Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-08-30

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 2018-08-30. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-08-30/Discussion report

Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment (10,103 bytes · 💬)

  • I disagree with the changes to pick-up sticks. Many games (e.g. Scrabble) involve scoring individual rounds but not tallying up scores across multiple rounds at the end of the game, so I would say if the rules do specify what to do with the scoreboard at the end of a session it should go in the article. That particular sentence you've deleted may be redundant because the same instructions also appear under the "winning" heading of the article, but the content needs to be preserved. Deryck C. 14:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm moving this comment to next month's humour article. Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Barbara: You are welcome. Deryck C. 20:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean when you write that Scrabble involves "scoring individual rounds but not tallying up scores across multiple rounds at the end of the game"? Whether you keep a running total or save all the work to the end, one way or the other the scores are added up. EEng 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Michael Kinsley's send-up of The New York Times article on corn. I believe it was Thomas Mann who said, "only the exhaustive is truly interesting." (How's that for erudition? Thomas freaking Mann!) As a drudge who delves into the obscure of which little is recorded, I try to squeeze meaning from every single word. The comment that people eat tree bark in times of famine would readily be referenced in the wikipedia article famine. The facts that Mr. Sturtevant was a farmer and educated at Harvard give us a sense of the man. Would that we knew more about the lives of Plato or Jesus from some ancient scribbler. Smallchief (talk)
Sure, except the article was about corn. I might add the Michael freaking Kinsley's pretty erudite himself.
I'm writing this post on my new laptop. It's a Lenovo. I bought it at Best Buy, where I got a great deal on an open box unit. In fact after offering it to me they couldn't find it in their inventory and I had to find it myself, and I made them feel so guilty about it that they took an extra $100 off. The salesman's name was Jerry and he had a blue shirt and tan slacks. He said he likes egg salad. I mention all this in case he founds a new religion and people want to know more about him 2000 years from now. EEng 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I look at Wikipedia as writing for people of 2000 years from now, who may not know what a Lenovo or Best Buy or salesman or egg salad is -- but some of them may want to know. Smallchief (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
In all seriousness I think 5-to-50 years should be our horizon. EEng 12:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"I do not write for this generation. I write for other ages." A fact once lost, like an extinct species, is lost forever. Smallchief (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The sources we rely on and cite carry the definitive record of all the stuff we omit. EEng 02:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As much as I agree with much of this, and often make such corrections myself with similarly arch edit summaries, some of this is wrong. The opening excerpt from Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft leaves out the important context that the thieves got into the museum after hours by dressing up as police officers—knowing that, it makes more sense to note that the guards had been effectively deceived. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That info is in the article, just before the passage quoted. That the guards were deceived is apparent; the question is how we (Wikipedia) communicate to our readers the manner in which the guards came to realize they had been deceived. Given that we're definitely going to mention that the guards got tied up, it seems superfluous to mention that the bad guys apparently prefaced that action by declaring, following the old cliche, "This is a stickup!" EEng 21:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@EEng: I stand corrected; I read the article afterwards and saw that it was in the preceding sentence of that version. Context is important.

Better sourcing could help; AIR that article relies almost exclusively on online newspaper articles as sources. But Stephen Kurkjian, one of the reporters whose work is cited extensively, gives a much clearer account in his book The Master Thieves, about how the guards (more like nightwatchmen, really, as they didn't wear the uniforms that "guards" would suggest) were totally fooled until after they'd let the "cops" in (Kurkjian also points out how the timing, apparently deliberate, helped: it was right after St. Patrick's Day, a time when cops in a lot of large Eastern and Midwestern cities, but especially Boston, were going to be letting their guard down and so the museum's security was less vigilant as well). Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Does this means you're not sore at me anymore? EEng 05:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think many of the examples for image captions should be wary of accesibility issues. The essay relies a lot on assuming the reader can see the image, which for users using screen readers or with limited vision is not the case. The deleted text in the above captions may be useful for describing the image to those who cannot (clearly) see the image (due to bandwidth or physical limitation) and should at least be considered for alt-text. We should also be careful of alt-text that already exists because occassionally it says "refer to caption" and if the caption is removed (like in twist tie) or made less descriptive of the image, it can compromise the usefulness and accesibility of the page for visitors using screen readers. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The examples in this essay relate to the captions per se, which are for those seeing the image. Obviously the alt should be much more descriptive. Your point about being care not to remove caption material, without checking to see whether the alt relies on it, is a good one.
I've often thought that a great project would be to systematically add alts to images that don't have them (which is most of them – I myself almost always forget to add them). It's a huge unmet need, there are few opportunities for controversy, and it's something inexperienced or young editors can do without a big earning curve. EEng 19:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As someone who does a lot of editing, I agree with some of your comments, but keep in mind that the Wikipedia audience is quite broad. Call it the common reader, the general audience, the public. Everyone? In such a context, someone is going to write something that you as an educated person will find so obvious that it's not even worth mentioning. But there was a time in your life when you don't know that Paris was in France. And so on. Did you know there was a Paris, Texas? And so on. The quantity of examples you give is proof of your exasperation. A normal day at Wikipedia. Perhaps you expect too much.
    Vmavanti (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed I know there's a Paris, Texas – it's linked from that example in the essay. Other than that I think there are few if any examples that rely on general knowledge rather than simple common sense. EEng 02:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
As a geography geek, I would have to agree it is common sense. HOWEVER, thats the problem. Do you honestly believe we have a surplus of common sense, ANYWHERE?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coal town guy (talk • contribs)
On the subject of general knowledge, I recall my 13 or 14 year old daughter writing a school essay on Pompeii, the city destroyed by a volcanic eruption in 79 CE (general knowledge? necessary explanation?), which she concluded with the sentence: "After the eruption, everybody in Italy was dead."
My point is that, in an encyclopedia article intended for the general public, explanation is a good thing. Write with the assumption that, a thousand years from now, the total surviving knowledge about a subject is a wikipedia article. Smallchief (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what the relevance of your Pompeii example. EEng 04:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured content: Featured content selected by the community (1,503 bytes · 💬)

  • Mario Kart 7 appears to be a C-class article, not a GA. TeraTIX 23:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We generate the GA list for The Signpost based on a bot adding it to a master list. Not sure what happened; looking into it. Maybe it was one of those AI hallucinations. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching it, Teratix. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Armstrong was co-nom'ed with Hawkeye7. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words (314 bytes · 💬)

  • "Actors' union rules", please. The world is curious, and theatre is ephemeral. Elfabet (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia (5,160 bytes · 💬)

  • The above ad is illegal in the US (or is it U.S. this week?) as basing compensation on age is a violation of civil rights laws. Lol. Thanks for your hard work, Chris. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily; in my state, "Minors under 16 may be paid 85% ($9.78) of the state minimum wage". However, minors may be disappointed in this case that 0.85 * $0.00 = $0.00 ☆ Bri (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Logically they should be happy - their employer isn't actually reducing their wage by anything! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I myself as a teenager agree and accept the fact Kudpung said about the young people like me. I am fortunate to be a part of this amazing knowledge website Wikipedia. I think people like me are reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia in an appropriate manner in order to serve the demand for updates, information towards the modern society. But the only worry for the teenagers is that they use social media platforms only for the sake of fun and entertainment and they sometimes don't care about the Wikipedia encyclopedia. I actually developed my duties and responsibilities in a well maintained manner by being part of Wikipedia for one and a half years. I personally learnt from my mistakes during my early part of Wikipedia career because I was a novice teenage boy. I also went onto observe the news around the world mainly thorough the knowledge of Wikipedia. Personally I feel that modern youth don't know a world without Wikipedia. I also understood this as I am preparing myself for Advanced Level examinations on August 2019. Abishe (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with concerns of younger folks not being aware where their information comes from (and as equally important how they can contribute!). After all it's the new generation that replace the old in any healthy ecosystem. But let's not considered awareness solved! :) The concerns are wider than just those youngins'. New Readers research from 2016 found that awareness of Wikipedia was staggeringly low in many countries. Entire swaths of humanity are yet to be reached by the efforts of the movement. How we meet those needs over the coming years will, optimistically, have an significant impact on future generations. Let's keep at it. Ckoerner (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As one of the aforementioned youth who has never known life without Wikipedia, I hadn't taken much time to consider the diversity of the experiences of editors we have working on this project. I have nothing but respect and appreciation for all the amazing people who came before me. Thank you Kudpung for your work on the Signpost! Hopefully sometime soon I'll have more time and energy and I can contribute too. ♥Acorimori♦ 18:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


  • So people you disagree with are trolls. Great, plenty of useful volunteers have been pushed away and how the entire site is a cesspool of non-neutral, agenda-driven articles that have absolutely no chance of reaching a neutral point of view because nobody is allowed express a disagreeing opinion. 71.197.186.255 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


Can any one help me understand the context?

If this was a WP page, I will add a "citation_needed" to it, but I don't know if that would be appropriate to put on an Sigpost article. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See "Friendly space" section of this issue's Special report. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat (463 bytes · 💬)

I'm fairly sure that tree frog was a major character in the comedy horror movie Cabin in the Woods. MPS1992 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Naw. That is a Wikimedian welcoming folks to a recent edit-a-thon. I think it was an 'Art and Amphibi-ism' event. Barbara Page

Humour: Signpost editor censors herself (2,339 bytes · 💬)

I prefer funny to sad and confusing.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Do you mean that Barbara got TBanned from the signpost at ANI? Too bad I didn't see the discussion. Could someone please ping me if she appeals it please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What is ANI? All I can tell is it is named after Ani, who is implied to be a mascot for the pirates. So maybe it has something to do with feminism? And what topics were banned? they cannot do that, or is Wikipedia suddenly not protected under the 1st amendment. Now they are trying to censor us! I say she --woah that got political, sorry-- but this is wrong and someone should ask her what got banned. you know what? I am, she does not have to listen to them because they probably threatened her reputation. Also I think that if the Wiki's leaders are for what they say they are, They should stand behind her as I do.Billster156234781 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh wait a minuite, AN/I is an admin thing. I did not not know that as I am new, ummmmmmm... so..... sorry, I retract that statement. The topic ban was on human health, was she writing humour articles about sexual health? okay I guess thats fine. But the editor needs to spell it right or I might have ranted on and on about this obscure feminist organization that does not exist.Billster156234781 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Silly me I thought this had to be satire, but then I realized it was Wikipedia and quite probably true.--Shim shabim (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles (323 bytes · 💬)

Sometimes I wonder if ArbCom cases are really worth making a news story about. GamerPro64 02:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin (488 bytes · 💬)

  • A wonderful article about a wonderful Wikimedian. Focusing on the positive is the right thing to do. I would love to meet this person one day. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend (40,373 bytes · 💬)

  • Remember when the biggest problem with the Signpost was when we put swears in a headline? Gamaliel (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Excellent coverage of the Wikimedia mire...certainly worth following. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • On further review, I must clarify that while the issue at hand is certainty worth this attention (and the voicing of concern and criticism), the smears about things like "CEO" are unbecoming of a News and notes article. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this article would be a little easier to follow if its start were reworked to tell us what it is we're sharpening our pitchforks for, before getting into the play-by-play of who's heating up which vat of tar. —Emufarmers(T/C) 04:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Go Fish diatribe needs to be rewritten. In jargon-free English and with some sort of attempt at clarity of expression. It is utter gibberish to me, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hate site

  • Calling Wikipediocracy a "Wikipedia hate site" is completely idiotic. Presumably those words were penned by the outgoing editor-in-chief, who in another part of this issue proudly declared that he never visits such nefarious realms. In actuality, WPO is a message board dedicated to Wikipedia criticism — of which there is no lack in this particular issue of the Signpost. Perhaps there is room in this world for such a place — a regular, daily venue — as opposed to an on-wiki "magazine" that comes out once a month sometimes. Carrite (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Calling Wikipediocracy a "message board dedicated to Wikipedia criticism" is like calling Stormfront a messageboard dedicated to race relations issues. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Kaldari: Yeah I trust your experience with hate sites, and I also suspect your hostility towards Wikipediocracy stems from them investigating said experience. --Pudeo (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Now, now, Pudeo - I'm sure any such involvement is long dead, and we don't want any unseemly dancing on graves here, or exploitation of things that have passed away, do we? Ms. Streisand would be ashamed of you. -- Begoon 23:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Maybe we should call it "the Wikipedia criticism site that can't take criticism". Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • You've obviously never seen "Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics)." In actuality, there is a pretty close parallel between WPO and the discussionesque parts of WP such as Jimbotalk and the Signpost. Sorry you can't see it, but they do have special glasses to correct colorblindness these days, so perhaps there is hope. Carrite (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Of course I've seen it, it has pictures of me, and you know how I like the attention. I'll grant you that there's a difference between the two sites, I'd certainly rank them differently on the Bristol stool scale. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Carrite: What ever ended up being the deal with this? Did we come to a conclusion? jp×g🗯️ 06:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I've visited WPO a dozen times. Calling Wikipediocracy a "Wikipedia hate site" is completely appropriate. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes...it is...both...and somewhere in between. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • It's a message board at which a lot of different views are expressed, running the gamut of the rainbow. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • And Wikipedia is an "alternative medicine hate site". Disappointed that my correction of the editor's "typo" was reverted pre-publication. Look at all the unnecessary drama that stirred up. wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I reverted you and the Editor in Chief ran with what he originally wrote. I don't think either one of us has any regrets, thanks. Discussion and debate isn't "unnecessary". ☆ Bri (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, then, "News and notes" should be changed to "News, notes and opinion" since this section isn't a pure news piece. In most reliable and respected newspapers, editorials are typically published on a dedicated page, called the editorial page, but Signpost is now looking more like a blog. Wikipediocracy is a website for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia, per Wikipedia which references this Salon piece for the criticism site characterization. But, no worries because calling it a hate site is kind of like saying "fake news" – it's apparently led to an increase in traffic on that site. Yes, there's also important discussion and debate here in § Misogyny, which is helping to increase volunteer productivity and work through the maintenance backlogs at a more efficient pace, as well as increasing our balanced point-of-view of the sexes. Surely nobody's been blocked yet because of that "necessary" discussion? wbm1058 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
        • You are arguing with the wrong guy. My job as deputy E in C is and has been to assist and advise, not to override. In well run organizations, the man or woman at the top takes responsibility for what is done by the org, not asking underlings to take the fall, nor claiming ignorance, nor just not showing up during a public controversy. This has been the relationship at The Signpost. Further, anyone with a reasonable amount of ability to work with the Newsroom team is welcome to join, help shoulder the burden, and make a pitch for changes. The Editor-in-Chief position is even vacant at the moment. Until then, these are suggestions we will take under advisement. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
        • While I can sympathize with your suggestion about this—or at least the relevant part—being published as an editorial, that currently is not one the features in The Signpost (permanent link) and the last one was in August 2016. The closest that presently exists to such a feature now is the occasional "Opinion" piece, which appears to be a new irregular feature this year (and which should be documented on the content guidance page). Maybe the "Editorial" feature should be revived, but without an Editor-in-Chief now, it is unclear who would be in the byline. Regardless, according to Content guidance § News and notes (permanent link):

          As a core report (along with "In the media"), "News and notes" attempts to cover all major internal news from the month (however briefly) without omission, even if this means forgoing other reports. Since this report is under significant pressure to be ruthlessly objective, all available viewpoints are considered. In particular, opinions adhering to or deviating from the "official line" of the Foundation are not denigrated merely because they do so.

          The "ruthlessly objective" part may be worth omitting, not least because the notion that a person can ever be "objective" is a problematic contention, but the fact that this feature involves opinion ought to be uncontroversial since it's a stated part of that feature. Likewise, although describing Wikipediocracy as a "hate site" may be at odds with the above content guidance, that is not because it's an opinion.
          As far as I'm concerned, there is no escape from "opinion" (which is part of why "objective" is such a problematic description), since the very process of writing and selecting the contents of the report inextricably involves editorial discretion. Similarly, from what I can tell, The Signpost being opinionated is nothing new. Thus, I think qualifying this feature with "and opinion" is something that can be applied to all features, which defeats the point. The only reason why a feature called "Opinion" even exists is so that The Signpost can provide a space for one-off contributions that has more lenient content restrictions and which allows the editorial board to distance itself from the content.
          Perhaps The Signpost should move away from describing itself (permanent link) as involving any degree of neutrality and objectivity, but so long as Wikipedia itself still clings to that myth, I'm not sure why its organ ought to be an exception. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • WPO is mostly a site where people gossip, often in petty and mean-spirited ways. It is also full of people grinding various wingnut or resentful axes. While there are occasional insightful posts there about what goes on here, it is both tedious and unpleasant to wade through the crazy and the filth to find them. The aspiration to be a "watchdog" is far from the reality; it is more a dog's breakfast of ranting and gossip.Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose I need to include some "person has a tiny dick" jokes in my next blog post on Wikipediocracy to measure up to the exalted standards of The Signpost. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • When I go there (which is increasingly infrequent), it is generally to look for what you and a couple other people are saying. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fishing in the console

  • Despite MZMcBride's claims, I'm pretty sure there is no "private user data" in Google Search Console. It's just a bunch of aggregate data about how many hits you're getting from Google, what search queries people are using to get to your site (only the top 1000), what pages are most popular, and information about how well indexed your site is. It doesn't even break down device statistics more than "mobile", "desktop", and "tablet". There are no IP or user agent logs (that I'm aware of). I'm really curious what "private user data" MZMcBride is referring to. Kaldari (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    My reading of phab:T193052 was that it included user-agent data. Legoktm (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, but only the user-agent data of the search engine bots, right? Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yep, but it's still private user data. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    So the controversy is about WMF giving Go Fish Digital logs of which pages search engine bots visit? I can see how that could technically be called private user data (if you consider Googlebot a user), but it hardly warrants comparisons with Cambridge Analytica! Kaldari (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think the controversy is mostly about giving a company that wants to improve its customers SEO access (against our policies, etc.) to the private SEO information we have. My comments about private user data were just responding to your curiosity about what MZ was referring to. Legoktm (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    Ah, got it! The article could have done a better job explaining that. Kaldari (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    The controversy is also about WMF contracting anything with a company that performs undisclosed paid editing with a relatively big sockpuppet farm. That company even planned to use the fact that it was hired by Wikipedia as a means of advertising and to legitimize their undisclosed paid editing operation. At least the WMF legal team took measures to prevent that Go Fish Digital uses Wikipedia name to that end, but they did after the fact and once the controversy was hot. This should have never passed previous due dilligence. --MarioGom (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    See my comment below about this. Boilerplate about not using trademarks or advertising a relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation is a standard part of our contracts with vendors and is included up-front; no specific action by Legal or anyone else was required after the fact. --Deskana (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    Awesome. Thanks for the clarification. --MarioGom (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

wikimediafoundation.org

  • Excellent report, very well done.
    The issues with the new WMF site are quite alarming; the site is closed-source and is sending user data to a third party for advertising targeting purposes, among many other issues. --Yair rand (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • What third party are you talking about? Kaldari (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Uh yeah, what Kaldari asked. I'm not aware of any user data being sent to a third party for advertising targeting purposes. Regarding the closed source issue, my understanding is that publishing the source is in progress, but it is all free software (GPLv2 or later) because that's what WordPress requires. Legoktm (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Kaldari and Legoktm: The site is sending user data to Automattic, Inc. via stats.wp.com. Unless I'm misunderstanding the privacy policy linked to from the bottom of the site, this data is used for advertising targeting purposes. Re closed-source: Sure, but it's not public now, despite the site being already operational. --Yair rand (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Ack, I should have checked, I thought that issue was already resolved :( Bumped the phab ticket a bit. Legoktm (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Automattic/wp.com is not a third party here (except in a purely technical sense like commons.wikimedia.org is for en.wikipedia.org), see my notes at phab:T201022#4544867. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
          • They are a third party here insofar as they are not a Wikimedia organization, which is the relevant part. --Yair rand (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusing

The article assumes the reader already knows about the topic. Wrong. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  • TL;DR: A SEO/PR firm, Go Fish Digital has a Wikipedia editing service. They have been doing undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia for, at least, two years. They have multiple employees doing this, and they use a lot of sockpuppets. At some point, the WMF hired Go Fish Digital to perform a SEO audit on Wikipedia sites. There is off-wiki evidence that Go Fish Digital was planning to use this contract to advertise and legitimize its undisclosed paid editing operation. Once the WMF was made aware of the situation, the contract already had ended, although WMF legal team took steps to prevent Go Fish Digital from using Wikipedia name for advertising purposes. (see Deskana (WMF) comment) In my opinion, the Search Console and crawler logs stuff is a minor issue, since I do not think there was actually personal information there, and I'm sure Go Fish Digital objective was not obtaining private data, but to legitimize their shady Wikipedia service. I have been involved in the investigation about Go Fish Digital sockpuppets and I have followed this case very closely. So feel free to ask any question and I'll help clarifying. --MarioGom (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • There's a minor inaccuracy in your comment: it's a standard provision of our contracts with vendors that they are not allowed to use our trademarks or advertise that we contracted with them without permission, so no specific action needed to be taken by Legal or anyone else after the fact to prevent that from happening. Go Fish would not have been able to use the fact that they contracted with us to "legitimise" any of their services irrespective of what happened. I can't speak to the rest of the evidence about them using sockpuppets, because I don't know anything about it myself. My hope is that the Foundation can learn lessons from this, improve our contracts process to reduce the likelihood of anything like this happening again, but since I'm not involved in that process in general my role there would only be to advocate for improvements. --Deskana (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks. As with my other comment, I've just put the error with strikethrough. With respect to Go Fish intention, it is clear that they intended to use Wikipedia name (see [1]). We cannot take for granted that Go Fish Digital will play by the rules, since they are in breach of our Terms of Use with respect to undisclosed paid editing. --MarioGom (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Deskana (WMF): That ... is a very good practice, to have that standard provision. Is it documented anywhere? I would be interested in learning more about this. --Yair rand (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Misogyny

I was under the impression that there were extenuating circumstances that resulted in Kudpung being misogynistic towards me and another editor, but when we talked offwiki I thought he was taking a break. I'm sad to see that he's continuing this campaign against Katherine Maher. I'm no stranger to criticizing (female) leadership in the Wikimedia movement, but I can at least say I save it for the folks who are doing a poor job. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved to User talk:GorillaWarfare#You are getting things consistently wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


A new low

This is possibly the worst Signpost article I've ever seen. Tony (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask why (Emphasising that I am not actually defending the article in any way, shape or form!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
*Gets popcorn* Gamaliel (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to echo this sentiment of a new low -- statements of fact are being wildly speculated on, to the point of a editorializing, throughout the article in ways that as User:GorillaWarfare, and others are beginning to point out, smells of prejudice beyond just criticism of the foundation. Sadads (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that we are in a vacuum of information that fosters speculation. If WMF would tackle this head-on and explain what, if any, user data was at risk, it wouldn't have had to be a feature story. My opinion is that either not reporting it, or playing down its potential seriousness, would have both been errors for The Signpost. Now I'd like to hear what's going on from WMF. The volunteers who don't necessarily know the intricacies of Google Analytics versus Google Search Console shouldn't have to figure it out for themselves. Although Mr. Varnum's letter speaks about "vendor's possible violations", it doesn't say what was at risk. We shouldn't be having this speculative conversation at all. It's like asking us to do our own E. coli testing on the hamburgers we get at McDonald's. Data protection, privacy, and competent server administration are their core competencies, not ours. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree this and the "From the editor" article contain much speculation and what seems like intentional anti-WMF propaganda. Most appalling, I don't think it's fair to take such a deep stab at Katherine. Although The Signpost's reporting is based on facts, like all news media it does not promise to be entirely neutral in its content. Some of it is indeed tongue-in-cheek -- this is an understatement. These articles should be labeled as op-eds. From [2], No one suggested she was not qualified -- it certainly reads that way, to me. — MusikAnimal talk 16:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The three stories, GoFish, use of WordPress and 200 days in the air are all ones I'm happy to see the Signpost take up. But I don't see why two of them have been linked to the CEO, travel yes but not GoFish or WordPress. The WMF is not a one person operation, it is entirely possible that those decisions were not even taken by Maher. I would have preferred an approach that explained more about why we think the WMF has called these wrong rather than one that focuses on the CEO. ϢereSpielChequers 09:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Thought I was reading an opinion piece. There are certainly better words with which to convey this (very important) information. Airplaneman ✈ 15:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Since I think it's possible I am the person who inpsired this article, I'd like to respond to that judgment. Because I believe these three stories are closely related.

First we have the issue that the Foundation has contracted with a company that has a unit which offered sockpuppet services & engaged in undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia. In short, hired one of the bad guys. While Deskana (WMF) above indicates there were some guidelines that prevented any real harm to Wikipedia, it still is one of those mistakes you'd expect the person in charge to notice ahead of time, ask some questions, & maybe prevent. Was any of this done? Nothing from the Foundation.

Then we have the issue that the Foundation overhauled their website & decided to use a proprietary product that is better associated with blogging than a static website. This is especially odd because (1) the same thing can be done & has been done with the Wikimedia software; & (2) part of the WMF mission statement involves advocating non-proprietary (aka Free) software. Maybe there is a good rationale for this choice, & if the person in charge had asked for the reasoning for this decision, it would be simple to share that with us.

However, the ED of the Foundation has been out of the office a surprising amount of time. Maybe there's a reason for her flying around the world; maybe she's talking to people whom someone at the Foundation needs to talk to. But the article where it's stated she spends 200 days a year travelling was published on 19 May, & she's had plenty of time to provide some kind of explanation why she travels so much.

Why is this all important? Very simple. There are hundreds of people who contribute work, time & resources to the various Wikimedia projects who get little if any acknowledgement from the Foundation for what they do, let alone any help from the Foundation. Yes, they provide the servers & maintain the software, & sponsor conferences around the world for Wikimedians -- but that's 75% of their budget. And as the essay mentioned above that Guy Macon wrote points out, the Foundation keeps raising even more money than they need. Someone is benefiting from all of this, & it isn't the average Wikipedian who not only donates their work but has to spend money on their research, & for all this receives nothing more than an impersonal blanket thanks. Apparently the Foundation believes their responsibility to the projects ends with providing servers & bandwidth & the volunteers ought to be content with that; everything volunteers have created -- an encyclopedia, a dictionary, collections of free media & books -- are the results of letting people scratch their itches. (It took the Foundation years to get around to starting the Wikipedia Library, which runs primarily on donated access to digital archives, which only came into being due to a volunteer's -- not a staffer's -- efforts.)

Despite what it might appear, I don't enjoy criticizing the Foundation. I'd rather spend my time working on articles & ignore all of this bullshit. But knowing this happens is a disincentive to do more than just scratching my itch, & I suspect I'm not alone. When all we volunteers are doing is only scratching our itches much will not get done. Maintenance duties get ignored, people decide not to take on duties such as seeking the Admin bit, & people find they have less time to contribute than they thought they had -- & leave.

But all of this would be easier to handle if the Foundation were to share information with the volunteers -- realize we are partners, not customers or clients -- & not be as secretive as Amazon with their latest marketing strategies. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Response to Cas. It's hard to know where to start in criticising this weird excuse for journalism. If you're going to report publicly on these matters (and it's in the community's interest that the first two topics be explored), you're writing journalism. Journalism in this instance required polite, professional, no-nonsense questions to be emailed to senior spokespeople, specifying copy-deadline, asking for the briefest of responses on the record, and explicitly not guaranteeing to quote all or any part of the response.

    Not just any questions, but pointy questions that might get to the core of the issues you're going to deal with in the story—questions that might generate responses of interest to readers, and that might provide the scaffolding for the structure of the piece. Questions that make the respondent work hard to weedle out of. To a certain extent, it's a cat-and-mouse game. Always has been.

    Direct contact also enables you to satisfy an often-essential, usually desirable feature of journalism: giving those who are criticised the right of reply. So the story is a balanced product, with institutional politics and the interpersonal blended into a deeper, more engaging account than this tawdry attempt, which instead indulges in the expression of personal hunches way beyond what credible journalism would accept. And whoever wrote it has a very odd idea about narrative—especially how to induct us at the opening into the thematic environment you're going to explore. The first paragraph is as organised as an upturned garbage bin. Tony (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep - very valid points indeed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on undisclosed paid editing

I don't think this is an issue with any specific individual at the WMF, but I think it illustrates that the issue of undisclosed paid editing should receive more attention. The fact that a company can engage in undisclosed paid editing for high-profile clients for years and feel so safe about it that they even dare to get contract work from the WMF was really shocking for me. We need more community efforts and we need more support from the WMF on this field. And of course the WMF should learn from this and be more dilligent with companies they engage with. --MarioGom (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
@MarioGom: How is this a response to the conversation in this thread? Sadads (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sadads: Yeah, reading again, it was quite off-topic. That is what came to my mind when I saw that the way the article is written is leading the discussion mainly to unrelated tangets. --MarioGom (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@MarioGom: resectioned and collapsed the metathread, Sadads (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sadads: Makes sense. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lack of communication

The Go Fish case just goes to show that there's a lack of communication between WP users and WMF staff. In Wikimedia projects, the WMF has a great repository of crowdsourced info it can consult, for example, WP:PAIDLIST and the editors who maintain it, yet obviously they didn't check it in their "privacy review" of Go Fish.

I'm also annoyed by the tone, e.g. the statement that "we ... feel [Go Fish] should have shared this information with us during discussions" -- seriously?? I don't share the general feeling here that identifiable information on WP users has been shared with Go Fish, but I still think the tone of the letter is inappropriately aloof: we had followed our policies, we still tripped, but we kept walking, and now move along everyone...

This WMF error didn't hurt Wikimedia's partners (in face of whose interests they've already ignored the users' privacy in one case last year), only its readers, who may now find themselves better deceived as a result of Go Fish's R&D that WMF just financed. This silly, avoidable mistake could've been acknowledged as such by at least someone from WMF by now without hurting anyone's financial & PR interests, but unfortunately legalese vagueness is what you get when dialog is so scarce. When you think of that, you've got to wonder what's next in store. Daß Wölf 04:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really. I'd say it shows that decisions are made without performing even the slightest research on the topic. Just like that time when a controversial WMF board of trustee member was appointed "because articles about the controversy were not in the first page of Google results for his name in the HR person's browser". --Nemo 14:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I continue to insist that Wikipedia should revert to a service organization. The WMF in its present form should be dissolved. Obviously, the head office in San Francisco is looking for their own profits and we, the volunteers, are only too foolish in allowing them to succeed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Organizational incompetence

I am only learning that this happened now. Thanks for describing what happened.

As an organization, the WMF's a) condemning black hat paid editing for years now; and b) paying GoFish for work and giving GoFish data, is a result of incompetence of the organization.

Criticism of the organization is appropriately directly at the top. The board should have been mentioned. The culture and structure of the WMF should have been mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious if WMF has been known to respond to pieces published in The Signpost. This would be most interesting... --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about the data

One thing I am not clear on - did WMF get the data back from GoFish, or does GoFish get to keep it and use it internally? Whether the WMF could retrieve it, would depend on the contract. If WMF has the right to retrieve it and that GoFish destroy any copy it has, I hope that right was exercised. (I deal with contracts and data transfer agreements in the real world). Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

SEO terms to watch for

Now that one SEO optimiser has obtained the data on the most effective terms to add to the articles about their clients, can we have a list of those terms so we can monitor for them and remove or rephrase where appropriate? ϢereSpielChequers 20:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is unlikely they are doing that kind of SEO on Wikipedia. Their Wikipedia editing service is part of their reputation management and PR services. This is consistent with the behavior of their sockpuppets, who create or edit articles about their clients to improve their image. None of their edits look like keyword-based SEO. --MarioGom (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
But just what SEO assistance did they provide the WMF? What aspect of their services has any positive relationship to anything that WP should be doing? The only two things I can imagine is that they provided information to assist in fundraising, where possibly some help is restraining the over-stridency of the appeals might have been beneficial, or that they were asked how to further decrease the influence on WP of the services they provide their other clients (which, however much of a gain for us, would seem a clear COI on their part). But I'm not an expert here, and there may be something I've missed. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they provided basic SEO advice such as adding Sitemaps ([3]), ensuring that links from mobile version always go to mobile version pages ([4]), or adding metadata tags for interwiki ([5]). You can see a list of changes being implemented after Go Fish Digital audit ([6]). It is the kind of SEO audit you would do for the average joe, not for a high-traffic website for which Google has a custom crawler ([7]). Generally useless or not worth the money, as some other users already pointed out. But their SEO advice does not look shady, just lame. My hypothesis is that their big advantage, other than getting money from a basic SEO audit, was to later use Wikipedia name for advertising, both for their SEO branch as well as to legitimize their reputation management service. Even if the WMF contract was not supposed to allow that from the beginning (does WMF contract really forbid disclosure of WMF as a client?), it looks like Go Fish Digital intended to use Wikipedia as a major client example (see [8]). --MarioGom (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help updating image for Wikimedia financials

At User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer the table of financial data has been updated for 2017-2018 but the image at commons:File:Wikimedia Foundation financial development multilanguage.svg (also used on this page) only goes to 2016-2017. Could someone with SVG editing skills please look at that table and update the image? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: I solved the problem on my page by replacing the image with a template. The other pages that use the image still need an updated version. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies (8,443 bytes · 💬)

  • From the journal: "many people (and in my experience students) invest [Wikipedia] with a degree of objectivity and trust". I think that's quite far from reality. Even younger kids tend to be rather level-headed about Wikipedia and teachers will tell how to treat Wikipedia as a source in essays. Wikipedia, and the fact that anyone can edit it, isn't anything new anymore. --Pudeo (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Pudeo: Trust varies according to subject area and the depth of information being looked for, which the author alluded to. People might be quite happy looking up a small fact on Wikipedia to refresh their memory without taking everything they read there at face value. The statement doesn't seem particularly controversial given how much Wikipedia is used, and the author is not saying that Wikipedia is seen an unimpeachable authority, but that it is seen to have some objectivity. There is also the 2014 YouGov poll which found that in Britain contributors to Wikipedia entries were more trusted than journalists. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for that very interesting link to the 2014 YouGov poll, Richard Nevell. I'm not that surprised, though it is curious how the editors of an encyclopedia that is necessarily a derivative of the information provided by those journalists can be considered more trustworthy than them. That derivation should reasonably mean that Wikipedia's trustworthiness cap is the value of the journalists' trustworthiness. The fact that trust of Wikipedians is higher than journalists either says an immense lot about Wikipedians (and journalists) or at least something about the poll participants—or both. I'd love to see a 2018–19 update to it. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • "pro Wehrmacht editors": I have never been pro Wehrmacht, nor am I even interested in the Germany military. I did, however, try to offer an opinion about Wikipedia policy on sourcing (whether I'm right or wrong is another question) on a talk page to try to resolve a dispute (obviously unsuccessfully), and for my troubles got quoted out of context without any right of reply before publication. But anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree "pro-Wehrmacht" is uncalled for, and is not supported by materials presented in the case which made no such finding regarding any editor. Bri, would you consider removing this particular phrase, or at least indicating a direct attribution to the offwiki author so the term does not appear to be in Wikipedia's (or The Signpost's) voice? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Probably needless disclaimer - the request that this particular phraseology in the article be reconsidered is my personal opinion and not on behalf of Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The research doesn't lend itself well to succinct phrasing which is needed in this review. The nearest relevant phrase I can find to the passage in question is "too many of the editors are clearly keen to see articles that reflect their own cherished, or at least uncritical, view of the Wehrmacht and its collaborators." I think "pro-Wehrmacht" is a fair and accurate condensation of that thought. I think it will remain as written. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. Stahel certainly accuses some editors of being "pro-Wehrmacht," without offering much evidence. Charitably, perhaps that's a consequence of the need for brevity in his piece. I suppose my question is whether the current Signpost wording implies that the Signpost accepts Stahel's accusation as fact, or simply notes that Stahel said it.-- Euryalus (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's already prefaced with "The author describes...". Are you suggesting further qualification? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that this wording is unfair to the editors here. Stahel actually uses the term "pro-Wehrmacht", but only in relation to "the notoriously pro-Wehrmacht J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing" company, not Wikipedia editors. He uses much more convoluted wording to describe the Wikipedia editors he focuses on, but the gist of it is that he sees their views of the German military as being outdated rather than actually advocating on its behalf as the term "pro" implies (e.g. "The problem is as much about what is written as what is left out and sometimes what is removed by editors acting, consciously or unconsciously, to preserve the myth of a ‘clean Wehrmacht’"). More broadly, the term doesn't reflect the findings of the arbitration case, or my years of experience with the editors in question. It should be removed. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Belatedly, agree with Nick-D. The issue is the article's use of "pro-Wehrmacht," in The Signpost's voice, to describe editors named in the referenced article. Stahel certainly implies that accusation, though he doesn't say it explicitly. The Arbcom case outcome goes nowhere near such a claim. Of course it's up to the editorial group on whether to keep or remove the sentence, though as a passing reader of the Signpost I'd urge removal. But if the editorial decision is to keep this sentence, perhaps it could be amended with words like "editors who Stahel implies are pro-Wehrmacht" to make absolutely clear it is merely reporting someone else's views. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I would think it should be worth mentioning that a passage Stahel complains about having been cut, at the bottom of page 398, cited his own work as a source? He may have less disinterested motives in writing this than it seems. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • In the Stahel article (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13518046.2018.1487198), we can only find a non-critical timeline of the recent cup-of-tea-storm that occurred at en:wp. The key question was if Wikipedia has been used or not as a loud speaker to advertise a "pro-Nazi" point of view. The fact that all this tempest ended by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort#Findings_of_fact is not mentioned by Stahel. In other words, this was only another tempest about another pokemon series: the so-called German Army "aces". Praising a quidam for "successfully conducting a car over the distance from Los Angeles to El Paso" is surely an access of fan-cruft. Even the porn-star wp-articles aren't going that far. But this can not be brushed as Nazi propaganda, whatever source is used to backup such an irrelevant factoid.
Moreover, it is largely surprising that, after being so vocal about historical context, there is not even the smallest allusion to the fact that large white-washing campaigns have been undertaken in the past, to allow the recycling of the defeated mass-murderers into murderers with our God on their side. MacArthur protecting Hirohito, Churchill protecting Kesselring, and so on were not isolated facts... but describing this situation as orchestrated by Wikipedia is too large a brush... and slightly anachronistic.
Stahel concludes by saying: "the best advice for students is not to risk Russian roulette on the Internet and instead seek peer-viewed literature from the library"... and just the next line, the same students are advised that "David Stahel has written four books about the Wehrmacht’s operations on the eastern front with Cambridge University Press". What a marvelous coincidence ! Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Special report: Wikimania 2018 (3,674 bytes · 💬)

What is the purpose of the quote(?) at the start of the 'friendly space' section? Richard Nevell (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This piece is so overtly opinionated that it should be titled as an op. ed, not a "Special report". Is it journalism or a mouthpiece for some individual? Tony (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for covering parts of the Friendly Space Policy improvement debate over the last couple of weeks. Two minor points: Readers might be interested in the upcoming community consultation on Wikimania’s Friendly Space Policy that was announced on August 2nd and will explore the issues and ideas noted in the article as well as other items discussed on that mailing list. Unfortunately, Maggie is no longer the team’s director as of early this calendar year. Best regards,--Jan (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that factual information has been changed in the article without a note to that effect at the bottom. Tony (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The example of Asaf's talks show that simply counting the number of talks given by Foundation members says nothing about whether it's a community or Foundation conference. Asaf's talks were of very broad interest to the community. Two of them were technical talks about how to get the most out of WikiData (I attended them, and they were excellent), and the other two were about community building. The talks presented at the conference were selected by a team of community members based on their perceived relevance to the theme of the event, without any reference or, as far as I know, knowledge, about whether the presenter is on the WMF staff or not. --Slashme (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Slashme, this was far from the first, and likely not be the last article in the long history of The Signpost suggesting that Wikimania is top-heavy in WMF participation - both from the management and organisation as well as the number of presentations. Probably, at a rough guess, 10% of the attendees are, or have been WMF employees. Note also, that I did not criticise Asaf's performances. I will not dwell on your position as a founder, and/or director of Wikimedia S.A. or the heavy presence of Wikimedia Germany. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC).
I'm just a member of Wikimedia South Africa, and haven't been on the board for about 5 years. --Slashme (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work (1,577 bytes · 💬)

  • Note that the software change that allowed non-CC0 licenses for data has been reverted "due to some serious bugs and a lack of integration checks", but should (hopefully) soon be fixed and redeployed – per phab:T200968#4547021 - Evad37 [talk] 16:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Server switch

As I remember correctly, this second server will also be in the United States. I know it is an expensive hobby but would it be sensible to build the third one outside the USA. Let me say <conflict of interest alert>west County Clare, Republic of Ireland</conflict of interest alert>? Or another region with a low risk of invasion, terrorist attacks or earthquakes. The Banner talk 17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There might be some legal implications with regard to having a server in a different country – for example, hosting copyrighted images based on the fair use provision within U.S. copyright law could be problematic. - Evad37 [talk] 02:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits (1,405 bytes · 💬)

  • "€80 million. I don't know too much about British money...". Quite - the Euro (€) isn't the currency of Britain - that's the Pound (£)! (€80 million equates to approx. £71.9 million for those interested) - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is the picture of Noah Centineo actually a pic of what appears to be the Revolution of Cuba Museum? Is there not an open image of the subject proper? Merely wondering and amused --Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Elfabet: - at the time, Centineo had appeared in multiple issues of the report, whilst not having an open image. Something needed to go there, so I played on the fact that he appeared in the music video for the song Havana to include the Cuban landmark. Worth noting that there is now a free image, so the problem has been rectified. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: Nicely done. Thank you for the information.Elfabet (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2018-08-30&oldid=1125230737"