine how big it is. Surely people at companies are tasked every day with getting an article created on their company. As for the 40 number, we have no idea how he came up with that, so its not worth much.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For sure, hundreds at least are looking for clients: it's easy to see them, just count applicants and offers on freelancer websites. Then there are probably thousands who do some editing as part of other work and are untraceable. Judging from the publicly visible portion of this demimonde, which is just the tip of the iceberg, the terms of use didn't change anything. It's harder to judge the impact on those we don't know, like cultural institutions' employees; those tend to be more shy, so I'd expect they were deterred (every new rule deters a good faith contributor). --Nemo 06:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
And their number is growing. This is Capitalism, dude. Every minute a sucker is born. I am am wondering if anybody going to publish an investigative report about the feature which allowed creating book from collection of wikipedia articles. Suddenly Google Books search was flooded with wikipedia imprints 10 bucks apiece, with dozens of micropublishers. It may mean off-topic, but it is to my point that people never cease to make a buck off your free work. of Red Hat Linux didn't teach you a lesson how Capitalists feed of naive Altruists. Still, IMO paid advocacy is kindergarten games. Just you wait for WikiWorldWar 1.0 when all major governments realize the opportunities for subversion. A thou or so admins and a dozen of Arbcom will be choked with investigations of disruption. All wikipedia articles on politics will be edit-protected. A mighty cabal of sleeper admins will rise to rule wikipedia... How about a nice dystopia novel with this plot? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As a freelancer specialized in MediaWiki, I get invited to paid editing jobs every month, sometimes every week. I always reject them with a link to WP:COI. I did once a paid article, but years later I felt bad about it, reported it, and eventually someone deleted it ha. Paid editing is probably very common, but I can't think of a solution other than tracking existing freelance jobs, which no one is about to do, and clients don't usually post information that may lead to their article in the job descriptions. --Felipe (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it hugely distasteful that the Signpost gives a stage for paid shills to attack the editors who opposed their undisclosed advocacy. As a fully paid-up member of the WP:MED cabal (there is no cabal), I despair of the amount of time I have sometimes had to spend defending a basic Wikipedia principle like finding and using only the best quality sources. Many Wikimedians know me off-wiki and would confirm that the very thought that I could have a COI regarding the edits I make to medical articles is beyond laughable.

Of course the POV-pushers and SPAs want to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS because it's so much easier to shove their insidious bias into articles if they can cherry-pick poor quality sources to bolster their views. The truth is that MEDRS is only what RS would be if every topic area had such a wealth of sources that medicine has. And anybody who believes that articles making health claims (like e-cigs) shouldn't be held to the same high standards as other medicine-related articles deserves an encyclopedia run by the POV-pushers and paid advocates. --RexxS (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

re: "to exclude "their" articles from WP:MEDRS" - you probably meant "to exclude "their" articles from the control of WP:MEDRS guideline " or smth., otherwise the phrase reads weird. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

He means from the "scope" of MEDRS. I entirely agree with RexxS, and in many issues, such as e-cigs, there is diversity of views within the "cabal", reflecting the global medical/health sources, reflecting the emerging body of research. But we are agreed that medical claims need medical sources. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there any summary or research on the extent of paid editing (including advocacy) and disclosure rates? The 2014 wmf:Terms of Use prohibit undisclosed paid editing. Culturally, we have WP:COI, and specifically WP:AGF & WP:OUTING combined with a lack of tools and appetite. This appears a clash of cultures that currently only WMF can navigate. RexxS is right that MED is the exception to this due to WP:MEDRS. To add my WP:OR to the IP's above, I've seen hundreds of suspected undisclosed paid editing accounts - some unaware of the need to disclose. Should this corrosive, long-term issue be buried in the smallprint? Widefox; talk 01:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've watched out for paid editor disclosures fairly carefully since last June when the new Terms of Use went into effect. There have been at least 5 disclosures (not counting GLAM folks who are pretty much exempt). There may be others, but it is clear that the vast majority of paid editors are not disclosing. They should know now that they are intentionally breaking the rules if they don't disclose. We should make absolutely sure that they know the disclosure rule, but it is not a secret that disclosure is required.
- I agree with Widefox that the WMF needs to step up and help out here. There are some things that they can do that individual editors cannot. For example they can use their own PR apparatus to let those newspapers and bloggers, who give advice on how to get away with paid editing, know that that is against our rules. They can also let those sites that advertise paid editing services know that those efforts are not appreciated. But admins need to do lots more also. Strict enforcement of our rules against promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising would help a lot. That's what paid editors do promotion, marketing, PR, and advertising. Enforce those rules and there will be lots less paid advocacy to handle. And when an obvious case of paid advocacy comes up, nobody needs to insist that we have absolutely incontrovertible DNA and fingerprint evidence. A "duck test" should do as well here as with many other rules we have to deal with - the weight of the evidence should be enough.
- Arbs need to enforce the rules as well. In the Wifione case the arbs set out a principle stating that they did not have a mandate to enforce the ToU, our paid editing policy. Make no mistake, the ToU is an English Wikipedia policy, and Arbcom has a mandate to enforce Wikipedia policies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that MyWikiBiz has devised a business plan ( mywikibiz.com/Directory:MyWikiBiz/Paid_editing) (NB: This link had to be converted to plaintext due to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist jp×g 09:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)) that exempts them from the WMF Terms of Use clause about disclosure of paid contributions. They get paid for advice, research, and writing of content, all off-Wikipedia. Once they're paid for that, they'll post content to Wikipedia as a personal courtesy to the client, and no refund or rebate is given should the content be removed from Wikipedia. - 2601:B:BB80:61D:941:882B:E0BA:CAF2 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

So pretending to fool yourself - i.e. lying - is part of your business plan. I'm sure your customers know that both you and they are covered by the terms of use. So it looks like you are asking for action to be taken against you and your customers. There should be no complaints then when it comes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OMG! You had an interview with him!!! Gosh, love the fellow.. Though heard about it earlier, he gets a good amount as salary. ArbCom needs more works, certainly..Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 04:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I worked on a page for a company a few years ago simply because my buddy there bought me drinks. hen their marketing made certain requests I told him "no, that won't fly", "I have to rework it as...", or "that meets the project's standards". Not that hard.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with paid editing. But paid advocacy, and pure spam is a problem; we have thousands or articles that need to be deleted (failing WP:CORP). I am prodding/AfDing several a week (~90% success rate), that's a drop in the bucket. Help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Paid advocacy is of course not only putting positive things into articles. Sometimes it is also a case of keeping positive things out, like on Organic food where the use of MEDRS is completely illogical - and to my opinion - misused. The Banner talk 10:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why is it illogical to insist that the Organic food article only uses the best sources? Or that claims concerning the putative health benefits of particular foodstuffs shouldn't meet the agreed Wikipedia standards for sourcing such medical/health claims? --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
We have had good success when we request other websites to take down accounts that infringe upon our terms of use. Now if we can get the WMF to enforce / help enforce our terms of use we might be able to make a dent in the problem. Would be good to be a little more proactive. How often is this happening? Not that often within medicine but there are hundreds of accounts in other areas. I have a list but it is unclear if these details are allowed on WP per [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And you had me going there until you mentioned a "cabal". Yep, those sinister medical editors, seeking to insure that articles are "scientifically accurate". How dare they! I do think that FergusM1970 sounds quite reasonable here. However, I read a lot of FergusM1970's comments at ANI and elsewhere when I was editing Doc James's op-ed on this subject of paid editing, and FergusM1970 wasn't making an effort to sound like a reasonable, cooperative person with those remarks. Gamaliel (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- He did offer to help us deal with paid editors by reporting them to the sites in question and having their accounts closed. But of course we would have had to have paid him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I did editing for pay when it was still okay to do so, and I fired more than one client for trying to get me to shove non-notable crap through. A look through my edit history will never reveal where those paid edits went, because they were all good edits. In fact, I spent have spent a lot more time gutting crappy business articles than I ever did beefing anything up for money. The problem with banning paid editing is that crap edits will still happen, whether for pay or not. The problem with requiring paid editors to disclose their arrangement is that editors develop biases against paid editors and refuse to evaluate edits against Wikipedia standards, but that happens all the time anyway. The result of taking the moral high ground is that good editors, like myself, decide it's not worth the trouble, and paid editing is relegated to people with sock farms and no regard for improving the encyclopedia. I can't fathom a more struthious policy decision.--~T P W 23:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish reports, indicate operating changes (2,079 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia is not going to eventually discontinue desktop access or anything, are they? Because I am personally moving away from mobile device use for personal reasons, and would be devastated if they did so. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh not at all, especially given the difficulty of editing via mobile (lots of code does not fit on small screens, and getting to watchlists/contributions/talk/history pages is difficult to impossible without directly typing them in). That said, the much cleaner look of the mobile site could presage changes to the desktop view... but that's been a possibility for a couple years now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: "Wikimedia Foundation and OTRS team both publish quarterly reports..." OTRS published its annual report, not quarterly. The text of the article is correct. Keegan (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, silly oversight on my part, and it'll still show up as "quarterly" in the talk-page messages unfortunately (the original text was "Foundation publishes quarterly report" and I failed to remove the modifier after adding the OTRS story). This is a really dumb error and I apologize for it—in the future I'll be more fastidious in my pre-publication checks. ResMar 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (2,700 bytes · 💬)

W00t the tech report as a succinct list is back. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I like this BOT report -- Page view statistics

For one thing no one reads the feedback, or answers questions here. I came here hoping to find information about the problematic Page view statistics after asking over and over at:

the village pump
the help desk
the creator's talk page
Signpost suggestiions

but this place seems just as deserted (for this purpose) as the others. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: We're a fistful of editors managing a widely-distributed weekly publication in our free time, we just don't have the manpower (or, in this case, the technical knowledge) to get everything we want published published. We really, really wish we had a regular tech news columnist, but we don't, because no one has come in to fill those shoes. In the absence of a regular column a bot report will do. ResMar 04:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As for page view statistics, they appear to be working to me. ResMar 04:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wandered in here via a 'Wikipedia:Page view statistics' search; wasn't able to tell what @Ottawahitech:s complaint was (didn't like whole idea of statistics, was how I first read it); found a 2014 complaint of Ottawa's here; and that it was operational problems in a well-liked system that was the complaint. Back to present: It's a system which to my purposes is currently suffering another outage as noted here by me and a few others. @Resident Mario: Since the complaint there and the one fielded here have maybe a theme -- stretched volunteer talent -- in common I thought I'd do this little review/elaboration for the record. Cheers, all. Swliv (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: Attack of the movies (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-04/Traffic report