Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-12-01

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 2018-12-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: A long break ends (6,866 bytes · 💬)

  • The latter case has a more general discussion at WT:Harassment which may cause change to that policy. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    And the former case has a discussion hanging around (I think WP:VPT but it might be WP:VPPOL) regarding removing the technical ability of administrators to unblock themselves. The WMF went ahead and implemented a change on that in the middle of the community discussion. --Izno (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • New Request: Re: "....an experienced editor..." -- News is about who, what, when, why, where, and how. That delicate sensibilities have somehow rendered the writer unable to identify the fact that Jytdog is the subject of the proposed (now nearly accepted) second case is a marked fail for the Signpost as a Wikipedia news source. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This was my report so I take responsibility; however, I did ask at the Newsroom whether we ought to name the parties in this case. We tread a fine line on "outing" members of the community at times, and The Signpost has taken criticism previously for doing the opposite. Also note that this appeared less than 48 hours before publication, so we didn't really have a chance to hash out the decision. Part of the reasoning (in my mind) was that if the case was accepted, we would certainly have a chance to name names in the next issue. And if the case was not accepted, then naming them would serve no discernable purpose but raise the internal-outing issue I mentioned. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There has also been a request declined in which arbitrators named as parties declined to recuse and saw no issue in voting against a case in which their own actions would have been examined. What with the case mentioned above, where some Arbitrators appear to not understand that making a phone call is not necessarily a form of harassment, there is much more that could have been in this report. EdChem (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @EdChem: What is this COI case dismissal you speak of? Shall it affect my vote in the arb elections? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • It refers to a pointed case request by Fram that named as parties all members of the 2017 ArbCom, some of whom are on the present committee. Three present arbitrators who were named recused and commented as parties (Newyorkbrad, DeltaQuad, and Doug Weller); two others commented as arbitrators and voted to decline the case request (Mkdw and DGG). I objected as I think that current arbitrators have absolutely no business voting to reject a case request that touches on their own conduct, no matter how flawed they might view the case request, with the exception where the request makes all current arbitrators parties. Fram's request was intended, I believe, to get some answers and discussion about a serious matter. The approach taken was provocative and the answers provided were disappointing. To some extent, the issue motivating Fram remains live and unresolved.

        On the recusal issue, I strongly believe that those arbitrators named as parties had an unavoidable COI and that they could (and should) have all chosen to recuse, comment as parties, and leave the decision to the arbitrators who were not on the 2017 committee. There were still 5 non-COI arbitrators voting to decline, as can be seen from the request at the point it was archived removed, and so the outcome would have been the same. The COI arbitrators voting could have shown respect for the process and the request (however flawed) and demonstrated the importance of the integrity of the position of Arbitrator and of the Committee as a whole. Unfortunately, it is my view that they chose a different approach:

        • DGG asserted that "I am no more involved than anyone else and if it is brought here, at least some of us must deal with the request in some manner." This is simply wrong as all the current arbitrators who were not on the 2017 ArbCom were not involved and would have dealt with the request.
        • Mkdw stated that the "case request is no different except only in name" from a request at ARCA or ACN, going on that "[t]here is a nearly unanimously consensus that it is in the wrong place. These concerns were already raised repeatedly in 2017 including one public discussion. Responding then as it is now is no different. Responding to inquiries by the community does not require recusal nor how the policy and safeguard was intended. Recusal is an important part of the ARBPOL when it correctly applies." This ignores that the request was not at ARCA or ACN, it was a case request in which Mkdw was a named party. Consequently, Mkdw had no more role in deciding it was not a case request than in declining it on COI grounds. Recusal is important and in refusing to act in that way, I believe that Mkdw weakened the policy meant to avoid COI at ArbCom and in so doing has added to the problem of administrators acting while involved (in the ordinary meaning of the term) by skirting the letter of WP:INVOLVED.
@Indy beetle: As for voting on the elections, I think you posted after the voting period had ended, and even if it were still open now, it would not be my place to tell anyone else how to vote. If you are interested in my opinion, however, I can say that I am now concerned that Mkdw and DGG, who chose not to recuse despite having an obvious conflict of interest, have demonstrated poor and highly questionable judgement and I have concerns / doubts about their impartiality and decision-making going forward on issues of recusal, COI, and interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. EdChem (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
the case did not "touch upon my own conduct" as I was never involved in the primary matter, to the extent I had no idea what the case was about. (the secondary part of the request dealt with arb practice involving all arbs, present and past, so if we had all recused, nobody would have been left to consider it.) DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee (910 bytes · 💬)

  • @Pythoncoder:-I guess there was no point in mentioning the WishList, which had shut its shop, by the time of publication. :-)∯WBGconverse 09:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Winged Blades of Godric: It's highlighted in the piece on the Comm Tech team. --Izno (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Medcom

In March 2018, I called for the shutdown of Medcom. It's good to see that the community eventually agreed. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Essay: No one cares about your garage band (405 bytes · 💬)

I find that editors are far, far more likely to capitalize common nouns than fail to capitalize proper ones.--~TPW 02:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

From the archives: Ars longa,vita brevis (680 bytes · 💬)

The Article Rescue Squadron is still active in a modest way and so it's good to have this history of how it got started – thanks for reprinting this article. The founder, Ben Yates, seems to have stopped editing about ten years ago but Michael Snow, who wrote the article and founded The Signpost, still seems to be active as they did actually edit Wikipedia this year. Andrew D. (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

From the editor: Time for a truce (9,882 bytes · 💬)

  • Weird. Tony (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Weird. ∯WBGconverse 09:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not weird, just decontextualized/disembodied... You didn't mention which fight. Moreover, that's been true of Wikipedia since my first edit more than a decade ago (I think). So... you didn't say anything helpful.Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess we, the editorial team, thought the WWI context was clear both from the (uncaptioned) memorial statue depicted, the guest "reflections" piece, and the general culture during the writing period which included Armistice/Veterans Day. Which doesn't justify reader confusion but, err, contextualizes it? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, your comments help clue us in. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well said. In order to achieve peace between nations we first have to learn and practice how to behave peaceably in our own lives. Lumos3 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Life is but a dream? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I got the WWI context, but I thought this was more specifically referring to the accumulating vitriol at ANI and the Arbcom elections about civility and the use of certain unsavory words to admonish other editors. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Good luck to those not historically inclined, such as us Americans, in trying to find out the context behind this picture. The file's metadata gives us no such clue, only its geolocation. Speaking as an American, we don't do so well when it comes to WWI, in which we were late to the game. WWII was our shining hour (late to that game too) but that's what we love to reminisce about. We'll be wondering who these figures in this statue are, why they're shaking hands, and why they appear to be standing over a basketball.  Spintendo  22:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Speaking in American accent) That's not a football, that's a soccer ball! This is a real football! IntoThinAir (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not a football. A ball is round. That's an egg ball. Smallchief (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not to mention how easy it is to find the WWI reference in the description on the image file page. Ain't WP grand?! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  03:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What I find weird is that after an article about getting along with each other and the tragedy of conflict some have posted an unkind comment about the editor who works his *bleep* off to keep the Signpost running. I think that was naughty. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any comment about the editor, unkind or not, just a comment that this was a rather odd piece, given it is without any proper context. - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is never weird to suggest that people should stop throwing bricks at each other and give peace a chance instead. The sentiment is well intentioned and welcome at any time.
  • More specific details about this statue at Commons:Category:Truce statue, Liverpool. It commemorates the 1914 Christmas truces and the games of football (soccer, for those Americans and others not inclined to understand that their form of football is not the form familiar to most people) reputedly played in no man's land. 213.205.240.196 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this song "Pipes of Peace" [1] by Paul McCartney helps put a more artistic context to the picture used werldwayd (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • And there is even less context now that the image has been deleted for copyright infringement. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is a little weird, because it's trivializing real-world massive violent conflict (I'm strongly reminded of Godwin's Law). Millions of lives will not be lost because two Wikipedians ankle-bit each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not trivializing massive world conflict, nor is it odd; it is touching. It is a reminder that even small actions, such as holding forth common decency to our fellow Wikismiths on this project that many in the world see, are still important to keep us human. The month of December is when many attempt to stanch their lesser impulses in exchange for more charitable ones, and hope for peace. For those who are not familiar with the 1914 Christmas truce, may I suggest watching the excellent film Joyeux Noël. It is fiction based in fact. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
    • There's also a song "Belleau Wood" by Garth Brooks about the 1914 Christmas truce. "But for just one fleeting moment, the answer seemed so clear, Heaven's not beyond the clouds, It's just beyond the fear." That's a nice Christmas message. Smallchief (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I refer readers to my signature. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Why only a truce and not an end to hostilities? Too optimistic?--Gueux de mer (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • It was an informal truce carried out mostly by the lower ranks without authorization from military leaders, and only in some sectors of the front. Higher authorities were appalled and attempted to repress fraternization between the two sides. Their thinking was (I suppose): if you know your enemy personally, you might be reluctant to kill him.Smallchief (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Wikipedia users could bear that in mind when hastening to be unpleasant to each other, exerting authority over others, and turning some discussion venues into a sordid mire of grave dancing and battlefield behaviour.
  • First, who are the Wikipedia users? Anyone can be a Wikipedia user, even a plain idiot. Even a plain idiot can become Wikipedia administrator, i.e. a user with unlimited power. Could you then call upon common sense and avoid unpleasance, exterting authority, grave dancing and battlefield behaviour? The power is not given to knowledge and hierarchy of knowledge does not hierarchise users. In reality, knowledge is not offered for free and expecting to get it for free from a man of knowledge is an illision knowing that a complete idiot can extert power over such man.--Богаљ Рајовић (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gallery: Intersections (285 bytes · 💬)

Thanks Bri for this satisfying compilation! Deryck C. 13:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Humour: Dangerous carrots (7,333 bytes · 💬)

  • (Note: If you have not read the Anne of Green Gables series just skip this as it will be meaningless and not very funny at all.)

Pretty good article but I dare say, was it by accident or design that no mention of the human complications that being a carrot top brings to our unfortunate children? How can this article be complete without a mention of one of the most famous carrot tops of all time? These unfortunate people should not be just hidden away as though their lives don't matter. They do!!! Take for example Anne "Carrots" of Green Gables. Just look what it did to her (more recent photo here) [2]. Following the latest edition of Anne's story a literary scholar gave this report:

"Elena M" wrote: "For those of you who have not read this series, I will give you a summary: Anne is a young red-headed orphan sent to live on a farm on Prince Edward Island. Unfortunately the adoptive family wanted a boy but she does her best to fit in and warm their hearts. However, after coping with her feelings of abandonment and insecurity, getting her best friend drunk, getting teased by a boy in school [that's Gilbert who called her "Carrots," forcing her to break her slate over his head], and losing the only real father figure she's ever known, she dyes her hair blonde, [starts to wear eye makeup], dons a plaid shirt and becomes the town whore of Avonlea."

BTW, I LOVED this article--it's one of the best, maybe the best, thing I've ever read here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It made my day to have such a kind compliment appear here, especially by you Gandydancer. I would like to explain myself a bit-it will give you an idea of how my version of humour is created. Not only is writing articles, creating content about women, and fooling around on the Signpost a hobby of mind, but I like to lurk on commons and find the funny images there (Do a search on commons using "mud wrestling"). I originally was going to improve the article Carotene but alas, for reasons known to my fans, I am not allowed to contribute to that article. Anyway, my habit of commons-lurking led to the discovery of these carrot images. And so that is where my inspiration came from. I happened upon the category Carrots and images during my commons-surfing and came up with my most ridiculous interpretations of the images. To me, there was no other way to make sense of the images except to pull them all together into a plot in which I could make sense of them and create a story line. Again, I am honored to have brought a giggle to your life. The Very Best of Regards, Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 14:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a vicious and brutal all-out dissection of what the carrot has been upto! Clearly unparalleled in all of carrot literature, online and offline! :D :D Really witty! Such writing on Signpost is an inspiration! It was a lovely read :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Shocked and appalled indeed. Let us not forget that young impressionables of a tender age read our words and look at our pictures. Certainly now that the National Geographic no longer serves as the medium for teens to observe nakedness (as it did for those of my age), we are responsible to use only the most appropriate photos---and the lovers entwined photo is far from appropriate. Frankly, I've had about enough of this "it's ok as long as it's "instructive" I say we must boil the lovers alive, out of love of course, and then dress them with butter and freshly ground pepper. Perhaps quarter them first. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, Gandydancer, I'm even more shocked and appalled by your suggested use of butter. How can you possibly not know that we all have to go vegan to save the planet from climate change? Tlhslobus (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I am pretty sure everything, including the carrot problem is all Donald Trump's Fault. Life is easy when you automatically know who to blame (for everything) Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 00:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's almond butter. EEng 16:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is my first time checking out the Signpost and this is the essay I encounter....no more carrots for me.-Sıgehelmus (Tålk) 01:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I need one more reason to get blocked. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars (9,026 bytes · 💬)

  • Wow, with regard to the top story, that is a truly disturbing precedent, though in no way atypical of the general trend in European law (in terms of judgements or statutes) with regard to free speech in recent time. Even so, I think this particular instance deserves substantial scrutiny from all Wikimedia communities. The case summary here is more than a little vague (no offense Kudpung) when it says that "Whether the claims were justified or not, was not taken into account by the court.", but it sure seems as if the WMF chose not to appeal a ruling which forbids it to relay a new story by a third party, even though the underlying report had not been discredited. That problematic on multiple levels, and I for one would like to know a bit more about what the calculus was in choosing not to appeal a ruling that has such massive potential implications for any of Wikipedia's local iterations, not just de.Wikipedia. I don't want to jump to histrionics here until I have had a chance to review the case report and the facts here, but this is certainly a situation our disparate communities ought to investigate in detail, including the WMF's response. Without wishing to sound like a broken record, the possible fallout out here is massive. Snow let's rap 05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is highly disturbing, first in that a foreign country's courts (i.e. not U.S.) are giving Wikipedia orders directly, and second in the details of censoring an article. That said, as best as I can tell now the Wikipedia case started with an article http://www.mdr.de/fakt/usa_bezahlt_deutsche_forschung102.html which does not seem to exist now. It is at Wayback [3]. I don't think Google Translate is responsible for the blurriness of this source - it makes some pretty general claims about US funding research by a professor who is 50% at Carnegie Mellon University, but MDR article doesn't seem to believe in citing sources and details. Now there are things any rational person would guess about anyone in the field of computer science, especially one who works on automated speech recognition, but Wikipedia isn't about guessing and it's in no position to drag an apparently retracted TV news article out of the archive to publish claims sourced to it, which leaves it in a poor position to discuss a libel suit. Even if there's some precedent to be made about not kowtowing to Berlin, it would be best to choose a different test case. In the meanwhile, we should recognize that this was never really de.wikipedia's problem: it's an American research, American university, American government money. The professor says his work is all public record and given the quality of that retracted news article I don't believe its writers saw anything else. So if people are outraged here, get busy, build the article out in every direction without pruning it toward any particular goal, research what he actually worked on, state its support and usage factually and with appropriate credit of any controversial claim to its source. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You still haven't covered Chris Hedges' half-hour interview of investigative journalist Helen Buyniski published on 21 October. Wikipedia: A Tool of the Global Elite. Maybe next month? — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 14:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to break that down some. There seems to be more than a hint of irony in the Christian anarchist criticizing a work created by unpaid volunteers, himself funded by an officially designated agent of the Russian state. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Hedges picked that up from Buyniski's Progressive Radio Network pieces (republished to Medium: [4][5]). Did the pieces play anywhere besides RT? And I haven't finished them yet—what parts were worth covering? czar 15:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Czar, maybe Hedges' deep embarrassment when people introduce him with text from his Wikipedia page, because he just knows they've read it. I had a look at the undue emphasis on overblown claims of plagiarism when I first read the article. (After reading the talk page, I've removed the section as undue based on the consensus I found there for removal.) There is also a retrospective on a number of things: the Galloway / Phillip Cross incident of course, but also more generally the toleration of full-time editing and the obsessiveness (and competence with templates) needed to do it well, the Kazakh Wikipedia (this bit is particularly poignantly treated, for one of her sources, cf. [6]), the Seigenthaler story, the Clinton Foundation page, the Minassian Media story, WikiPR, COI editing, WikiScanner, the NYPD in March 2015, the antipathy to expertise, Larry Sanger, etc. It's quite the retrospective she's put together. It would be interesting to watch the Signpost tear it apart or recognize that there was some truth to what she says. I was impressed with her research at WPO, WR, and elsewhere. Of course, I should also say that I'm fairly involved in one of the stories in particular that she writes about, though I only had a chance to exchange with her after her research was done and after this interview had been filmed. Disclosure: I was blocked for 500 days, at least in part for a misunderstood comment I left here concerning two things: 1) the Sagecandor morality play & 2) the Minassian Media September 2016 communications audit and c-level training mission. Bri, let's talk content, not contributors (to the knowledge econoflu·x).  :) — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 12:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've only taken a brief look at Buyniski's articles on Medium -- the first appears to confuse the concept of evidence that proves chronic & endemic problems with the concept of proving that many problems exist & are being dealt with, & I lost interest half way thru; I'm still struggling thru the second -- but I'm seeing issues with her credibility. She cites Gary Null as an example of a sustained personal attack on a person (where she raises concerns that should be addressed), & claims she or others tried to "correct" the article on Null; however I've found no evidence that these attempts were made, at least in the last 6 months. I'm suspicious. Maybe someone with more time & experience with handling fringe theories can do a better job verifying Buyniski's claims. -- llywrch (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that the top story is not yet in the Waibel article. I do not have much time right now, but it next week is still not yet there, I will add it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding Bohemian Raphsody, it's sad that Wikipedia has now become a synonym for "banality". Kaldari (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-01/News and notes

Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia (5,692 bytes · 💬)

  • Thank you for sharing your story. I liked it —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A must read for every Wikipedian :) TomT0m (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • DiplomatTesterMan, well done. I was so happy to see your willingness to accept suggestions and improve when things were going downhill. Not only did you bounce back, you bounced back with a bang. Thank you for the honours, with the mention. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • My first read on Signpost ever. (And a first time looking at many of the humorous links.) I enjoyed...well done and thanks! :)--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent piece. It is good to know that in 2038 it will be republished as an excerpt from the Signpost archives. I will be 80 but it will be a good read, again. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
These comments are wow and humbling! Thank you to everyone who acknowledged that they enjoyed the article and more :) - TheDJ, TomT0m, DBigXray, Bonnielou2013, Barbara (WVS)!
The comments are clearly a part of this entire page, a part of the article itself now in there own way, and I am really glad that they add to the positive weightage of this entire effort, including the efforts of the Signpost editors behind-the-scenes too who help keep Signpost running!
And for those who haven't acknowledged what they think of the article, well, there's always space below to comment :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Great piece on starting out on Wikipedia. Good to know you took the bumps in the road in stride. I had a look at your user page and saw you had made some military conflict contributions. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Military history? We just created a Indian military history task force, which would encompass your work on Jammu and Kashmir. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Indy beetle: I am already a part of the Indian military history task force. I added my name to the main project too just now -WikiProject Military history. Thanks! :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This made for a pretty good read. Having been on WP for a decade now, I'm beginning to forget what it was like to be a newbie. Cheers! Paper Luigi T • C 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi: Glad you liked the read. & a decade here! Wow! :) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Paper Luigi: Though actually forgetting what it is like to be a newbie has its positives too I guess :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@BeenAroundAWhile: You are correct! I am a journalism student, completed a Bachelors course a few years ago. Thanks for the welcome! And you are 86 and a tenured journalism professor, wow!! Thank you for commenting here and I just want to add that your username is one of the better ones I have seen on Wikipedia, a really good one :D Cheers. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for writing this, DiplomatTesterMan. We are all newbies in some way or another, always learning. I enjoyed reading what you had to share. You successfully remind readers to stay centered and pursue what really matters. Airplaneman ✈ 01:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Airplaneman: I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. Thanks for taking time to comment! (Merry christmas and a happy new year too!) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi! I love your work. Email me at karishmaindianexpress@gmail.com. I'm a reporter at the Indian Express and would love to chat with you.Missmishma (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF (1,635 bytes · 💬)

  • Spot on. If you are trying a little bit to be sarcastic, you are very good. If you aren't trying to be sarcastic, my mistake and I apologize. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 15:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Doesn't WordPress support comment sections to blogs? Or did someone at the Foundation decide comments from the community or readers was unnecessary? Or is the problem that no one who manages the blog knows how to implement a comment section? -- llywrch (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The WMF do not want an "Open" blog where readers can give feedback. The organization has been suffering a form of cognitive dissonance over the last decade by on the one hand ensuring their systems are increasingly protective and their operating decisions and procedures happen behind closed doors, while at the same time claiming to be leading the ethical fight for openness and transparency. It's bizarre, but I guess not a surprise for an organization that has closed down all possible strategies for moving its servers and data storage outside of U.S. legislation because its most senior managers really like working in Silicon Valley. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize (4,175 bytes · 💬)

  • "Volunteer Wikipedia editing is not often treated as a "legitimate" volunteer activity contributing e.g. to professional development." Tat would be because Wikipedia is not a "legitimate" volunteer activity contributing e.g. to professional development. WP is a toy project; at its core, it is non-serious. It will continue to remain non-serious so long as WP:CONSENSUS is the one policy to rule them all. There are no guarantees of academic rigor. FAC, for example, is not a test of article quality, because it is ruled by WP:CONSENSUS. It is instead a test of contributor good faith. Contributors usually pass that test, but there is no backstop that guarantees high quality secondary research in cases where good faith does not exist. No really. None.Reflets.dans.l'eau (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think Wikipedia pretends to "academic rigor" in the procedural sense, but that does not mean it is not serious. In many fields educating the public about existing scholarship (i.e., not original research) is considered very important. Some universities formally reward public engagement. But even though Wikipedia is among the best ways to reach the public, it's rarely treated that way. Attribution and assessment remain important problems for interpreting the work of a Wikipedia editor, but then again, we know that simply trusting peer review will do the job can make people dangerously complacent as well. Kim Post (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The above comment is certainly true in many respects. I wouldn't regard Wikipedia editing as any sort of indication of "professional development". It is essentially an anonymous exercise where the editor can expect no credit for their effort. It is also true that many articles that are mired in politics are exceptionally poor, primarily because much of the editing is done by those with an axe to grind (on both sides) leaving a mish-mash of an article. The issue of "retirement" is quite often triggered by "interpersonal conflict", although one suspects that that'snot the whole story. Nigej (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Might I recommend using a blockquote template/indent in the future? Would make it easier to distinguish the copied abstracts from the description and analysis czar 19:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The question about how to improve Commons is an interesting one, especially with Flickr going paywalled next year. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Anyone know of any good noticeboards to ask a question about recent WP research? None of our projectspace talk page appear particularly active and they're further fragmented into meta:Research:Index and related pages. czar 22:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe ask Tilman personally? That's what I did. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The best place to get informed responses to general questions (e.g. "has there been research about question X") is usually the Wiki-research-l mailing list. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Look like we have gender balance within our vandal community. It's a start :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day (4,241 bytes · 💬)

Catherine Munro's excellent poem put me in mind of these words by Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) written in 1912 which I've always felt applied well to Wikipedia.

Gitanjali 35 (Song Offerings)
1 Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
2 Where knowledge is free;
3 Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
4 Where words come out from the depth of truth;
5 Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
6 Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
7 Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action --
8 Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

Lumos3 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Honestly I am surprised that more wasn't said about World War I in this edition. You only commemorate a centennial anniversary once; I should like to have seen more...thought, or content or something put into this one. Admitedly, given how little I heard about it on November 11 I guess I should be happy that it got a mention at all, but still... TomStar81 (Talk) 14:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's just one of the problems of recentism. Because the community is gradually evolving to a point where most members don't know of important historical periods such as WWII, the 60s, or even pre-Internet. (By "know of", I'm including having parents, relatives, or older people who lived thru these periods.) It's hard to be mindful of a period such as the Great Depression when one has no personal connection to it. (Or have enough of a feel for it for one's internal bullshit detector to work.) Oversight of the end of WWI is simply the latest, & not the last, example of our lack of a sense for history. -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Llywrch: Sad but true. In hindsight, now that I am actually thinking more about it, I'd have thought the signpost may have reached out to milhist or to the various national and/or political projects to get some input on the end of World War I. I'd have been interested to have seen what Wikipedia as a whole did during the WWI centenary years. At Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#TFA_for_WWI_centenary it was noted that there were FA-Class articles run on the front page during the WWI years. It would have been nice to build off that too and see if there were other DYKs, FPs, and so forth and when they ran. They do have remembrance and Veteran's day commemorations up here, but from a centennial anniversary the first such observations of the end of WWI weren't until 1919, while it appears from a cursory glance that the first tomb of the unknown soldier wasn't formally consecrated until 1920. Like I said, I'm just happy someone out there remembered because a bunch of people didn't - even the History Channel, which I was certain would do something for the anniversary - had no special programing airing on 11/11/2018 for the centenial end World War I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the centenary of the end of the First World War was not a big thing in the US (perhaps it rained) but it was in Europe, as World War I centenary and Category:Centenary of World War I and related articles show. Lest we forget. 213.205.240.196 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • That could be too - the US was late to the party. Still lost a bunch of men in the fighting though, but not an unreasonable hypothesis for the absence of commemorating material. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Special report: The Christmas wishlist (505 bytes · 💬)

Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight (379 bytes · 💬)

  • Thank you everyone for making the lists ! Very insightful as always. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2018-12-01&oldid=1125230753"