Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2020-08-02

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 2020-08-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money (15,880 bytes · 💬)

"Very interesting ...," as the late great Arte Johnson used to say. I can't top that, but the more I edit at the CSD listings, the more I wonder what is being said about us on the Asian continent. Lately, meaning the last year or so, it seems like we're deluged with new articles from that continent that really amount to online résumés. From aspiring actors, models, you-tubers, and other artists, there are also individuals in academia and private professions who in effect put their resumes on Wikipedia. Sometimes complete with contact information and official photos. Not limited to the Asian continent, but we seem to be very popular there. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: It's obvious that we need some quick way to sort the good from the bad, or to do really quick deletions. To a large extent, I think AfC should be restructured (not that I'm an expert on AfC) but it should be expected that we get a lot of garbage "over the transom", so we need to have a system to get rid of it quickly. At home you don't have to wait for a week to take out the garbage. IMHO. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • From Blanchard's website: Put simply, we place information online and use this content to create and manage pages on your behalf. But it’s not a simple task – a lot of work goes on behind the scenes to ensure the right content is available on the right platforms, creating content that will not only enhance your brand, but will lead to changes to your Wikipedia page that stick.
    Thanks to our network of contacts and team of specialists from the fields of journalism, web design, data management, IT, SEO experts and more, we put together a plan of action to create and promote positive content while reducing the significance of everything else.
    As the biggest aggregator of this data, the result is a Wikipedia page that is more reflective of your personal brand. This is at the heart of what we do. This can be part of a fixed term project, or we can manage your page on an ongoing basis, keeping a careful eye out for inaccuracies.     Chilling stuff. The worst part is that it is difficult or impossible for us to tackle issues that go this deep. — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
If this is so open, can WMF tackle this legally? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the chap: "York Labour councillor Paul Blanchard declared bankrupt and resigns triggering by-election for Heworth". York Press. 2 July 2009.. I had forgotten all about him but was reminded recently as his father is, ahem, in a spot of bother too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ghislaine?

@Smallbones: in the first item, Paul Blanchard's name has been shortened to "Blanchard", but in the final item Ghislaine Maxwell's name has been shortened to "Ghislaine". Ghislaine Maxwell is hardly notorious enough to be mononymous. Can you explain why you chose to use her first name instead of her last name? I note that Blanchard is a man and Maxwell is a woman. Mo Billings (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(deleted repeated material from below) Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
It's because the article mentions another person also named Maxwell is the same sentence, so in this case you need the first name to be clear. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I am sure you know who the Maxwell is. Names are used for identification, you know. If the first one were Paul, while the second one were Maxwell, I bet text comprehensiveness would suffer. hardly notorious - I admit I am not Anglophone, but I suspect there not so many Ghislaines around. And insinuating sexism in a fellow wikipedian in public deserves trout slapping. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
(EC) In the text, there's only one use of "Ghislaine" without the surname: in this sentence where I just didn't want to keep on repeating the last name - "Based on the request the OTRS volunteer changed the source to "I.Maxwell" - which is the same initial and surname as those of two siblings of Ghislaine." It would have just been confusing. Whereas in the text on the Blanchard article - I did a quick count of 4 or 5 "Blanchards" and no Pauls. I frankly don't know why I chose just Ghislaine in the heading, but names in headlines are usually shorter than they are in the text, e.g. "Jimbo" rather than "Jimmy Wales" in the heading of the Blanchard story. and I think right now ""Ghislaine" is more recognizable than "Maxwell", which could be 1000s of well-known people, whereas "Ghislaine" might only refer to a dozen well known people. Hope this helps.
No trout slaps needed though. It's good to have your habits questioned every now and then. I had no idea why I did this until asked. BTW, please see the humour column from last month about headlines Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
no trout : Yes, the question was fair and interesting from the psychological point of view. But its second part is totally uncalled for. Although I admit it would be an interesting research topic to compare male/female first/last addressing habits (the idea came to my mind because just yesterday I wrote up the "British scientists" article :-).Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify for your benefit, Staszek Lem. Referring to women by their first names is a well-known form of gender bias. I cannot say what Smallbones was intending when they wrote this piece, but they should have been careful to avoid this so that they could not be accused of gender bias. Instead, they used Maxwell's first name in a headline. Mo Billings (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me clarify for your benefit, Mo Billings. I know what you said, hence my comment in the first place. If you want to know why, you ask without extras. If you want to bring author's attention to the issue, so that he fixes the bias, you should have phrased it so. In terms of political correctness, the current text may be read as a polite rhetorical question aimed at scolding a "male chauvinist pig". Men have sensitivities as well, you know Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on your statements, you seemed unaware that referring to women by their first names is a well-known form of gender bias. That's what I was trying to clarify for you. Mo Billings (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I see. I guess you wanted to say "It seemed to me you were unaware". I stated that you seemed to be accusing the colleague in sexism, i.e., that I read yours as a hint that he must be referring to them differently because of gender. The latter is called "gender bias" right? Meaning I knew what you wanted to teach me. I gave you a friendly advise how to avoid this type of miscommunication of intentions. Feel free to ignore. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Staszek Lem. To twist this into something sexist is nonsense bordering on the ridiculous! Then again, he doesn't help his argument by, purposefully I assume, "misnomering" Mo Billings. 23:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Dutchy45 (talk)
Oh, no. Not another one far-fetcher. I am a bit dyslexic. I type 'tyop' and 'mathc' all then time. Typically I cut and paste user names for "ping", because some of them defy my ken. This one I thought easy and was punished. Fixed, anyway. Apologies. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: If you felt that just saying "Maxwell" was confusing, you could have either reworded the sentence to avoid the confusion or simply qualified which Maxwell you meant by using the full name. I would appreciate it if you could edit the article (including the headline) to correct this. Mo Billings (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I'll take a pass on this. Much about grammar, and about journalism, relies on tradition and on "how it sounds to the ear." These are pretty good guides to writing in many cases, but they do change and do need to be examined from time to time. Using the first names when writing about family members is a very old way of doing things, and I haven't seen a better way to do it. Short catchy names in headlines is also a traditional way of doing things.
So here's a challenge for you. You rewrite the lines at issue, and we both invite folks here to judge whether any benefit is worth any loss of "ear value". I'll personally place greater weight on what self-identified women and journalist's opinions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no desire to participate in some pointless contest of your design. If I am allowed to edit this, I would be happy to reword this to remove gender bias. Let me know. Mo Billings (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia colleague. Nobody "owns" articles here. You were explicitly invited to rewrite the lines, not to "suggest your version and we will RFC on it". If Smallbones meant yet something else, I am sure he knows where the button "Undo" is. And tghere is nothing "pointless" in improving someone's writing. After all, everybody, including the original author, agrees with your point. My only objection was to the form you expressed it. P.S. You seem to continue insulting people on every step: some pointless contest of your design is totally uncalled for. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem and Mo Billings: Can I ask that everybody "lower their voices" a bit. I don't think that there's much of an argument here. MB has said that he thinks my writing style has an attribute that could be viewed as "sexist". It's nice to know, but to see the real meaning I need to see how he would do it. Staszek - I appreciate the support, but you are being too aggressive for my taste. I think we could all benefit from a calmer conversation. That said - I'll drop a bombshell here: in effect the author (the person whose by-line is on top of the article and who is putting their name on the line) and The Signpost do own the text of these articles. These are not encyclopedia articles, we don't operate under mainspace rules. This is a Wikipedia Project and we are expressing our individual and team views about different subjects. Think of this as Jimbo's talkpage. If you write something there and sign it - you expect that other people will not change your words. Same here, but more so. Each issue is supposed to be a snapshot in time. Once published, it's supposed to be fixed. Sure we appreciate a few copyedits when we don't catch everything, and we'll issue corrections here (if necessary) but those are the exceptions to the rule.

Part of what we do here is in effect offer editing services to writers. If somebody wants to reach an audience and they have good ideas, then we'd love to help them go over the text. Our readers, we hope, get some of the best thought-out and best written commentary on Wikipedia - but they don't get to write it unless they go through the process. They can also comment in this section and I think we often get a great conversation going. The staff, I hope, gets the satisfaction of knowing that they contribute to making some sense of this huge, crazy encyclopedia. Can we make rules like this? Sure, we're a Wikiproject, we basiclly set the rules the members want to work under, and invite people in to read our product. Probably more importantly, we're a newspaper - and just about everybody knows how newspapers work - and we've been doing it for 15 years. We're not going to make major changes to the rules now. BTW, how do you become a member of the project? Just ask what work you can or would like to do. Start with copyediting if you'd like. Start by submitting an opinion piece (but understand that it might get rejected), work a regular beat - we could use somebody to cover GLAMs right now. There's lots of ways to contribute. So, no please don't rewrite the text in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was my understanding allright. But my thinking was that changing "Ghislaine" to "Ghislaine Maxwell" in a single place (or not?) with a polite edit summary would go under the "few copyedits" clause. Staszek Lem (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of all sensitivities of the time: I am using "singular they"; my female/male bio ratio is higher than wikipedia average without even being part of Women In Red. But I keep wondering why do I feel the need in self-defending that I am not homophobic, not sexist? (Sorry, I am aware I am kinda "internalized racist" by failing to forgive the massacre of my grand-relatives, and therefore I try to avoid editing topics related to Ukraine.) Staszek Lem (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Would the Signpost be willing to publish a piece on Gender Bias in Writing and How To Easily Avoid It? Mo Billings (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: Yes. I've even thought about letting you use (respectfully) examples from my writing in The Signpost. That might cause unforeseen problems I guess but it's up to you. And of course I'd arrange for a different editor than me to take it through the submission process. Can you send in a proposal or rough draft within 10 days? Sincerely, Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice roundup! I've been otherwise engaged for a time but hope to do more work in this area as time permits. Coretheapple (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • To whoever used the term political correctness, above, (I don't want to take the time to read back to find out who it was), well, I've always thought that particular expression was just a backhanded slur at common courtesy. My best to all of you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-08-02/Discussion report

Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project (431 bytes · 💬)

  • I personally think "Not compatible with a collaborative project" is worth driving away some users who have behaviors as explained in the essay. But does it harm the spirit and the premise of Wikipedia? --Horus (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-08-02/Featured content

Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist (6,327 bytes · 💬)

  • Thanks, @Josve05a:. I really enjoyed this. And it shows one of the best things about Wikipedia - that one person working alone can accomplish so much. Another thing that can be very good about Wikipedia is that 1 person's good work can attract other editors to do more good work, which attracts more editors, and so on. Folks should leave Jonatan a message here or on his talk page, if they want to help. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks indeed, @Josve05a:. Very useful work, and well communicated. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • iNaturalist is indeed quite excellent and so there are several good lessons to be learnt from it:
  1. Their app for making observations and uploading them is quite reliable and easy to use. Wikipedia's apps, on the other hand, seem to be more chaotic and confusing and I'm not aware of a good one for taking and uploading pictures which works on iOS. I use the official Wikipedia app in a small way for browsing but its focus seems to be on reading Wikipedia and not helping to update it.
  2. iNaturalist has a process of verifying observations to ensure that the pictures are what they say they are. This starts with an excellent AI which usually makes a good guess at the species. This is then supplemented by human verification and this tends to be done by people who specialise in particular types of species. Having your observations classed as research grade is then useful to researchers and good, positive feedback. How unlike Wikipedia where the main feedback given to contributors is some form of scolding. And our pictures don't seem to get any kind of verification – just unpleasant nagging about copyright which is often followed by peremptory deletion.
  3. iNaturalist is relaxed about the use of CC-NC. And I suppose that the academic researchers are fine with it too. So, why is Wikipedia so insistent that people have to be able to make money from our work? This is done to the point that CC-NC images will be deleted rather than used, regardless of quality and lack of good substitutes. This makes no sense when we are willing to use copyright images as fair use. Rather than trying to persuade iNaturalist's users to change their sensible policy, we should be amending our own intolerant ways per WP:IAR.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Some thought I have regarding your comment:
Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons) has a mission to provide free knowledge Free in this context was not limited to free as in ’’gratis’’ but also as in ’’libre’’. Wikimedia DE (Germany) sold offline-Wikipedia on D-ROM a few years back (for the cost of production without profit). That is still seen as commercial, and therefore would not be allowed if Wikipedia was licensed under a -NC license. We want others to be able to reuse as much of the information as possible we host, but you are free to upload -NC images locally to Wikipedia, as long as it has a fair use rationale (just as with fully copyrighted images), but I would not want us to start hosting -NC images on Wikimedia Commons. iNaturalist's goal is not to provide freely licensed images of species, but to track and identify observation of specimens. That’s why they also allow fully copyrighted images to be hosted.
The ’”’nagging’’” you mentioned is crucial, if we want to be what we claim to be. Wikimedia Commons wants to host free images which re-users are able to actually use. It is not copyright paranoia to want to ensure that Reuters can trust us that a work is free to be used (we still reserve against mistakes in the disclaimer). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the nagging is not at all necessary because, as you say, the disclaimers provide general protection. Just about every other major site takes down images as and when somene complains. The only reason we have lots of nagging is presumably because that's what the naggers like to do. It's just like Wikipedia where we have lots of nags who constantly go around tagging issues rather than fixing them and trying to delete content rather than creating it. See jobsworth for more details. iNaturalist is refreshingly free from this and that reminds me -- I saw an amazing insect this morning and so have a picture to upload. I'll be doing this on iNaturalist which will tell me what it is... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • iNaturalist did a great job of identifying my insect. It told me its name in English because I have common name as the default setting there. The English language Wikipedia only has its name in Latin -- a dead and different language. Another win for iNaturalist. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be awesome if within the iNaaturalist app, there was a "I am ok if this is added to a new or existing wikipedia page" function. Even if this was just a checkbox when a person uploads. This would really help all the wikipedians to help create better articles for everyone. Ben (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's so refreshing to read about your efforts at the intersection of Wikipedia and iNaturalist, @Josve05a:, thank you! I'm a frequent user of iNat and can see how improvements on Wikipedia would also support iNaturalist. I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, but I'd be thrilled to contribute to these efforts too. Please feel free to reach out to me, if you'd like to share more about your method, vision, and experiences. Cheers! Rosiolus the Spider (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy (23,006 bytes · 💬)

Initial reactions

It sounds like a useful tool, but sorry to say, the article is rather incomprehensive for a layman. A dense combination of PR babble with techtalk. Taking it seriously, I have re-read it 3 times but could not make heads or tails of it: how can I use it and how specifically will it allow me to improve wikipedia. If the author wishes, I can comment on the text nearly line by line, but I have to be sure that I was heard, otherwise I'd rather waste my time on something equally useless, such as writing up something like "Administrative-command system" nobody seems to care about :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: thanks for leaving your feedback. I am Xinbenlv, the lead developer of this tool. I understand you hope the explanation could be clearer, we will definitely work harder to improve our communication. In the meanwhile, please don't hesitate to visit the tool page when you have time and try the tool yourself, and see if using the tool could make it more clear! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I see. You are basically saying "bug off, we know better" in a well-rounded PR way. I understand you are from google. If a customer of a small company received this kind of reply to his suggestion of help with an improvement, they would drop your tool on the spot. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Not all, we sincerely appreciate your feedback and we pledge to improve our communication, and I mean, we will need some time to plan for better instrucitons such as video recordings, workshops etc. or better text descriptions in the future. But please absolutely feel welcome, no "bug off". Any feedback is great, we are all ears here! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that it could have been communicated better, but the tool itself is self-explanatory and seems very useful for those doing anti-vandalism. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: thank you, we hope it makes your reviewing easier, if any suggestion of how we could improve it is appreciated!xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I have tried it right now, and I liked it, but after reading the text like WikiLoop is an umbrella program for a series of technical projects intended to contribute datasets and editor tools from the technical industry back to the open knowledge world - I was kinda hesitant to click "try the tool now", just like my mom fears to click anything on Skype. I was not sure I wanted to try "a series of technical projects to contribute datasets", because the first thing popped in my brain was "GitHub". Staszek Lem (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Staszek Lem:, I totally understand that sentiment and I am a Wikipedian myself. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Two things are definitely missing: the "Undo judgement" button and "Edit". Both have the same workaround I quickly found: there is "rev." link leading directly into wikipedia, so I may find "Edit" functionality covered. (still, minor on-the-fly edits be handy, but that's sugar) But "Undo judgement" is tool-internal, and if the tool's scores are based on some kind of "human-assisted machine learning", then my wrong "judgement" may skew it. And in this case the "undo" has a certain importance. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I filed this feedback as issue#317, and technical design and implementation updates will show up there. Feature wise, we originally think that "undo judgement" can be done by clicking "Not sure". There is our reasoning: even though we know that "undo judgment" means "delete my judgement on this revision" and "Not sure" means the judgement will be stored as "not sure", we originally wanted to keep only the "not sure", because we think if a reviewer care enough to undo, they may also want to keep them as "not sure". The difference is that not sure means the revision is at least not obviously a vandalism or damaging, and such non-obvious-ness is also useful for some of the machine learning researchers. When you worry your "wrong judgment" may skew it, I really appreciate your sense of responsibility. We want to assure you that even though we are working on supplying our data to other Wikimedia movement efforts such as ORES / mw:JADE and en:WP:ClueBotNG, but I think some individual revision assessment, even if wrong, is at acceptable tolerance to training the machine learning model. Unless, of course, if a reviewer happens to be not good faith, and continuously supply reversed assessment - just like people can vandalism Wikipedia's editing, allowing everyone to review means we need to find way to avoid reviewing being vandalised too. We will publish our proposal of imposing trusted user model in the upcoming weeks. Please stay tuned. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have already deleted the comment you are responding (but you restored it, probably edit conflict), because after some time the "Undo" button suddenly started appearing. Probably it was a glitch in my browser. I am running an old version of Linux with Chrome at home, because I am lazy to do upgrades. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Minor nitpicking: the "i" icon does not have a tooltip. And "Active Users" is the only all-caps tooltip. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
filed as issue#318, and issue#319, will address soon xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I just fixed this. Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My window shows "index feed", whatever it means, but "Featured feeds" does not list it, so after switching to "ores feed" I cannot get back to the default one via GUI, fortunately I managed to accomplish this via the browser's History functionality (BTW, clicking "History" widget of the tool gave me "Application error" screen, again, recoverable throught browser's History). Staszek Lem (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I am glad that you find the tool interesting to you and start to try them out. Certainly there are many features we could do better and probably many bugs we need to fix. It's 11:35pm at my timezone, I will come back to carefully read your feedback tomorrow and put these feedbacks into our bug and feature trackers to start working on them. We value your feedback a lot xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: You do have a very good acumen of software, yes there are issues with index feed and other feeds. In fact, index feed is the default feed that's the Version 1 of our feed mechanism. The other featured feeds are newer version, Version 2 of feed mechanism. They are currently under gone fast iteration of development and sometimes buggy. I have filed your described behaviors as issue#319. Thank you @Staszek Lem:, you won the "champion of user feedback!", if only I have the WP:CIR to create a better barnstar for such awards. We develop software but we really need users like you who gave us feedback like this! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
♥ xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • However useful the tool may be, this description is not. I read through it several times and still had no idea what it does and how (I gather Staszek Lem, above, had the same problem). The only sentence that seemed to communicate something helpful was It is an open-source, crowd-sourced counter vandalism tool for Wikipedia and Wikidata. - everything else feels ancillary or even obfuscatory. If you want people to just try the tool and "get it", well maybe that works, but for those who read this piece trying to find out whether they should try it, it's probably a miss. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Thank you for the feedback. We will iterate our way of communication based on this feedback. Thank you @Elmidae:! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the introduction mentions ORES' article quality model, but from reading the whole piece it seems it instead uses ORES' edit quality prediction models? The latter is what predicts reverts and bad faith edits (depending on the model), whereas the former predicts article quality classes (such as the English Wikipedia's content assessment ratings). Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nettrom:, good catch! we actually only use edit prediction model not article prediction model. @Macruzbar: could you help update: change the improve the ORES article quality prediction model? `s article to edit. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Done! Thank you for catching that, @Nettrom:. Macruzbar (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"ORES scores Considered Harmful"

This seems to be another interface for recent changes. I tried it a couple of times. The first time, the ORES prediction was wrong, saying it was bad faith when it wasn't. The second time, it was some sort of WikiData change, which was incomprehensible. What makes the tool useless for me is that there's no context or filter – it's just a stream of arbitrary, random changes. As it takes time to digest the context for each change, this is not efficient. Only button-pushing gnomes are likely to use this and the result seems likely to be low value-added. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, they write they are working on feed customization. I was planning to suggest to reuse the existing filter-bots, such as User:AlexNewArtBot/PolandSearchResult. Also, you will be surprised to learn how many BP-gnomes-patrollers are around. :BTW I suggest to exclude wikidata from standard feeds and put it into a dedicated feed, because only wikidata buffs can make sense of it. And personally, I think wikidata is over-engineered to the degree of uncomprehensiveness, which explains your observation (and mine as well, but I simply disregarded it). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I would not be at all surprised at the number of button-pushing gnomes as it's already my observation that this sort of low-grade busywork dominates the Wikipedia edit stream. Typically, I start an article which requires some research and care to draft the text. You then get a stream of edits in which gnomes make minor tweaks or run scripts to do things like fiddle with the length of dashes, tinker with the categories or just amend the amount of whitespace. The worst are the editors with high edit counts who will find any excuse to make another edit and so boost their score. Giving such editors a tool like this is dangerous as they will be inclined to follow the ORES recommendation, regardless of its accuracy, and just punch the buttons as fast as they can to maximise their score. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
As if they are not doing this right now. I have the same experience: I barely manage to save a new stub and get slapped with half dozen of ridiculous hatnotes. It is just as easy to hit "undo" using Twinkle. Although I see your point about the score: maybe it is a good idea to hide it, forcing human brain to make the unbiased decision as an independent check against the "AI/Borg takeover". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson:, @Staszek Lem:: thank you for your feedback. Let me try to summarize what I learn and put them into our issue tracker to follow up addressing those. If I understand it correctly, some I will answer directly. Some I will file bugs to follow up development on:
1. ORES Prediction is wrong(1) - this is actually part of the reason we create WikiLoop DoubleCheck: AI will never (at least for a foreseeable future) be able to be as good as human being. In the end our tool is assisting human Wikipedian reviewers to review it, we didn't build a bot nor do we intend too. The WikiLooop DoubleCheck only provides ORES score as a reference. Meanwhile, ORES is a score developed by the WMF foundation. We look forward to other 3rd-party scoring systems to provide even more different scores in the future.
2. ORES Prediction is wrong(2), and another usage of WikiLoop DoubleCheck is to harness editor's assessment and provide them to machine learning algorithms to better train the models. In the interest of transparency and usefulness, we make it 1-click away to download from the home page.
3. No context or filter - revisions shows up random and arbitrary: Filed as issue#323. Yes, we start with a pure recent change so new reviewers can jump in and start reviewing with least experience required but also given least reliable assessment. You ask this question probably because you are more experienced and advanced reviewers who is already using other tools such as watch-list and filtering. We plan to provide such functionalities and even more allowing reviewers to review topics of their interest and domain expertise. Stay tuned.
4. reuse the existing filter-bots: filed as issue#324 this is new to me. Thank you, I will look into them
5. exclude wikidata from standard feeds and put it into a dedicated feed: filed as issue#325, agreed, thank you for point out.
6. The worst are the edtors with high edit counts who will find any excuse to make another edit and so boost their score., at current state, the tool itself doesn't provide faster editing than discovering a revision on one's watchlist and revert them on Wikipedia page. We do allow direct edit but it will currently require ROLLBACK permission just like other tool. In the future, we plan to work on features that cross check the review accuracy between users (part of the reason of having a name called "DoubleCheck"), and also giving more trust worthy reviewers more power while reduce or ignore the reviewers who provides lower quality, accuracy or even vandalising their assessments, based on other reviewer's opinion. Stay tuned for this part as well.
7. forcing human brain to make the unbiased decision, agreed, the current index feed is a version 1 and soon to deprecate, the newer version is featured feed such as http://doublecheck.wikiloop.org/feed/covid19 which requires an extra click on "show judgement" then it will show other reviewers judgement and AI scoring judgements as a reference. Thus we hide the score when reviewers doesn't explicitly ask for them to foster unbiased decision, while still provide them as an option when reviewers want them. We will, however, store the information whether the judgement is provided with such references shown, so it can be looked up and filtered out when doing machine learning training. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Again thank you very much for your feedback and we understand there is still a long way to go to make it more useful and powerful for experienced and advanced reviewers. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's good see that the observations are being noted and followed up. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Rat race" against bots

During a prolonged usage, several times when I clicked "revert" I was coming to a page from which I saw that someone else did this already. I do not mind if some quicker-minded Wikipedian beats me to a punch, but I hate the idea of competing with artificial intelligenicies :) Why don't you filter the feeds through the existing anti-vandal 'bots before pushing it to the live meat? So that I waste less of my editing time. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Could you point me to the revision ids so we could look into it? Thank you! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"WMF" part of tool unreachable

Xinbenlv: As of this moment the link you provided for the version of the tool for trusted users is unreachable. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Asaf (WMF):: Hi ~ Thank you, it currently only works with HTTP that than HTTPS so if you click on the original link, it shall work directly, unless, the browser changed HTTP to HTTPS automatically xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xinbenlv: oh, indeed! Is there a plan to switch to HTTPS? These days, it feels very wrong to use HTTP, especially for a service provided by Google. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WikiLoop DoubleCheck's production instance, https://doublecheck.wikiloop.org supports HPPTS. The instance developed on WMF Cloud VPS, http://wmf.doublecheck.wikiloop.org will soon go to HTTPS as well, there are, however, some technical challenges we need to resolve. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 17:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

In the media: Dog days gone bad (6,494 bytes · 💬)

"Summer"? In half of the planet, it's winter. Please remember that we are a global community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but it's a very easy mistake to make when it's so hot outside. BTW while half of the earth's surface is in the Southern hemisphere, less than one-third of the land surface is there and 10-12% of the population, more than half of which is in Indonesia and Brazil. And, just guessing, that half or more of the 10-12% of the population is in the equatorial zone, were the different between summer and winter might not be a big deal. So for the 5-6% of our readers who may have been offended by my use of the word "summer", I apologize. I'll try not to do it again.
BTW, @Pigsonthewing:, you've given me an idea. Maybe next year in August we can have a special issue put together by people from the southern hemisphere. Is anybody up for it? It would certainly help those of us locked down for the pandemic, who would enjoy having some time off during the dog days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Same issue for the community around Animal Crossing: New Horizons after a diving update was rolled worldwide, including players in the southern hemisphere who have their island covered in snow. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" - I fail to see why this has to be mutually exclusive, regardless POV. Over the history quite a few freedom fighters and revolutionaries resorted to terror. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we probably agree on this, though I was likely being a bit too sly. It's something of a reference to an old saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." It's more or less my view and it was funny seeing this in action on Wikipedia. "Terrorist" though is quite an extreme thing which I really disagree with, even more than I disagree with war in general. Terrorism is an attack on people's minds, not just their bodies. The idea as I understand it is to make people so afraid that they will follow your rule. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The statue of Cecil Rhodes at Oriel College has not been removed yet. As our comprehensive article on the List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests makes clear, the college's governing body has voted to remove it, but they've convened a commission to take the final decision, and it does not report until January 2021. As the Rhodes Building is a Grade II* listed building, they'll need to apply for permission to remove it. More here and here. Theramin (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch! I stand corrected. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - but might I then prevail upon you to correct the mistake in this article, to say that college authorities have voted to remove it, rather than it having been removed already? Theramin (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
No? OK, well, this is still part of the wiki, so I guess I should fix it myself. Theramin (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That 89 GB snapshot includes my Monster Truck Madness GA, my Neo Geo CD FP, and my List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes FL! -iaspostb□x+ 17:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The medical encyclopedia anyone can plagiarize ... has me steamed. See User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat for three Featured articles used almost entirely by Alain L. Fymat for predatory journal publication without attribution. I have sent letters, but we will see if I have any recourse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

On Google's Knowledge Graph, it is interesting to note that that the sometimes Google may misinterpret articles from here. When the 2020 Singaporean general election was in full swing with the voting conducted on 10 July, a local online media publication shared a screenshot of a first-time candidate being named as a Member of Parliament in the Knowledge Graph even before the voting was closed. Google probably had misinterpreted a line in the lead before the article was revised: "In October 2016, Singaporean Member of Parliament Low Yen Ling announced in a speech to women rights organisations that Gan is "one notable example who smashed the 'brass ceiling' to become the first female general in the SAF"." I did some copyediting, shifting the line into the body as it was more suited there. The Knowledge Panel was then updated to show Gan as either as a "Politician" or a general as I continued to tweak the article. My immediate concern was that people misconstrue Wikipedia being the one feeding the wrong information to the Knowledge Graph, whereas what probably had happened was Google's algorithms screwing up. This also reinforces the need for the Lead section to be as concise as possible. – robertsky (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin (1,451 bytes · 💬)

<Nelson>Ha, ha!</Nelson> EllenCT (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ironically this issue links both to a discussion that characterizes RfA as votes for saintood, and a near record 232:1 RfA. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users (568 bytes · 💬)

Ok, so the new Hong Kong law will affect the privacy of Wikimedians. In what way will it affect them, especially those of us not living in Hong Kong? And the Foundation wants to protect the privacy of Wikimedians. What steps will it take to protect them? This essay fails to answer either obvious question about this potential threat. -- llywrch (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil (474 bytes · 💬)

Brian also contributed to botclasses.php, a PHP bot framework. wbm1058 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Vale, you will both be missed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia (7,642 bytes · 💬)

  • Maybe I'm missing something but I don't quite understand the conclusion of this study. ("Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia.") Give and editor thanks if one feels like doing so but it's really not going to make any difference? Maybe giving thanks and barnstars should be just considered a form of civility for its own good. Blue Riband► 23:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • From reading the summary about it, I think the idea is that the editor doesn't spend longer on the site per day, but does stay for a longer number of days. But this title does somewhat conflict with that. There are caveats in that retention was defined as making at least one edit to Wikipedia in a five week period starting at the beginning of the second week.
      My intuition and personal reaction would tell me that receiving "thanks" makes me more productive and increases the proportion of my future interactions which are of positive sentiment rather than negative sentiment (i.e. I find it easier to be cordial and my writing style may change from something that would have provoked tiresome argument into one that might lead to productive discussion), but doesn't increase the amount of time I spend or how long I will edit for. But I gather that the researchers focused on new editors rather than already long-term ones, and it would be (almost) impossible for them to systematically determine how sentiment is affected in an accurate manner. — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Re: "In contrast, a quite similar project where researchers from Carnegie Mellon University had planned to study "How role-specific rewards influence Wikipedia editors’ contribution" was withdrawn in early 2019 after being met with resistance from editors on the English Wikipedia." To a researcher, a project on awarding Thanks may be quite similar to one on awarding Barnstars. To Wikipedians the two are very different, I must get dozens of times as many thanks as barnstars. ϢereSpielChequers 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right about hinting on the absurd equation of 'Thanks' and barnstars. Researchers embarrass themselves if they don't understand differences. -- Just N. (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I wrote this sentence and am very familiar with the similarities and differences, thank you - I am a Wikipedian as well. And nobody proposed an "equation". Also note that the German Wikipedia study that the preceding sentence refers to was about barnstar-like awards too.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Confusing commentary of yours, HaeB. My remarks above weren't aimed at attacking anyone. Why you are complaining to be hit I have no idea. At what location do you think you were part of the scene ("I wrote this sentence")? Playing with ridfdles? I definitely just wanted to consent to Were's notes. Regards, Just N. (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
What is so hard to understand about the fact that I, as the author of this review, wrote the sentence that WereSpielChequers quoted above, including the comparison (not "equation") that you called "absurd"? Especially after I already told you above? Experienced Wikipedia editors are usually able to read a wiki page's revision history, or, failing that, should at least be capable of inspecting the byline on top. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "People who spend more time mentoring and people who do more to monitor Wikipedia for vandalism report feeling more emotionally drained than others. Yet people who do more monitoring also feel more positive about their contributions". I believe that mentoring is demanding: you're unavoidably focussed on someone else instead of your own preferences. That it is counted as just the same (as a stressing factor) as patrolling against vandalism is indeed irritating me. I'd guess that the above short summary is failing to give a better understanding of researching these quite different experience fields. If not so, the academic research designers would have delivered an embarassing approach due to not being prepared to go deep enough into differenciation of special Wp working fields. -- Just N. (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: If the Wikipedians who responded to this survey feel (on average) differently that you yourself feel or would expect to feel, then that must mean that the researchers have made "embarrassing" mistakes? Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey HaeB, please read carefully! I said that it remains unclear which conclusion has to be drawn. It is unfair and not at all correct to ascribe (citation) *must mean* to me instead of correct 'could mean'. Regards, -- Just N. (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not what you said. You were criticizing the researchers of either failing to summarize their own results correctly (as mentioned in the review, the quoted sentences were taken from their blog post), or else of "deliver[ing] an embarassing approach due to not being prepared to go deep enough". And you were basing this criticism on the argument that the survey results did not match what you personally "believe" about mentoring and patrolling.
I think that at this point it might be useful to read that blog post and/or the preprint itself, before launching into even further speculations and judgments about the study.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For instance, we consider the topic abortion. The anti-abortion movement looks more represented than the abortion-rights one. It means that a user who randomly picks a Wikipedia’s page, has double the probability of reading an article related to anti-abortion than abortion rights. I was a little surprised to see this given the common wisdom that Wikipedia has—relative to America—a liberal bias. Perhaps that wisdom isn't so wise. Perhaps it's a case of "know your enemy". Or perhaps there is simply more to write about in terms of notable anti-abortion subjects. Answers on a postcard, please. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The claim that Wikipedia has a "liberal bias" is an absurd over-simplification. Wikipedia has an educated white male American/European bias, per its demographics. When it comes to things like science and religion, that means it's "liberal", but when it comes to things like feminism or racial justice, it has a more conservative bias. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration? (29,081 bytes · 💬)

  • An evident issue with simply counting the number of contributors is that it leaves aside the question of how efficiently they are able to work. I can think of quite a number of ways in which I work more efficiently than in 2003, when I started editing here (templates, a editing box which makes it quick to add references, text from Wikisource, better online resources from Internet Archive to Google Books to JSTOR ...). I don't think we should ever get complacent about the state of the editing community, but they can certainly be productive. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I have to go through the article again, but I think it reveals a major fallacy in its methodology, that the reduced numbers of articles created/edited when compared to the initial years shows gradual decline. You can't do that because at the outset nothing was written, and today it's much harder identifying topics to write about. A better methodology would be to compare the rates and numbers of editors that edit on news stories that are significant at the moment, e.g. recent notable newsworthy deaths of African American men and world events like Arab Spring or volcanos erupting. Perhaps if you would focus less on numbers and more on quality of editing - for example rate the quality of articles on post-2000 American presidents or politicians as they stood on their last day in office, or look at the quality of articles on new films (over the past 20 years) 2 months after their opening date. To me that would be a closer determinant of where and how Wikipedia is progressing. - kosboot (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is like a giant barn raising. Neighbors (in this case the world community) saw Larry and Jimbo moving in, came on by with hammer and nails, and stayed around for a couple of decades to make sure the wind wouldn't blow it down. The end of open collaboration? Ha! A great beginning! Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There are some major issues here:
    • Firstly the decline in active editors appears to have stopped a considerable time ago.
    • Secondly the curve on vandalism ends in 2010.
    • Thirdly we have "new" techniques for dealing with vandalism, which reduce the amount of effort required per incident. Notably edit filters, anti-vandal bots, STiki and Huggle
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC).
    The vandalism did not end; the graph did. It seems that our new technology has been effective in combating it, but not eliminating it. Moreover, the more insidious forms of attack require human, often expert, intervention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Another factor - as Wikipedia is a project that got lots of attention and press, lots of people popped over to try it out and see what it is. Most of these didn't stay long because the project didn't really match up with there inherent interests, so they lost interest and left. The remainder found that they enjoyed editing and stayed. This factor is pretty common is new things that get lots of media attention. Pokemon Go had the same pattern, lots signing up in curiosity, while a smaller number remain to this day. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I would compare writing a useful Wikipedia article -- not a GA or FA class article -- involves as much work as writing an undergraduate term paper. People who think writing term papers as fun are definitely a small, uncommon group. (Maybe the W?F should spend resources into keeping established editors, maybe as much as they spend on recruiting new talent.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Any undergraduate should be capable of writing a GA class article, and we have actually demonstrated this is true on the HOPAU project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I was referring to the amount of work -- required to research, organize, rewrite -- needed to accomplish this, not to the skill level needed. It's been many years since anyone could say, "Hey I have an hour to kill; I'm going to make some article on Wikipedia much better." (For the record, undergraduates are quite capable of writing term papers. Otherwise they would not be admitted to college in the first place.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The authors conclude that the "rise and decline pattern" of contributor participation "reflects a durable feature of peer production organizations rather than a pathology of Wikipedia." This statement is partly true, partly false, and dangerously misleading. Some Wikipedia editors, including some admins, express a pathological animus toward inexperienced editors. By doing so, they prevent Wikipedia from retaining new editors to carry on, and improve, Wikipedia. Regardless of what happens at other peer production organizations, Wikipedia cannot afford to continue squandering its most precious resource.
Wikipedia has become an important, perhaps indispensable, information source for knowledge seekers worldwide. I have been editing English Wikipedia since 2006. English Wikipedia's style of collaboration has been consistently hostile to new editors. I adapt quickly and I obey policies and guidelines (here and elsewhere), so I never had problems here. But I see hostility to inexperienced editors frequently.
My main computer is always logged in to Wikipedia. My edits are rarely reverted. However, when I edit from a library's computer or my phone and I don't bother to log in, more than half of my etits are reverted with no explanation. Many people have low self esteem and put others down in an attempt to feel better about themselves. Such individuals stand out in organizations, and English Wikipedia has them in abundance. In college fraternities, these individuals may make up 20% of the "fraters" (brothers), but they do 90% of the hazing. Patrolling edits is important work here. But guess which personality types are attracted to edit patrol. It's soooo easy to click that undo link.
I repeat: Wikipedia cannot afford to continue squandering its most precious resource.—Finell 21:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
... when I edit from a library's computer or my phone and I don't bother to log in, more than half of my e[d]its are reverted with no explanation. Shocking, but maybe not surprising. And it's even easier to revert a contribution when it's made by a new editor who can't possibly follow all our detailed policies and guidelines, as they don't care about them and just wanted to make a straightforward improvement. I think many experienced editors' default is to revert rather than leave it be, which is completely backwards. Additionally, there should be much more focus on improving an edit rather than reverting: it does take a lot of conscious effort because the latter is just so easy, whereas the former requires genuine engagement and some knowledge of the subject matter. I'm probably guilty of holding new editors to a double standard myself sometimes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
We obviously work on different WikiProjects, but my impression is that at least 75% of anonymous edits are pretty much worthless. I bet you could poll the members of the groups in which I participate and they would agree (because they're also the ones that revert them). I know I'm far from alone in wishing that registration would be mandatory. Anyone could still edit - but that would make them take greater responsibility. - kosboot (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd need to think a bit more carefully before putting a number on it, but 75% sounds reasonable to me. My point is more that I see more edits reverted than just the worthless ones. I don't think the issue here is anonymous users not taking "great responsibility". I think the issue is that our learning curve is more like a cliff they have to climb with no tools to work with. Lots of worthless edits I see are fully made in good faith and completely reasonable to make if you're not intricately familiar with the subject-specific Wikipedia conventions. — Bilorv (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Interesting article, but I am not sure about several things here. First, we do not necessarily require an ever-increasing editor base. Wikipedia needs to sustain itself, not create increasing revenue for shareholders. The threat of vandalism seems over-exaggerated (and the studies are ancient). In my own experience while reading (i.e. not searching for vandalism), visible vandalism has become quite rare, and well under control using various means of protection, anti-vandalism bots, and long term blocks. Silly vandalism is also comparatively easy to notice for readers and therefore harmless. The massive amounts of well-written advertising, on the other hand, are much harder to deal with, and an increased influx here could overwhelm the editors we still have (and things like ACPERM that make it impossible for good faith newbies to start an article with the instant gratification of the wiki model, i.e. without having to ask anyone else for permission, don't inconvenience professional advertisers much at all). I think we need to have a better approach to welcoming newbies (by that I don't mean pasting templates on their talk page, but actually looking at what they are trying to do and helping them learn how to achieve that) while showing the professional spammers the door. —Kusma (t·c) 22:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Hey Kusma, I consent to most all you wrote above. Good and structured diagnosis! And especially the procceeding with hopeful new editors: not "pasting templates on their talk page, but actually looking at what they are trying to do" is straight the right way. But let us stay honest: very few wikipedians are doing it like that. Maybe much too few. How to grow their numbers and group dynamics? That might be a key. And basically there is another basal factor (newbies are only a partial quantity): how to augment positive personal feedback to valuable contributors (not only the "stars"). More esteem for appreciated individuals could probably 'change the game' and consolidate the numbers of experienced contributors. Maybe while some more sophisticated methods to scare off narcisstic personalities are also necessary. -- Just N. (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Even if Wikipedia "do[es] not necessarily require an ever-increasing editor base", we still must attract and retain lots of new editors, constantly, just offset attrition. Active editors die and become disabled. Other active editors either reduce the time they devote to editing Wikipedia or quit editing altogether because of other responsibilities or interests and for myriad other reasons. Furthermore, for Wikipedia to remain useful, existing articles require frequent revision and new articles must be written as the world's collective knowledge increases at an astonishing rate. As a result, Wikipedia's text base constantly increases. As a result, we do require "an ever-increasing editor base" to maintain the ever-increasing text.—Finell 01:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "The top left panel shows English Wikipedia’s explosive contributor growth through March 2007 and its transition into a long, slow period of decline." Are we all looking at the same thing? I am seeing that for more than five years the number of active editors has been flat. I interpret this as Wikipedia reaching a "mature" stage of sustainability. The authors seem to have a preconceived view which they wish the figures to support. But they don't. Which rather undermines both the whole thesis and the authors' credibility. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed the graphs basically says that the German Wikipedia is the only one in a long-term decline, while the others have stabilized. Have they stabilized at a sustainable level given the increasing amount of content? Hard to tell. —Kusma (t·c) 22:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    This is why I stopped reading after two paragraphs. The authors clearly have their own opinion and don't mind claiming the data supports it even when it clearly does not. When the graph shows the trend has stabilized for years and the author's describe it as an lengthy decline, they lost any credibility at the outset. The Signpost should be ashamed to run this at length, making it look like a "fake news" site. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe its time to reconsider anonymous editing. Its time seems to have passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, I personally wouldn't miss IP-contribs. But OTOH we'd have to consider how to replace it by another low obstacle mechanism. How not to be easily confused with lassoing methods like instagram/facebook which always try to force membership on you? -- Just N. (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That's an interesting idea. Asking them to use their facebook account to login. Sock puppetry would then result in not just the loss of Wikipedia access, but their facebook account as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It is a strange experience for me to look at graphs that show that editor numbers have been stable for well over six years and then read all this talk about the "decline" in editors. And then a graph about vandalism and unconstructive editing that's ten years out of date, with no data since 2010. The fact of the matter is that editing Wikipedia was a fad, pure and simple, in 2007 when the number of editors peaked. There were millions of obvious opportunities to write articles easily back then, which I call the "low hanging fruit". Lots of people wrote an article or two, bragged to their friends, and moved on to the next fad. Given the nature of writing a successful encyclopedia open to the participation of anyone, that is entirely to be expected, as was the predictable decline when a large majority of articles about obviously notable topics were already written, and the faddishness factor faded. I see no signs of crisis. Backlogs at administrative noticeboards are manageable, bots do much of the easy work fighting vandalism, and human patrollers deal quite effectively with most of the rest. Our coverage of truly encyclopedic current events like the COVID-19 pandemic is excellent, and there are plenty of opportunities to write new articles for serious new volunteers willing to familiarize themselves with our policies and guidelines, even superficially. Yes, Wikipedia is an unfriendly place for promotional editors, POV pushers, incompetents, and the wide range of kooks and cranks. And, yes, some editors are jaded and unfriendly to newbies, and yes, we have systemic biases that many experienced editors work every day to overcome. But an analysis based on flawed data and flawed assumptions ends up as flawed research of limited value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just some random thoughts. People worry about driving away new editors. I also worry about driving away established editors. I find the editor experience to have changed in the 15 years since I started. I felt I had collaborative relationships with many other editors then, I don't feel that now. Many of the editors I remember working with are gone. That has taken some of the fun out of editing. I've been more or less inactive the last few months after I was accused of biting newcomers because I was reverting edits and leaving standard template messages on the reverted editor's talk page. I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to leave edits that I feel reduce the quality of Wikipedia just to avoid offending someone. I often did leave personalized messages when I reverted someone, but how much effort I was willing to put into that varied over time and circumstances.
I would also note that we do still have a vandalism problem. I constantly was seeing subtle unsourced changes to numbers, such as populations and temperatures on climate charts. I would have to take the time to search for reliables sources for the numbers (many were unsourced, or the sources were dead or out-of-date) to fix them. A couple of years ago I found a hoax page that was two years old. I wonder how many more such hoax pages are out there.
I like creating content. I no longer enjoy patrolling my watchlist. I probably will continue adding well-sourced content to Wikipedia, but I probably will not continue patrolling my watchlist since my style offends some people. - Donald Albury 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I enjoyed reading your observations and conclusions, Donald Albury. I like that 'values' based approach of yours, even if it seems to be called 'old-fashioned' nowadays. I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia 'psycho' development or just the reflection of the controversial society all around where we are living in real life. -- Just N. (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
US national COVID-19 forecast

Guys, your confidence of extrapolation is much wider than the range of your predictions. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Most of this discussion had concerned quantity of edits and edtors, not their quality. Looking back to the beginning, or even the stage reached when I came here in 2007, the average level and academic sophistication of our articles and our referencing has increased enormously. (I refer primarily to the WP I know best, enWP). The general attitude in 2007 was that anything that looked like a RS would do, and that it was enough to quote the headline; when it came to academic sources, all peer reviewed articles were equal, as were all published books. Except in the most extreme cases, we never looked at the actual source itself, and the possible bias of the content. We made generalizations based on the sketchiest evidence , as long as they fit our prejudice, and we rarely had detailed discussions except where different prejudices came into conflict. The clearest example is the content of medical science articles then and now, but other fields such as history and politics had similar problems. We accepted without hesitation articles on organizations and their leaders based on the most outrageous of promotional content. The net result is that we are left with half a million articles that need radical improvement or deletion. We no longer accept such content, and I give tribute to the heroes at AfC such as Kudpung, but also to the general impatience at such material now present at AfD.
Similarly, we 13 years ago had many established editors who could write superficial but plausible content over an absurdly wide range of topics. We may have slightly fewer active editors now, but the ones that stay are ones who can write and source properly--we have little hesitation in remove coi and other problematic editors.
I hope we remain forever a platform for amateurs, but I hope to see continuing progress in attracting a higher grade of these amateurs, and I hope that one continuing way to bring them here will be not just the formal educational programs, but the outreach programs of the local wikigroups. It is through specialized subject groups and local groups that we will make progress. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Your last sentence has caught me, DGG. Just by curiosity a question: which specialized subject groups and local groups are you personally part of? Do you seriously estimate that nearly anybody in Wikipedia would join that groups if they were available? How much time and free capacities do have 21th century people on average? Please don't misunderstand this questioning as attacking, it's just considering possibilities in the world of today. Regards, Just N. (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm on the board of WM-NYC, and was active in the ed program in its first years; I'm quite active on some of the admin boards & wikiprojects and subject workgroups here, though which ones they are varies with time, & have been a member of arbcom for 5 of the last 6 years & before that active in OTRS, and will be again. But I'm not a fair example: I'm a retired librarian. However, most of the other people I've worked with on these groups whom I know are not at all retired--most hold full time jobs or student commitments. At enWP I'm only the 118th most active editor, and only the 50th most active admin. Most of those above me on the list whom I know also have full time jobs or commitments. I personally would not ever have been able to do as much on & off WP as some of them do. Many of the people in WM-NYC are only somewhat active there and slightly active in WP, but still find both valuable enough to have joined. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd concur with many of the above comments. The number of active editors is now clearly stable, and has been for some years. Vandalism attempts may have increased, but so has the bot capability to detect them. The rush to create any kind of article on anything, with or without citations (mainly without), has happily abated, leaving an immense quantity of work which has steadily improved in quality, to the point where many WikiProjects rightly do not tolerate any additions not supported by reliable sources. The proportion of articles classed as Good Articles has quietly and steadily increased. Has the time come to end IP editing? - there's no need for any kind of pressure or advertising, just a simple 'to edit, please log in or create an account'. 'Everyone' will still be able to edit, with that simple step. Wikipedia lives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "In fact, not even Wikipedia has been able to maintain a stable community of volunteers over the past two decades" - well, not having existing for two decades would seem to make this a tautology, "long, slow period of decline" - looks pretty steady since 2013. I see no cause for concern here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is one of the few Signposts' articles I've ever read and the first to ever comment too. I really enjoyed the analysis. I have been managing and studying virtual fandom communities over the course of 3-5 years and even there, there is the same phenomenon with activity. Even if no community work actually is needed. You get a growth period because of having porous boundaries, with the growth comes ill-faith activity usually in forms of trolling and cyberbullying, you get forced to start activating defenses against these kinds of behaviors by using rules to regulate interaction or certain standards users must adhere to before being allowed to join, you start banning people, all this starts the stale period and eventually, because of a lack of new activity, it starts the decline period. Many virtual communities work like pyramid schemes in that sense. In order to have new activity, whatever that is, you need users to get interested in the project and in order to get people interested in the project, you need to give them new activity. You must also factor in the fact that most new activity comes from not-so-new-but-still-new users because of the constant need of new insiders as they traverse into boundary positions, a rather harsh socio-reality, and you get left with the fact that virtual volunteer communities continuously need new people in order to survive. The reason for that is since it is a volunteering job, you actually "pay" people with happiness and as time goes by, that happiness gets ever the more so hard to find (basic psychiatric reasons) so that sets in motion the whole cycles described in countless of analysis related to these kind of communities. On my opinion, I think it would be better if we could accept the whole process described above and treat it as a given truth, acknowledge it and try to find ways to make our communities' futures brighter co-existing with that aspect. Medicine works by treating death as a given truth and working from there trying to postpone it (maybe even indefinitely) or even defeat it - if that will ever be possible, - not by pretending it doesn't exist. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Hill is always a good read. I see this essay in line with TeBlunthuis, Shaw & Mako Hill 2018. What I enjoy about their approach is that they skip the alarmism we sometimes see in the movement. And indeed, the surprising coincidence of the growth/decline-pattern in several large Wikipedia editions remains crying for an explanation. I have given some thought to chronological aspects of wikis and find it a desideratum to learn more about these patterns. From a historian's point of view, I would speak of typical periods in the evolution of a wiki, and am interested how to define them better. Ziko (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Signpost covered the 2015 rally in editing volume five years ago. Why waste electrons on stuff written by people who haven't noticed that it is now 2020 and editing is still above the 2014 minima? The reality is that we are a volunteer project that happens to be on the internet. There are lots of volunteer projects out there which have long outlived their founding generation, if only because few humans live to be a hundred and plenty of charities do. To understand how our community is changing and what its potential future is you need to look at volunteer organisations that have lasted a lot longer than we have. It would also help if you or the WMF ran some editor surveys to find out basic things like our changing age profile, and how much of our activity is moving to Wikidata. ϢereSpielChequers 16:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • An interesting exercise would be to create charts of contributors to Draft namespace and combined contributions to Draft- and Main-spaces, and compare these with mainspace-only contributions. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Open collaboration is the most important part of being a Wiki. Otherwise its just a one-sided encyclopedia. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • When discussing "a surreptitious product placement campaign in its illustrations" (or any other similar behavior), could the name of this company be made less conspicuous (e.g., mentioned only in footnotes)? By mentioning this company three times in the text body, the Signpost is making free advertisement for it. Apokrif (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Traffic report: Now for something completely different (798 bytes · 💬)

  • The Golden State Killer got on trial, and I'm still waiting for Elizabeth Holmes to get out of the "Upcoming trials" sidebar on Current events -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The Marsha P. Johnson description uses pronouns they and she but due to the complexity of the situation it's probably better to avoid pronouns altogether and just refer to Marsha as "Johnson". — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2020-08-02&oldid=1125230817"