Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-04-01

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 2016-04-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Blog: Growing hashtags: Expanding outreach on Wikipedia (2,797 bytes · 💬)

  • Could a Finn please explain to me why "sata" would not be in the partitive?—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Never knew that edit summary accepts hashtags and that they can be searched. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    @OhanaUnited: Its a new tool! Currently being experimented with. Welcome experiments on how you use the hashtags! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know Finnish but it sounds like they're saying women are Satan.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Are hashtag searches covered in any of the user manual pages? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Jim.henderson: Nowhere yet! But please do document it! Its a social tool, that at moment, is still very experimental, and solves a number of problems. They don't have the same kind of persistent technological support yet -- but encouraging use somewhere would be great! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Where is the documentation about using hashtags in English Wikipedia? Who can generate reports? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Blue Rasberry: Reports are all generated using the tool at http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags . At the moment you can query the edit summaries of about 2 dozen projects, and export that data as CSV files. The blog post is the first documentation of how they are being used, beyond the initial tool announcement Hatnote's blog. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: A slow, slow week (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-01/Featured content

In the media: Saskatoon police delete Wikipedia content about police brutality (2,333 bytes · 💬)

Saskatoon Police Service, welcome to the Streisand effect. Jonathunder (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


External videos
video icon Dave Mustaine - Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction? (Part 1), 10:09, Loudwire[1]
video icon Part II, 9:59, Loudwire[2]

I love these "Wikipedia: act or Fiction" videos, though I'm getting a bit burned out on heavy metal. The genre goes back to at least 2009 with WBEZ's "Wikipedia files". A lazy journalist does his homework by printing out a Wikipedia article, maybe highlights a few phrases, and then just lets the subject talk about his or her Wikipdia article. I think every BLP article should have one. You get to see the subject move, hear them talk, behave admirably or otherwise. A picture is worth a thousand words - this type of video is worth a billion. My favorite is in the Ice-T article: quote "fuck Wikipedia".

Most subjects end up saying the article is just a bit off, but often it seems more like spin or quibbling.

Setting up the external video template takes a bit of time, but the hardest part is finding a photo that kinda matches the video. There's been lot's of talk about a "right of response" in BLP articles. Anybody who can make a video and put it on YouTube already has that right - just let me know on my talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Dave Mustaine - Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction? (Part 1)". Loudwire. Retrieved April 2, 2016.
  2. ^ "Dave Mustaine Plays 'Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?' (Part 2)". Loudwire. Retrieved April 2, 2016.

News and notes: Trump/Wales 2016 (5,957 bytes · 💬)

  • I guess Wales will telecommute from the UK.
  • Although that virtual reality story sounds like it could be actually utilized from some marketing company. Inescapable advertising=my nightmare. Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @User:Liz It was why I came up with it :P I see it as an inevitability in the advertising world. Closer to reality than I think anyone would be willing to admit. Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's funny but it's also very considered and well thought-out. Wonderful! - kosboot (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Signpost first with the real reason for the second close-down of Tay! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC).
  • That explains the rumor I heard that Larry Sanger has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Sigh. In a couple of hours, will you be posting the *actual* news and notes? Risker (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • You may wish to check out the remainder of the edition for more serious news, particularly in the media. Some do, in fact, enjoy an occasional hearty chuckle amid the rest of what we do here on Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding and for your continued readership! Go Phightins! 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I should note; the above is strictly in my personal capacity, not on behalf of our editorial board. Best! Go Phightins! 21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you know...Poe's law applies here. If you'd posted this a year ago, it would clearly and obviously have been humour. Today, not so much. Risker (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I dunno, Seth. How sure are you that it isn't true? Risker (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It will greatly simplify WMF fundraising if Trump will kick in a few billion in return for naming rights on Wikipedia. Kerry (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It will be a "virtual Presidency & Vice-Presidency" with no censorship!! They will run the country from Wikipedia despite all the reverts and citation needed tags!! Love it!! Atsme📞📧 22:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Make Wikipedia Great Again! We're going to build the Firewall and Spanish Wikipedia is going to pay! FallingGravity (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's acceptance speech: "Imagine a world in which America is great again." Altamel (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gamaliel: I'll consider it, but it will depend upon how much time I have then. I am honored to have been asked. Altamel (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • So will Trump be replacing his rivals pages with his tweets about them???ShadowDragon343 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If Trump were one wikipedia, he would have already have been blocked for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not being interested in American politics, I had missed the point in a funny I found somewhere on the web - but still thought it funny. "BAN PRE-SHREDDED CHEESE. MAKE AMERICA GRATE AGAIN." I still thing it's funny, but understand it better now. Peridon (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The next Signpost issue cannot come out soon enough. It's been a week already! Wales should support Bernie rather than Donald Trump University. wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent research: "Employing Wikipedia for good not evil" in education; using eyetracking to find out how readers read articles (8,483 bytes · 💬)

  • I read with interest: "During lookup tasks, tables and graphical representations were preferred (but illustrative/decorative images were almost never looked at. As the authors point out, their test question, about the number of passengers on the Titanic, focused on textual information)." How do I correctly quote the first half, when the bracket is closed only after the second? I tried here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a translation/summary/paraphrase from German, as noted elsewhere in the review. For reference, here is the corresponding text in the German original [1], with surrounding sentences:
"Werden bei Look up eher Tabellen und grafische Darstellungen genutzt, konzentriert sich der Nutzer bei Learn-Aufgaben mehr auf Einleitung und Listen. ... Bei den Aufgabentypen Learn und Casual-Leisure werden Bilder sehr viel häufiger verwendet. Hier geht es um die Aneignung von Wissen, nicht aber um das Nachschlagen ganz konkreter Informationsstücke (siehe Look up). Bilder stellen dabei eine zusätzliche Informationsquelle oder eine Visualisierung des Textes dar (Bsp. Spielfeld des Spiels Lacrosse). Beim TaskTyp Look up werden Bilder fast nie betrachtet."
Back to your question: If you just want to the English text from the review, how about simply using an ellipsis ;) - "During lookup tasks, tables and graphical representations were preferred (but illustrative/decorative images were almost never looked at. [...])."
Alternatively, ref 4 contains some of the same observations in English [2]. Quoting alongside other interesting bits:
"In learn tasks, users prefer headlines for scan actions, presumably as headlines are better for detecting the topic of the focussed section of the page than text passages. Furthermore, in casual-leisure tasks introductions are much more important than in learn tasks – from that observation we conclude again that in learn tasks users do not feel a need to find out whether a web page could be interesting to them, but are seeking a certain pieces of information. Interestingly with pictures it is the other way round. We assume that users need textual information in order to understand what the web page is about. In learn tasks however, they prefer to get information from any (type of) content element available."
"In lookup tasks, we observe that – contrary to both other task types – users prefer content elements that provide quick access to information. They focus on introductions, charts, tables, and lists more often than on text passages, which are just scanned briefly. The same observation holds for look at actions which are applied to charts and tables only – again elements facilitating quick access to small pieces of information. Finally, in contrast to both other task types, in lookup tasks we observed a very high proportion of navigate actions [...]"
It is not stated explicitly in that passage that pictures are not looked at in lookup tasks. But can be inferred from Table 1 there (the content element "BI" for images is not present in the actions recorded for lookup tasks).
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
PS: I see you are interested in infobox usage as well. Their use was tracked in the experiment too, see the "IB" columns in table 1 in ref 4 (with the caveat that some of the other publication cited in the review may contain later results based on more data). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I am one of the alleged "infobox warriors" who try to make data more accessible, especially now that Persondata is deprecated, - thus making life on Wikipedia hard for editors who like a plain picture as aesthetically more pleasing. See Busoni, 150 years yesterday. The topic is also up for arbcom clarification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I also had two of my own academic articles on Wikipedia published in March ([3], [4]), but for obvious COI reasons I am not reviewing them. If anyone enjoying this newsletter would, however, like to return the favor and review my works (feel free to be critical), I'd appreciate it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your constructive feedback on our article, “Employing Wikipedia for good not evil: innovative approaches to collaborative writing assessment.” We do appreciate you commenting on the article but some of your comments, though understandable, do not take into account the audience that this article seeks to address.

I hope that the following responses address some of your concerns, which centre on the inclusion of only five works from the larger corpus of “teaching with Wikipedia” literature, the fact that the paper does not report on any “groundbreaking” activities, and that the authors don’t seem to have connections with major support structures, don’t seem to have a Wikipedia account, and so forth.

As our purpose was to promote the efficacy of using Wikipedia to assess students’ performance, we wrote our article for scholars interested in higher education assessment pedagogy and so our focus was quite narrow. The article passed peer review and was accepted by a respected higher education journal that has only every published one article on the use of Wikipedia in Education: ours. A keyword search shows that of the 6 others, 3 mentioned Wikipedia twice, 3 mentioned it 4 times and only one of those did not reinforce common negative perceptions about Wikipedia.

Perhaps not groundbreaking, it was nonetheless a breakthrough to have such a high-ranking journal in the field accept our article for publication, particularly as we were advocating something that is not appealing to many conservative academics. In order to be accepted by such a high ranking journal, it was essential for us to show the ways our practices hinge on the theories of scholars renown in the field of higher education assessment pedagogy. We were also limited by a word count that included the bibliography and therefore could not afford to expand our literature review to cover scholarship in the broader field that sits outside our area of focus.

Lastly, I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2012, and listed my courses on the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard [5] in May 2013, and in September and October 2013 (See for example [6]). I am listed as one of the University of Sydney Contacts on the Wikipedia Education Program’s page for Australia [7] and have worked on initiatives with Wikimedia AU, and received support from Wikipedia volunteers and Wikipedians at my institution. My coauthor, Rebecca Johinke, developed an interest in teaching with Wikipedia in 2013 and has used it in teaching since 2014. To be fair to the Wikimedia Foundation, their support has been invaluable, as has the support of our local chapter, Wikimedia AU. Frances Di Lauro 08:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Technology report: Browse Wikipedia in safety? Use Telnet! (4,274 bytes · 💬)

Hmm I feel some of the hardware hasn't been properly battle tested yet. Something a bit more old school might be a better choice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE

©Geni (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This may have comic aspects, but it is well informed and insightful. And it is true that TELNET had one clear advantage - it dates back to a time when program was program and data was data. There probably really isn't a special character sequence that indicates the following output should actually be saved and executed to take over your computer. I miss that kind of program that you could look and see you genuinely can't hack me with it, versus these things that have a new critical vulnerability whenever the old one expires. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if even the TELNET approach doesn't work against that Tor exploit, because (even if Snowden has never said a peep about it) I am suspicious that your saved uuencoded kiddie porn would be recognized by your friendly local antivirus program as a "threat", duly reported to their site, and it would upload a "patch" to you to help fix the virus, with predictable results. But I've never heard such a thing in the news ... and doubt I will this time either. Wnt (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Wnt: [8] [9]. Bawolff (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh hell no, that wasn't supposed to happen! Wnt (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's always better to write your own telnet client. Every session, for the best security. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC).
  • Hmm. So how long until Wikimedia provides a gopher server? Or does Tim's refusal to consider "a web gateway to the Telnet server" answer that question? -- llywrch (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Donald v Daredevil (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-01/Traffic report

Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120—the status of Wikimania 2016 (1,285 bytes · 💬)

I just would like to note that the RSS feed still ends with podcast no. 119. – Thx!--Aschmidt (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Aschmidt: it should be fixed now, with the new episodes available. Still trying to fix the missing image. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks, again, Fuzheado.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "turning trolls into edits"? That can't be right. A troll is a person, and an edit is content.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I suppose if it was interpreted as "trolls" being the plural of the verbal noun "troll" (a gerund), then it would work. But I agree it can sound odd. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast # 121: How April Fools Went Down (1,285 bytes · 💬)

I just would like to note that the RSS feed still ends with podcast no. 119. – Thx!--Aschmidt (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Aschmidt: it should be fixed now, with the new episodes available. Still trying to fix the missing image. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks, again, Fuzheado.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "turning trolls into edits"? That can't be right. A troll is a person, and an edit is content.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I suppose if it was interpreted as "trolls" being the plural of the verbal noun "troll" (a gerund), then it would work. But I agree it can sound odd. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Why should the Devil have all the good music? An interview with WikiProject Christian music (10,887 bytes · 💬)

Very good. So is "Satan's Jewel Crown" on your side or the other?! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A lot of country musicians blur the line when it comes to whether they could be considered "Christian music" or not. That particular song I'd say is very Christian.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
'Course it is. I was only kidding about the title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right. Sorry, I didn't catch that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: Thanks for contributing this. The WikiProject Report doesn't get as much attention as other sections in the Signpost, but it is one of my favorites because I enjoy learning about areas of the encyclopedia and the editors working there that I might not otherwise encounter. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. In doing this interview I realized that I would enjoy writing more of these. I'm thinking maybe some of the Science WikiProjects, with this being the Year of Science.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Worse than I thought. "Worship music" redirects to "Contemporary worship music". I wonder if I should fix that?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"Worship music", as much as I personally dislike the term as a genre descriptor, is synonymous with "Contemporary worship music." This would distinguish it from traditional liturgical music such as hymns or Western classical. So I don't see a problem with that particular redirect. I'm not sure what your other criticism is about. I do welcome criticism of my writing, because as much as I may initially feel disappointed, it motivates me to write better. I will note that the interview is about the WikiProject, not Christian music. Secondly, the content after my write-up is mainly up to the interviewees to contribute. Finally, this WikiProject Report was rather unorthodox in that I included questions about the editors' activities outside the WikiProject. I experimented with a more holistic and personal approach, letting the editors talk about themselves and some of their other interests more than a conventional WikiProject report might. I do not know if I would take this approach again if I ever do another WikiProject Report.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I correctly assumed that you would not interview anyone with an interest in the kind of Christian music I like. It's not a criticism because there's probably not a lot of interest among Wikipedia editors in church music (this appears to be the Wikipedia article on the topic), compared to Christian music that sounds like everything else on the radio. I don't really have an interest in editing the Wikipedia articles about the music.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I actually would be interested in interviewing someone with your interest. I apologize if you felt left out. I did not follow the usual method of soliciting interviews for this piece. Usually the interviewer will post a notice on the WikiProject in question to request for interviewees. In this case, as an active participant in the WikiProject, at least two of the editors I interviewed I planned to interview from the get-go. I then looked through Category:WikiProject Christian music participants to find some active participants to solicit. You personally were not listed in that category, or else I might've found you and tried to include you to achieve some diversity in interest. I think part of the limitation of the project as a whole is that many of the editors of church music and the like are not listed as participants in the WikiProject. The other part of the limitation was that I did not publicly solicit for interviews. I certainly would not use the the methodology that I did in another WikiProject Report, and I do accept your criticism of my methodology in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. No, you wouldn't have found me, as I have never actively edited articles related to my taste in Christian music. Actually, I've done more for the various Contemporary Christian genres. I noticed some omissions and decided this was a situation that needs correcting, even if I don't care for the music itself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose according to Google the term "Worship music" is not used for my kind of Christian music. However, I discovered some information that should be included in Contemporary worship music and Contemporary worship. Most of it was in blogs and I'm not sure how Wikipedia would view them as reliable sources but one source, which I couldn't access online without a subscription, I can see on paper at the library where I was today. I can still provide a URL of the article, I guess. The short version is that contemporary worship and its music are on the decline, and its biggest supporters are actually older. Some young people don't know anything else and one comment (in the blog, not a comment about the blog) was that this is a shame (and I forget whether this is the person writing or someone interviewed). Again, I am not saying anything that I have found in a reliable source, and I haven't seen the actual paper magazine yet, although it is dated 2011. More on this subject will have to be found, but I think it's an important development.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vchimpanzee: You can ask other editors for help getting those kinds of articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. A lot of us have access to various databases and are willing to share. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't said yet that this is a problem. I know about this from when I was able to provide help. What I need help with is asking people to look at the blogs, if I can ever find them again, and decide whether the information can be used as is or whether we need to find other sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't too hard. This was the blog post, which led me to this article. I just need some advice on how to proceed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Second Nature is an actual, reliable online journal, with an ISSN and submission process and everything. I think I've read that article before, actually (and I can't say that I would be disappointed to see contemporary worship music go into decline). I don't think the Patheos post is reliable, though I've been unsure of how Patheos should be treated as a source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. See what you think of my efforts.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2016-04-01&oldid=1125230615"