Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-10-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Blog: Third Wikimedia Spain conference takes place in Madrid (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-14/Blog

Editorial: Why the news media needs a Wikipedian in residence (9,739 bytes · 💬)

You make a good point about how out-of-whack the general public's attention to Wikipedia's internal workings is, when considering how popular it is as a source of information. It seems to me executives at Google or Twitter can hardly cough without it being reported all over U.S. news outlets. Contrast with the near-silence about anything that goes on either at WMF or the projects (and I haven't even touched on how many people think the WMF has editorial control over the projects). To take a tentative stab at explaining it, maybe part of it is the attitude that encyclopedias are something boring and "uncool". And let's not overlook the impact of advertising. (Which leads me to a minor brainstorm: would it be worth it for the WMF to spend some money on educating the public about how the projects work?) --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In my darker moments I suspect some of the powers-that-be are less than eager to dispel misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there are three main causes of Wikipedia receiving a tiny fraction of the news coverage of other major sites. One is that journalists are embarrassed to say when they've used Wikipedia as a source (unlike using twitter or facebook in reportage). Another is that Wikipedia is usually of no interest in terms of big money events or novel fashions (the latter is as much criticism as praise – see main page design). The third, and perhaps most important, is that the diffuse and contradictory nature of the Wikimedia movement does not lend itself well to a story: there are no real central figures to hang on, language barriers abound, and the nature of what contributors do is hardly something you could turn into a Hollywood movie. In these ways, modern mass media is a force for centralisation of power, of which Wikipedia is quite a profound counterexample. SFB 00:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, any serious investigative journalist looking into the site's internal workings would no doubt experience pushback of some sort. The existence of Wikipedia attack biographies may well make other subjects more attractive for journalists who prefer to avoid harassment. --Djembayz (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can it be that the life of wikipedia community simply lacking events of non-local importance? All our internal dramas are tempest in a teaspoon. On the other hand, whenever something in wikipedia rattles the meatworld, it is usually covered, albeit in an underqualified way. So for the latter case I think a "part-time/shared WiR" would be a good idea at major media outlets, if only for the cases when next wikishit hits the fan. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, wikimedia PR could have been doing a better job if the start writing decent overviews and try to push them into Popular Science, Baltimore Sun, Apopka Snake Catcher, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a journalist at the NYTs who did a number of stories on Wikipedia. He was unfortunately recently let go. So I doubt that their is much interest at the NYTs for a WiR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One example of a Wikipedian-in-residence in a news institution - albeit a smaller one - could be the project I am taking part in, Wikipedia:GLAM/OBC :) ---Davide Denti (OBC) (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Such stories would be harder to tell than a lot of other stories, which tends to imply that they would need coverage by "investigative reporters" or similar. There aren't that many of those sort of reporters, unfortunately, and there are a lot of things for them to cover, including lots of more attention-grabbing and maybe more important topics, like government or political corruption, crime and social issues, and so on. And the fact that a lot of editors are anonymous makes it that much harder to get a really good story. So, if Blofeld or I, for instance, both of whom are among the multiple anonymous or pseudonymous editors, were among the bigger players in a certain issue, how much would the story be weakened by having to point out that our real identities aren't available? Having said that, if a foundation wanted to fund NPR reporting on the WMF in all forms, kind of like they receive funding news coverage of topics, that might be one of the easiest ways to start such coverage. I imagine On the Media might be one of the programs that might cover it most regularly. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Press coverage.—Wavelength (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Competitors cannot be expected to boost their opponents. Get real: this project is taking down the old mainstream (commercial) outlets. Eyeballs matter and this site steals them. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

People at the Newseum first expressed interest in collaboration or holding an event during Wikimania 2012. It's just one of many opportunities Wikimedia DC hasn't been able to follow up on. Because of the insistence on an "all-volunteer" chapter structure which meets professional financial reporting and program evaluation requirements, there isn't the organizational capacity to keep up with all the requests that come in, and barely enough trained editors available to staff the many events the Cultural Outreach Committee already has in the pipeline. (My personal opinion here only, as a volunteer). --Djembayz (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A high proportion of the stories on Wikipedia and other leading sites are in some way negative, or reporting on difficulties. Many on the others report on the sites as businesses/stocks and so on. US politicians and other people in the news no doubt use Twitter as often as UK ones, & they pick up loads of mentions that way. No news is good news, I say. We did very well out of the media 10-7 years ago, which was key to our growth, but the main stories for the last 5 years have been gender imbalance and falling editor numbers, with paid editing coming up. I'm not sure what other really significant stories there are. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

U.S. corporate media mainly only cares about what happens with other corporations, i.e., Twitter and Facebook, and not Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have stock shares or massive capitalization, therefore it barely exists (to them). On top of that, Corporate Power probably doesn't appreciate that there's such a massive source that seeks to present all the facts about various companies while not letting them just write their tidy brochures. Corporate media has the mentality that if it ignores something, it recedes from the public's conscience -- and before the Internet, this was largely true. But like Staszek Lem alludes to below, Wikipedia is the big elephant in the living room, with vast influence despite the lack of coverage. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need any more media buzz?

re: "...news coverage is inadequate for a website and movement as large and influential as Wikipedia and Wikimedia." Wait a sec. If we are so influential, why the heck do we need more media coverage? Everybody knows where wikipedia is and can peek a glance by themselves without any intermediaries. We are not peddling some business; everybody knows us already. So what's the purpose the extra coverage besides natural vanity?

For comparison, how much media coverage does New York Times have? (I mean news about the NYT.) Or about Random House? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Media coverage is not just about publicity and self-aggrandizement. There's lots of news about the New York Times and Random House, I read stories about their inner workings all the time. Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement deserve the same coverage. There are stories to tell and problems to solve, and journalism plays a role in that. Gamaliel (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I changed my signature years ago for this exact reason on the off chance the media needs a wiki-resident. — Wylie pedia 11:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: A fistful of dollars (832 bytes · 💬)

I'm getting red X's for most of these photos. Usually my slow Internet gives me checkerboards.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And now I'm getting checkerboards. I'm giving up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate (13,943 bytes · 💬)

I've always wondered what the all fuss was about when people complain about the WMF fundraising. It seems to me that they do a good job, present the case for donating fairly, and do it very quickly. If I remember correctly last year the banners were up for less than 2 weeks, and editors could dismiss the banners once and for all whenever they wanted to. What's the real problem Andreas and Pete Forsyth keep complaining about? Surely there must be something more than meets the eye.

In response to Forsyth "I have simply lost faith in the integrity of the critics of Wikimedia Foundation's fund-raising operation." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the banners were up for a full month - at least, based on the daily figures I saw (not, as far as I can tell, linked from foundation:2014-2015 Fundraising Report). More to the point, the issue is how the foundation measures its objective of offering the "best localized donation experience possible". Operationally, fundraising banners are selected based on A/B testing, and the ONLY explicit criteria is the extent to which a banner generates more donations. Factors such as intrusiveness, inducement of negative emotional feelings, whether the truth is blurred or not, whether a banner is more likely to lead to editing, etc., etc., are not measured, and therefore don't get factored into what is chosen to be presented. (And yes, donors are independently surveyed, but not in a way that clearly identifies better - or worse - banners, in the way that A/B testing does with regard to monetary impacts.)

I think it's also notable that although there were about 2,000 negative tweets about fundraising in 2014-2015 (about 7% of the total), it's unclear whether there was any analysis as to what were the specific issues mentioned in these negative tweets. Such negative feedback can be quite useful, if analyzed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There was widespread criticism of banner messaging last December. For a sampling, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-18/Op-ed – people felt the banners were misleading as to the Foundation's financial situation, with some calling them manipulative and dishonest. There is anecdotal evidence, as that recounted by Pete, of people who donated in the belief that there was a financial emergency threatening the continued existence of Wikimedia sites online and who felt betrayed when they learnt that the Foundation is in fact wealthier than ever. The Foundation took over $75 million last year alone – five times as much as five years ago. $75 million would be enough to keep Wikipedia and all other Wikimedia projects online for 25 years. Most of the money is not spent on keeping Wikipedia online and ad-free these days, even though this is the hook the fundraising banners and Twitter messages (the hashtag is #keepitfree) rely on. (Incidentally, I believe most of the "positive tweets" are the semiautomated #keepitfree tweets of people who have just donated.) Donors need to understand what their money is used for. Andreas JN 466 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I fact that is not mentioned or taken care of is that while most NGO -from Caritas to Greenpeace to Amnesty International- are organised in such a way that donations to them are tax deductable in many countries, it's not the case for WMF. Donating to Chapters or Affiliated Organisations is deductable in many places but this fundraising campaing goes only to WMF. It is very relevant because not all of us leave in the US (I don't). B25es (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Lighthearted approach, please! And thanks for asking. Did we mention beautiful natural places, whimsical graphical themes, cultural treasures, and happy, intelligent, or accomplished people with a gentle or goofy sense of humor, or a love of learning? --Djembayz (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That scary banner is only suitable for times of disaster or mourning

For now, best to keep that very scary and effective banner out of public view, as it appears suitable for a travel warning billboard in a disturbed area / Amnesty International emergency appeal / wartime civil defense alert during air-ground invasion. FWIW, if you ever do need the scary banner, you'll know it, without a doubt. Let's prepare and plan for a world of peace, education and prosperity instead!

It is not ethical or in anybody's self-interest to use images that suggest a serious emergency or death in an everyday situation. If you do this, it is very easy to end up like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, as somebody who has given way too many false alarms for anyone to ever consider coming to their aid.

As someone who saw the damage of 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, I think it is a good idea for you to have a banner like this on hand for the WMF, given the realities of earthquake preparedness in the Bay Area. Again, if you use this sort of messaging when it is not a really serious situation, you lose credibility as being any sort of responsible person or organization.

Brings back memories of national mourning

Black banners like that bring back memories of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and of Martin Luther King. You turned on the television and everybody cried, and you went to church and there was black cloth draped all over and everybody cried, and it happened not just once, but three times, first for JFK, and then for MLK, and then again for RFK. And then a year later you drove down the street in Chicago with the burned out buildings and the spraypaint graffiti that said "Blackstone Rangers" and you wanted to start crying all over again. And then came more riots and demonstrations and war and bitter, bitter arguments. Those dark days are over 45 years ago now, and I bet a lot of people who remember black cloth draped in public and people getting shot, losing some of the very best people who were bringing the country forward, a lot of people have to make an effort not to break out in tears, 45 years later, when we can't avoid the documentaries and it suddenly starts coming back to us. They were comforting back then, the draped black banners, because at least you knew you weren't alone in wanting to cry, but now they are not comforting, because they mean that nobody really remembers anymore what happened or what it meant. Somebody go look up Bobby Kennedy's speech in Indianapolis on YouTube about Martin Luther King and losing his own brother and then you will start to understand, maybe, what it is we have lost. I'm glad that this is just a data driven experiment for young people now, I am glad that you think about "venture capitalists" when you hear the words VC instead of the Viet Cong and body bags and the Vietnamese monks lighting themselves on fire on the TV while you are a kid eating dinner, and I am glad you can focus on fundraising and emergency preparedness without having to experience the traumas of earlier generations; but I am also a little sad that something has been lost about the basic dignity of acknowledging a shared sense of tragedy when all hope is gone, something that is an old, traditional symbol, truly from the heart, live and in person, with people you will face again and again over the weeks and months to come, and not simply some sort of disrespectful, revenue-generating "online social media event." --Djembayz (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

the difficulty of meeting rising budget needs given declining pageviews. WMF like most organisations, has grown in proportion to the funds available. This will eventually mean someone will have to ask either "which functions are key to delivering the projects" or "which functions are key to perpetuating the size of the donation pool, the payroll, the executives' CVs." I hope they will ask the former and there are good signs recently. Ideally the questions should be asked long before the expenditure curve passes the income curve, but that seems pretty rare across all sectors.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC).

Budget growth over time

Could someone explain to me why "Better performing banners are required to raise a higher budget"? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See the completion of that quote; "...with declining traffic". Wikipedia is in decline. It is more difficult to reduce their budgetary requirements than it is for traffic to decline. Thus, they need to get more money per traffic than in the past in order to maintain the current level of budget. Fast forward five years, and I think we'll see layoffs at WMF. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Or we could simply reduce expenditures to 2010 levels now instead of doing it later when we are forced to do so, let the assets grow, and in roughly four years have an endowment large enough to run Wikipedia forever on the interest alone. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There's been many suggestions over the years for the WMF to create an endowment. I haven't kept up to speed on debates about this, but as of 2 years ago, I believe it did not exist. As to reducing expenditures to 2010 levels. Umm, yeah...about that :) Seriously, the chances of that happening are nil. WMF's funding (and expenditures) have quintupled in the last five years. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

But the actual expenses to keep the encyclopedia running have stayed roughly the same. I was here in 2010. I didn't notice any problems caused by the WMF not spending enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that that is the case. I know the infrastructure has changed since then, and it may indeed require considerably more funds to keep it all running. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, staff levels have increased, from less than a dozen in 2007 to nearly 300 now, and are still increasing. There are more people working in fundraising alone today (about 20) than the Foundation had staff but a few years ago. Meanwhile, page views have declined. Yet readers are asked to donate to "keep [Wikipedia] online and ad-free", as though accommodating those declining page views would be jeopardised if they don't donate. Internet hosting, meanwhile, runs at a steady $2.5 million a year, according to recent financial statements. Now recall that the Foundation has taken over a quarter billion dollars over the past six years, according to the Foundation's own "Annual totals, 2009–2015" graphic shown above. Readers simply aren't given a full view of the situation, i.e. what exactly past donations have been spent on, and what yet more money is wanted for now. By the way, the 2015–2016 annual plan does call for several million to be raised for an endowment this financial year. The financial statements for 2014–2015 aren't out yet, but should appear any day, and will, I suspect, show the Foundation in possession of record assets. There seems to be no intent to communicate either of these facts to prospective donors. Andreas JN 466 02:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

When the financials come out, could someone who is good with image editing please create a graph like the one above with the new data? It might be useful for a future Signpost article. A title in English and a note on the bottom indicating what each color represents would also be nice. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading when the banner ad calls the WMF a "small nonprofit" when it has annual revenues of about US $75 million and a staff of about 280 people. I have volunteered for 45 years for many nonprofits with no employees or a handful of employees, and revenues orders of magnitude smaller. The WMF is far from the biggest nonprofit, but it is no longer small by any reasonable measure. They should drop that language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Devoted long evenings

Not me. I don't have a job, so it's usually afternoons. Or sometimes mornings.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: WikiConference USA 2015: built on good faith (6,056 bytes · 💬)

I was very pleased that this event was live streamed. It enabled a few people to participate in the live sessions, even if primarily as spectators. While the live viewing figures were small (I saw between 1 and 9) the total reach of the videos in in the hundreds.

This should be the baseline for future events.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC).

See much of the conference now, Day 1, Day 2 and Day 3. I would have preferred separate shorter videos of each presentation or discussion. That way I could just watch sessions I missed because I chose to attend a different session presented at the same time. I can still find and watch some of those I missed. Being able to connect a face, voice and personality with usernames was great. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Doctree: Wikimedia DC is working on getting the long videos split up by session, as well as collecting videos of the sessions that took place in the other rooms. We'll be uploading all of these videos once the process is complete. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  - I think that's a great idea, Kirill; in the meantime, perhaps an index could be posted at each video to help viewers find the key talks by timestamp? Montanabw ^(talk) 23:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate Wiki Education Foundation funding the conference this year. This conference could not have happened without their support. I am grateful to the other organizations which contributed money and resources to make this conference happen. I found the gathering meaningful, and I feel that the turnout and level of engagement shown by participants is also supporting evidence of the event's usefulness.

Perhaps next year the Wikimedia Foundation can contribute some funding support. I look forward to trying the streamlined grant request process described at meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Reimagining WMF grants. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Frank. --Pine^✉ 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I count 36/111 women = 32.4%. Organizers would know to what extent that was skewed by scholarships or whether those self-selecting for the group photo did so randomly. Still: more anecdotal evidence that the gender gap, while a real thing, is not anywhere near the most stark depiction of its magnitude. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that NARA's live streaming and preservation of sessions was generally very good and stands in marked contrast to the disastrous lack of electronic presentation and preservation of Wikimania 2015. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Schulenburg, WikiEd, and NARA deserve our applause and thanks for a well-run, enjoyable, and productive event-- hopefully the first of many to come! The strong presence of participants connected with GLAM and higher education was especially appreciated.

Wikimedia DC also deserves credit for its consistent efforts to ensure that women and minority participants are well treated at its events under its Friendly Space policy. This event was both fun and dignified. When you implement standards of conduct at an in-person event which are consistent with the anti-harassment guidelines specified by the US Department of Education and the US EEOC, and when you respect individual boundaries regarding self-disclosure, it means that a wide variety of people, who reflect the diversity of today's United States, can participate without fear of negative personal and professional consequences. I hope that Wikipedia events held in non-US venues, and online Wikipedia itself, will eventually see the advantages of implementing similar standards to ensure the safety of women and minority participants.

And while we are on the subject of diversity and respect, a thanks to the Million Man March, outside the door of the event, for a reminder that we want a United States and a Wikipedia where everybody counts, and everybody is treated with respect.

I am hopeful that we are starting to turn a corner with this event, and on the way to becoming a stable, respectable cultural-sector organization. The next few years will tell the story, whether this turns out to be a rambunctious multiplayer crowdsourcing effort that gets taken over by private sector interests, or a respected online cultural platform. I am hopeful that the community will develop the self-policing capacities necessary for broader participation, find ways to leverage the ongoing resources provided by organizations like NARA, and take its efforts to the next level.

On a personal note: if you are suffering bad upper respiratory problems, please take the day off, and attend events like this one remotely, so the rest of us don't get sick! Yet another reason to consider the live stream videoconferencing. --Djembayz (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Tech news in brief (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-14/Technology report

Traffic report: Screens, sport, Reddit, and death (699 bytes · 💬)

Cast me ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Alda as DGG! --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

John W. Curry in 1867 was the first recorded US black letter carrier back in 1867, and I rather felt he deserves an article. Please find material to add to it - I suspect he would make a nice article at some point as well. Collect (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States (2,075 bytes · 💬)

Nice summary. Thanks, Gamaliel. --Pine^✉ 23:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

+1 --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Are videos of the sessions available under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I initially thought the bit on going overtime was sarcastic. Going overtime is discriminatory against weaker people and is contrary to the stated aims of an anti-harassment event. Nemo 13:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. GamerPro64 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  - My guess is that he thinks that going over time intruded on other sessions, but in this case it just extended into a planned break. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    - Personally I find people going over time rather annoying. I don't want to get up in the middle of someone talking and leave (especially if I'm not at the edge of the room), but I also like having breaks, so I can get a glass of water, go to the bathroom, figure out where I'm going next, etc. Bawolff (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think about one or two sessions at the whole conference actually ended on time. It would've been nice to have conference staff helping to police that. It's nice to have these conversations, but a session going over is just stealing time from the next. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)