Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2021-03-28

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 2021-03-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees (2,158 bytes · 💬)

  • Big support for both the general concepts and specifics in here. Ratification by Community is critical, most logically by half of communities (or, perhaps, half of communities that formally consider ratification) and half of all editors (either by editors participating in that ratification or by active editors represented by that community) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not Fandom, and community takes care of this just fine. No need for the WMF to be nosy. Firestar464 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bri: Regarding DS consultation comments, we arbs are trying not to say too much because the consultation is intended to be an opportunity for the community to speak, not us. I personally am going to refrain from sharing my perspectives too much unless it seems like doing so will prompt further discussion or feedback from the community. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The lack of formal consultation with projects before the board approved the UCoC means it risks being seen as imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation from above, rather than being seen as a legitimate community endeavor. The UCOC's creation was mandated by a mostly unelected board of trustees to be eventually placed upon the community, though editors had mooted such concepts before. The editing community can suggest changes all it wants, and the WMF can incorporate some of even most of those, but it's quite clear that if the community opposed the whole idea of UCOC that wouldn't stop the WMF from establishing it, short of perhaps a FRAMBAN-like global crisis. The UCOC is not at risk of "being seen as imposed"; it is being imposed. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia (2,217 bytes · 💬)

  • Dear Editors, I am somewhat intrigued that this 2008 essay got (re)published now in Signpost. It is good and should be promoted but I wonder if there was any specific motivation behind it? ....considering that this is 2021 I think Wikipedia is not discussed enough as digital commons and aspects of infrastructure, resources, labour of sharing and care is absent. Wonder what you think if this is the context and moment to update it? Would you be up for it? Maybe a section of 'the cost of free' (both as freedom as well as free resource) is due? --Zblace (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • 1st - edits to any essay in WP: space are always welcome. In general, the more edits and the longer the essay has lasted, the better the essay reflects the community's view on the issue. But please, do your editing at the original essay, e,g, , at Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia, not at our republished version where the change will not be seen much after a month or so. The motivation for republishing is usually the same: a "new", controversial topic has arisen and the community seems to have forgotten that we have an essay on the topic. For this issue of The Signpost the topic of interest is the Enterprise API also discussed at News and notes, In the media, and From the archives. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for responding! It is a bit more clear why you published it, though I think the discourse should be updated (but maybe in separate essay). --Zblace (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • *laughs in Spanish* -Gouleg🛋️ (Stalk • Hound) 14:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes (8,485 bytes · 💬)

To be honest, my inclination is to take the opposite opinion of this than the author seems to, and see it as a good thing if people are reusing our text. I write content with the full knowledge that it's licensed under a copyleft arrangement and that it is available for use in a commercial setting. I guess legally speaking, Google and the like are maybe not fulfilling the licence by using our content without direct attribution (although there is a clear link saying "Wikipedia" there), but honestly I see it as a sort of badge of honour when I ask Google Nest a question and it spews my own words back at me, or I find some random stuff about Rwandan bus services, and accompanying map, that I wrote about 15 years ago sitting in a Cambridge published revision guide... I can see why in principle it would be good for Google et al to support the Foundation, but I don't see it as an absolute must and personally I give my time to the project principally to help make the world's knowledge freely and easily available, not because I think Wikipedia itself is the absolute be-all-and-end-all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(regarding attribution, the text above the "Publish changes" button even says "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.") ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: Ah fair enough, that makes sense. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if that is actually correct for off-wiki use. It doesn’t seem consistent with the authorship/source attribution noted by Creative Commons [1] ☆ Bri (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess the main point is that the attribution history is clearly and obviously available, which it would be if you click the page link and then click the history link. If that's not sufficient and a direct full attribution is required, then many of our processes such as WP:MERGE and WP:COPYWITHIN would also fall foul of the rules.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, going from the Creative Commons page, a link of just "Wikipedia" is the book example of an incorrect attribution. It doesn't show the title of the Wikipedia page, at least not in a way that makes it clear that it is is the title of a Wikipedia page; it doesn't show any authors, not even in the way of "Wikipedia editors" or something like that; it doesn't even mention the Creative Commons license. Most importantly, I think, is that the Knowledge box does in no way mention that the content within it is taken from Wikipedia. The link is presented simply as something leading further on, rather than a very necessary link to a source. In my eyes, this seems to be aimed at steering people away from actually clicking the link and having them stay on their respective search platforms as an effective silo of knowledge. This obviously leads to the effect I mentioned in the article where people think some employee at Google wrote the letters in the relevant Wikipedia article and made the conscious decision to edit them to fit their political agenda. This works in part because Google has decided to present itself not as a gateway to knowledge, but as a sole hub of it. And once Wikipedia gets involved in that, I think its right that the WMF pushes for more recognition of our work in this regard. Zarasophos (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I share the author's concern, but I'm not really sure what we can do in this case. ~★ nmaia d 00:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • One thing we can do is make sure that we don't delete our article. When patrolling deletion discussions and searching for sources, I often find that our content has been re-used elsewhere and sometimes even attributed to other people, when books are created from our content. By deleting our original, we then destroy the attribution audit trail and others can then claim ownership of our work. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    Laying on the self-parody a bit heavily, isn't it? --JBL (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Really clear-sighted and important article, Zarasophos. Thanks! (Personally, I found the realisation a few years ago that Google, and to an increasing extent the WMF itself, were beginning to make huge amounts of money from unpaid, volunteer labour a pretty considerable turn-off. One thing I stopped doing at that time was spending hundreds of pounds on reference material ... I started to think that that, at least, was something the Foundation and the various re-users like Google should provide, and to some small extent at least, i.e. the WMF's Wikipedia Library, this has happened. The situation with attribution is even more of an issue with Wikidata, which has a zero-attribution licence. The abortive Knowledge Engine looked like it was heading in the same direction – using Wikimedia volunteer labour as a money-spinner for some of the world's richest companies. Everyone should realise a simple fact — namely that one aspect of contributing here is that you work for free so that Google, Bing, Amazon etc. can make even more money. That's why they support the effort – and what they give is a pittance compared to what they make.) --Andreas JN466 18:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I'm very interested in seeing how Enterprise shakes out and where we'll end up in a few years. Potentially, if the current monopolised structures on the internet are broken up and a freer net returns, Wikipedia will be able to take advantage of that. Zarasophos (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent article. This is one reason why I refuse to bother with Template:Short description on articles. Their main benefit seems to be to provide content for scrapers like Amazon Alexa and Google, and if those guys want me to add them they can pay me. Blythwood (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I've also had to deal with a four minute vandalistic edit that managed somehow to enter a Google Knowledge graph and which perpetuated a falsehood about a living person many days after Wikipedia had been corrected. What we need for dealing with these (hopefully rare) incidents is for WMF to liaise with Google to establish a direct channel of communication with them so that administrators or other trusted editors can immediately flag up gross errors to them directly, and with authority, instead of relying, as I had to, on clicking the Suggest an edit button and hoping someone might eventually get around to reading my plea to remove defamatory content. This would only be needed for really serious breaches as outlined above, but both organisations have a responsibility to ensure lies and libellous statements are rapidly removed and at the moment we're simply blaming the other and not doing much about it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this, more communication would definitely be good. The information relationship between Wikipedia and dominant search engines shouldn't be one-sided. Zarasophos (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Zarasophos (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

From the editor: What else can we say? (15,384 bytes · 💬)

I know the subject in question that is being alluded to here (I'm the one who raised the matter with The Signpost I believe). Was there an official threat of banning or something that has led to this? Where's the editorial discussion that brought about this convoluted way of discussing the problem? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

    • I think 3 folks sent me that story, so I'd have had it anyway. You should know that I'm fairly skittish on actually publishing these stories. They need to be done IMHO, but everything has to be just right, quadruple checked, etc. to publish. If I feel that I don't understand how people are interpreting wp:outing this week I may not publish at all. i intend to keep doing these stories. It's not that I'm a coward if I don't publish if there's a 5% chance of getting banned, It's that I intend to do 12 plus stories on this general topic this year, and it only takes one story a little bit off to get permanently banned. How can I get to 12 if I get banned after the 3rd one? I take full credit (and blamr) for these stories, but it was approved by another editor. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If Signpost ever are forced to write in "The case of the boss's father's article" style then make up some fake names to increase understanding and emotional engagement in the story. Every time I consider the tension between WP:OUT and WP:COI (or identifying other issues like off-wiki brigading and harassment) I reach the conclusion "there is no solution to this tension". But no answer on the matter is not an option. Perhaps a well-planned RfC could generate a worthwhile discussion. I think the Signpost's reporting, including the four linked articles, is valuable, but what's less obvious is that there is a consistent approach to outing which allows such writing but disallows privacy violations as much as possible. — Bilorv (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • You're right about adding names to the story. I found a list of {{Unisex names]] that should work! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING as written is a childish piece of policy that is an embarrassment to what, after twenty years, should be a mature project. It is unbalanced. It is reminiscent of the "libel laws" practised in dictatorships, where you end up in jail when you dare criticise a functionary. It is not fit for purpose. It's been regularly abused by the likes of Tenebrae and Wifione (for the real-world damage the latter admin did, see Newsweek) – all they had to do was shout "harassment" and "outing", and trigger-happy admins would threaten, block and ban people drawing attention to their editing.

The policy's chilling effect is evident from the fact that in Tenebrae's case, someone created an SPA to raise what were – with the benefit of hindsight – clearly justified concerns, rather than risking their real account. Can we really blame them, when WP:OUTING calls for an "immediate block" (rather than suppressing the edit and advising the editor on what channels to use instead) for any post touching even remotely on an editor's identity, regardless of whether there is a good-faith concern about the integrity of the encyclopedia or not?

All the SPA in Tenebrae's case posted was diffs, as one would in an ArbCom case, yet they were still blocked in response to Tenebrae's cry of "harassment and attempted outing", which was immediately endorsed by Baseball Bugs and Knowledgekid87 and swiftly responded to with a block, all done in less than two hours. Quick work! As it was, another six years passed before the issue was raised again – off-wiki, i.e. in the press – and appropriate action was taken on-wiki.

Drmies, are you not embarrassed by this block today? It's kind of telling that the two administrators who blocked the Nola Carveth SPA and suppressed the discussion of Tenebrae’s COI editing (now thankfully unsuppressed again by Beeblebrox) are among those who object most loudly to the sort of bare-faced lying that Wifione and Tenebrae (or Qworty, for that matter) got away with for so long. In other words, even admins who intellectually understand the problem still are drawn to do the wrong thing when actually faced with such a situation, as though on autopilot – through peer pressure, I guess. What is the solution? --Andreas JN466 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Oh, I don't know if there is a solution (banning Tenebrae isn't a solution to a systemic problem, though it is the right thing to do), but what that editor was doing was going about something in completely the wrong way. Hindsight is 20/20, but dropping a brief but accusatory nugget out of a much larger matter on the most visible talk page on the project, that's not helpful. If that editor can find their way to Jimbo's talk page, I would expect them to be able to email ArbCom--or, in this case, the administrator who blocked them. And if they had done the latter, this administrator would have looked into it. But I have kind of an aversion to shit storms that come in out of nowhere. Six years passed--the editor could have emailed me or anyone else a thousand times in those years. Which, ironically, would have greatly reduced the harm done by the COI editor. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I am involuntarily reminded of Li Wenliang, who was accused of "making false comments" that had "severely disturbed the social order". I am sure someone told him, too, that he just went about reporting the problem the wrong way. Really, I cannot see much difference. --Andreas JN466 17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • That's all you, this version of Godwin's law. Let's be clear: your Nora is an experienced editor who knew what the better way was. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Judging by commentary on WO, their "experience" may have told them that the "better way" is a mirage, because there is no sign of it working. That seems to be the consensus over there. As I see it, you were simply played, just like admins defending Wifione were. Tenebrae cried "harassment and attempted outing". Feeling your "aversion to shit storms" triggered, you obliged him instantly. You went for the easy satisfaction of insta-blocking a throwaway account and had a nice pat on the back from Tenebrae for getting everyone off his back, along with some flattery and a lecture from him on what a great editor he is. And six years later, you're left telling Tenebrae how "pissed" you are because he deceived you. And yet you think you did everything right, and would act the same way again today. --Andreas JN466 08:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
        • If you're not prepared to read WO, I believe AndyTheGrump, among others, has a more comprehensive grasp than me of how the "better way" failed in this case. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 09:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think Smallbones raises some very good points re the tension between outing and paid editing. I have mixed feelings about Tenebrae, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, but here is what I don't understand about the approach taken by the indeffed editor Nola Carveth. The appraoch they took was aimed at the COI, when simultaneously the McDonagh and Lovece articles were a mess. I know that without going back too far in the page history because they were still a mess a few days ago. I'd have thought that focusing on the terrible shape of those articles would have been more effective than the path taken by that account. Remember that there are several systemic problems at work here. One of them is that bad articles that are little more than resumes are more common than not. Another is that dealing with those bad articles, especially when intent paid and/or COI editors and socks are buzzing around, is a drain on editors. It is time-consuming, sometimes risky, and demoralizing. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Didn't you answer your own question at the end of your post? "Dealing with those bad articles, especially when intent paid and/or COI editors and socks are buzzing around ... is time-consuming, sometimes risky, and demoralising." Tenebrae was prolific, and his COI affected hundreds of articles, judging by the number of Wikipedia articles (about 650) mentioning/referencing Lovece or his wife today. I don't think anyone will ever bother ... each mention is probably no big deal when viewed in isolation, and those articles that are likely to have strong NPOV issues seem to be fairly obscure, fancruft almost, with only a small number of page views per day. My best guess is Nola Carveth wanted to illustrate the systemic problem in a prominent place where it would get eyes. If the problem got solved, as things sometimes did on Wales's page in those days, good; if not, then a blocked SPA sock was no big loss, and at least the system would fail publicly, and be seen to have failed. That wouldn't be my style, but I can't deny it would have its own logic to it, and even a kind of integrity and good faith, given that there was an actual problem that needed addressing, and that whoever raised it would inevitably put themselves at risk of being blocked. --Andreas JN466 22:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • By the way, imagine for a moment if Tenebrae had played the Wikipedia game with greater finesse, had disclosed his identity at the outset and been less aggressive. He'd have made COI a non-issue and I suspect that the articles in question would be much the same as they were before this fiasco. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
      • As if to further make the above point, a well-known organization, ADL, has been engaged in so-called "white hat" COI editing on various articles throughout the project, and just posted on the COI noticeboard that, in effect, it will continue to do so and if we don't like it we can pound sand. That brings to mind how so-called white-hat COI editing can be just as much of a time suck as the "black hat" variety that is a drain on community resources. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • When I was a member of arb com , after several years of trying, I with the help of other arbs persuaded the committee after several year of trying, to accept some responsibility for enforcement of the terms of use, particularly regarding paid coi. The argument that was successful in this was exactly he need for dealing with confidential information--it was decided that this would be handled primarily by the checkusers, as this was the likely confidential part of the data. Since then the committee itself has become more involved, and I am glad to see it. It's the only fair way of resolving the dilemmma between privacy and coi. I think it is be clear that the case leading to the article was a particular difficult one, and I remain uncertain whether the correct decision was made. I have the impression that others involved may feel similarly. If humans deal with matters involving other humans, they will make mistakes. Working jointly , ascheckusers do in difficult cases and arb com always does, the mistakes will be less frequent than if a single admin handles matters, but they will still happen. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I made a separate paragraph for this, because having worked with them, I think our current rules untenable. The conflict between privacy and coi enforcement is far too frequent and the results of our processes are in this sort of situation far too unpredictable . The people who have commented that there is no safe way for an admin or other editor to proceed are correct. The net effect is that we are all generally more likely to deal with coi by guesswork than information, which is not a satisfactory way to resolve the dilemma.
I suggest that we say, as the WMF rules on privacy I think permit us to say, that in order to protect the encyclopedia, editors who are not editing in good faith cannot expect to have their privacy fully protected, and that conflict of rules be resolved in favor of protecting the encyclopedia. This is explicitly stated with respect to sockpuppettry; I suggest this may need to be specifically stated witth respect to COI. . (I'm not making a formal proposal here, and am therefore not suggesting what we and the Foundation might consider acceptable specific wording, and I am not giving references, because the wording is spread out over a considerable number of pages on various parts of the site.) And of course, I personally will continue to act in the most conservative way according to the generally accepted interpretation, to the extent I can figure it out. . DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the first step is to turn WP:COI into policy. This might dissuade vested editors and administrators from flaunting their COIs and daring mere mortals from doing anything about it, as I have personally observed in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments (1,599 bytes · 💬)

We all love monuments specially when they are produced in magnificent photos like here. werldwayd (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Absolutely gorgeous photography! Congrats to all participants, and especially the winners. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Astonishingly beautiful pictures. When I do vote in these things I find it an impossible task to pick the best ones when the standard is so high so congratulations to those who got "top anything" and thanks to all participants. Well worth looking at the Commons page with full results. — Bilorv (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
especially #1 in full resolution. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan (12,952 bytes · 💬)

It's not just the Japanese Wikipedia. The Croatian Wikipedia's issues are well-known, and on Azerbaijani Wikipedia you can read a charming article about the "alleged Armenian genocide, also known as the Armenian reloction"[2] and another article about the "Genocide of Armenians against the Turkish-Muslim population in Eastern Anatolia"[3] (which did not occur according to mainstream genocide studies). Turkish Wikipedia's coverage is a bit better but not all the way there[4] I suspect that for languages spoken mostly by members of one ethnolinguistic group their Wikipedias tend to reflect the inbuilt biases of that group. (t · c) buidhe 23:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article by Sato specifically mentions the Croatian Wiki and her explanations for the Japanese Wiki fits in with what you say. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • One positive aspect of the UCOC I look forward to is the WMF actually maybe feeling confident to simply remove the racist and nationalist lies on the smaller Wikis and ban the people responsible for them. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Haaretz commented last month that "Therefore, the articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very different in English, Hebrew and Arabic." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There are also similar issues on English Wikipedia. They tend to arise either in articles of special interest to a particular - generally fairly small (in a global sense) - geographic audience, to which a particular narrative appeals (and in respect of which others may have no opinion at all, often due to ignorance of the subject matter), or in articles about a subject on which speakers of English as a first language (or residents of the Anglosphere) tend to have a particular, shared, point of view that may be accepted as mainstream and unquestioned by such persons, no matter where they come from, because it is shared by so many of them. In the case of both types of article, the issues are probably more difficult to spot than on Wikipedias in less prominent languages. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point, the only thing that is going to solve the whitewashing problems on the smaller Wikipedias is if the WMF themselves intervene, which is long past due. X-Editor (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I recommend anyone reading Sato's article also check out Saebou's response (in Japanese) to an earlier version of the article. It looks like most of the glaring errors she pointed out have been rectified in the Slate article (such as a failure to distinguish between full and semi protection), but one that remains is the idea that the few admins "have power over what goes on in the platform". No one wants to become an admin because it subjects you to intense scrutiny and harassment with so little gain. I would attribute the prevalence of historical revisionism less to admins' exercise of power than to the lack of it. The idea of retaining and growing the editorbase and admin corps as a challenge to the project is pretty much nonexistent on Japanese Wikipedia, and the community there tends to be hellbent on protecting itself by chasing away problematic good-faith editors rather than guiding them in the right direction. Nardog (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I think, Sato's observation very accurately pointed out the problem of Japanese version of Wikipedia. Saebou's comment looking away from the reality of such problem and jumping on Sato's mistake which don't matter with the existance of the problem. It even distorts the facts.
Saebou explained the problem is derived from the shortage of admins, despite recently the already few admin of Japanese version has been dismissed for unreasonable reasons like User:Bellcricket or User:Triglav, further reducing the number. The view that "no one wants to be an admin" is contrary to the fact. Right-wing groups and religious right-wingers want to gain managerial status and to parge their enemy of faith acting in Japanese version. Currently, the Japanese version of the management group is already occupied by whom allowing right-wing propaganda works. They rather promoting such propaganda.
It appears to the fact of Higashi-Ikebukuro runaway car accident continues to be unable to add to the article Kozo Iizuka. Kozo Iizuka was the representative of the spiritual group Tōkyūjutsu.[1] Information hiding work by group members had become a hot topic in the Japanese media immediately after the car accident, such as the website of the group being deleted immediately after the car accident. That was one of the main reason why Iiduka was ciritisized, as like as the police didn't arrested Iiduka.
Saebou explains that the reason why the fact of car accident cannot be added is, because the Japanese version takes a strict stance against personal defamation. But in Japanese version, there exist many articles which contains gossips. It is a welcome and double standard. The fact that the content reported in WP:Rs cannot be written on Wikipedia violates "freedom of expression".
And Saebou NEVER mention to the religious background of Iiduka and to the action of groups menbers in Japanese version. In reality, the reason why the article cannot be written in Japanese version is that some managers allowing and cooperating to the violation of the policies and guidelines of the people involved in religious groups (WP:MEAT). The current state of the Japanese version of Wikipedia is perceived as abnormal in Japan, and it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.
Saebou argued to solve the problem if new experts participate in the editing. However, experts have already participated in the editing and are blocked from unreasonable reasons such as "Tired the community". Don't bring in new experts, unblock old experts.--UikiHedeo (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hexirp: Thank you for your comment. But I already read what Kitamura = Saebou wrote, and I think Kitamura =Saebou's comment looking away from the reality of such problem and jumping on Sato's mistake which don't matter with the existance of the problem. Please read my bad English composition again. Thank you. --UikiHedeo (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Notable omission

It is mentioned in that piece without naming the author, the Wikipedia editor involved, or the persons with whom that editor has a conflict of interest (according to the Arbitration Committee). The Daily Dot article was not linked. The Arbitration Committee motion was also curiously absent from the arbitration report, although such things are normally covered. Mo Billings (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that ArbCom mentioned something about "using editorial discretion", but that goes without saying - every sensible writer uses their discretion.You use your discretion, I use mine. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: So this was not an oversight but a deliberate editorial decision on your part to not report on a motion by the Arbitration Committee? Mo Billings (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mo Billings: Please understand that I'm not trying to discourage you from writing stories about coi editing. I likely have different ways of going about it or different goals, but that's normal for different publications. I will discourage you from trying to tell us what we're supposed to publish. About 3 people have done that over the last couple of years, and they all get the same answer - we're an independent newspaper and make our own editorial decisions. If you'd like to submit a piece to The Signpost' on coi editing, please email it to me. Note that I won't reprint something from Wikipediocracy. There's too much baggage there. They've outed too many people or otherwise unfairly attacked too many people.
As far as the ways we go about writing a paid editing story (you can't always neatly divide into COI/paid but I usually prefer paid) I look for classic newsworthiness, e.g about real public figures. An editor that nobody outside of Wikipedia has ever heard of usually won't work for me. It's better if it's about some issue that's known outside of Wikipedia - not some internal grudge match. But other publication have other ways of doing things. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I'm not sure what question you thought I was asking, but it definitely wasn't the one you answered. My question is very simple - did you choose to leave the Arbitration Committee's motion to sanction Tenebrae out of this issue's Arbitration report? Mo Billings (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Plus CPAC misinformation"

Oh. Misinformation about CPAC, not by CPAC. I'm not a fan of CPAeC, but that sub-headline is going to reinforce a lot of biases in people who don't click through to the article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The sub-head is "Plus CPAC misinformation" which allows both readings, same as the Reuters. I've learned to be skeptical about situation where someone vandalizes an article. Then somebody takes a screen shot of the vandalism in the few minutes that it is online and then posts the screenshot on twitter and complains about someone or somebody. Sometimes you shouldn't take it ar face value. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary? (13,772 bytes · 💬)

Wikimedia LLC/Enterprise API

  • I fully support some mechanism by which Wikipedia can rely on revenues from alternative commercial sources and not just donations. This is a move in the right direction. werldwayd (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here we go. WMF wants to be a Big Tech (must haved been growing a long time). Small-hands-fear? -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
[9] editors to pee in a bottle. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I posted a few skeptical initial comments about the WMF's move. Based on their answers, I'm convinced that the current WMF is approaching this as cautiously as they should, and in good faith. I am still very concerned that *future* versions of the WMF will use this as a precedent for cultural change and greater commercial engagement. An organization is only as ethical as the people that work there. Right now, the WMF has good folks who really believe in Wikipedia's mission. It's critical that that continues to be true in the years to come. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Ganesha811 Would you mind linking to the discussion location (in on-wiki)? Would be useful to see. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
It looks like meta: Talk:Wikimedia Enterprise#Letting the wolves in at the door ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If funding for the servers and core staff is ringfenced and limited to the sum of small donations, then in theory this scheme does not threaten editorial independence. It simply equates to licensing the Wikipedia name in order to fund other projects. That sounds acceptable, in theory. WMF must never forget that the value of their flagship product comes from at-will volunteer labor. Tread very carefully. Rollo (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rollo: I started a discussion with them asking if their initial proposal limiting revenue raised this way to a minority (thus 49%) of the funding could be reduced to 1/3rd, and somewhat to my surprise - they agreed! Nosebagbear (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Good. Now stop duping readers for donations that don't go to editors. feminist (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Glad to see someone beat me to raising this point. — Bilorv (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It is abhorrent that G***** are duping half of their audience, according to a study quoted in the well-chosen "From the archives", into misattributing free, decentralised volunteer labour to their leeching selves. Those who think there is any "mutually beneficial" aspect to this relationship are wrong. If G***** removed their Knowledge Graph, all data taken from Wikipedia, and all search result links to Wikipedia, then we are a big enough information source that they would see users flocking to already-better search engines such as DuckDuckGo, Ecosia, MetaGer and Qwant. It's also a PR disaster to have the news story "G***** kills Wikipedia". So both the WMF and our community need to get things straight: we are the ones with the leverage here. Brand loyalty for a search engine is fickle, but no Wikipedia 2 project has ever been successful. If we believed it was a big enough concern that a company was leeching off us then we could organise a blackout of our website that we pledge only to stop if they donate X amount of money or accede to some demands. A very careful and persuasive formulation of our argument as an anti-Big Tech or pro-"money to run our servers" message could get most of the general public on our side. (And we wouldn't even need WMF permission: we have the technical power to blackout and let them see what happens if they Office Action wheel war.) Admittedly, this situation is extreme and far-fetched and I know non-profits prefer stability in donations to, well, extortion, but I'm just aiming to prove that we have the power and we should not underestimate how we can use it if we organise. — Bilorv (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agree. However, our standard CC BY-SA licensing of information allows commercial distribution. So it appears that tech giants currently have a free pass with no obligation to thank the WMF monetarily, as long as they correctly attribute the info (which Knowledge Graph at least does). Brandmeistertalk 14:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • They are doing no less than the legal bare minimum, I agree, but there's no way they haven't done enough user experience testing to understand whether the average viewer knows where the information is coming from. If they wanted all viewers to be aware that the content comes from unpaid volunteers (and you can join them!) then there are ten different ways they could redesign the Knowledge Graph without interfering with its ease of use. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree with Bilorv, there's a big difference between doing what your lawyers think would prevent a successful lawsuit, and doing what actually acknowledges the people who performed the labor that makes your profits possible. This looks a whole lot more like the former. Will the new relationship with WMF make commercial WP database users more likely to move in the better direction? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've no issue with strengthening the income base, esp. if that means there's less need for us to donate (as well as contributing to content). That said, "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" — will this mean that the big, bad tech corporations... sorry, the friendly providers of all that wonderful technology that enriches our lives (and keeps our servers humming)... will have a say over content etc.? No doubt, very little say, at least initially, but slippery slopes and all that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Dear DoubleGrazing, I hope you will find that the various technical and policy procedures put in place to protect against precisely that concern - as described in the Principles and the FAQ#Financial - are suitably thorough. Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
      • And I've posted a dissent from the Foundation's line. While it's not a given that customers will have an effect, intentional or accidental, on Wikipedia, IMHO it remains a possible outcome. -- llywrch (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Uptick in editing

This is newsworthy. But I'm not sure why the Signpost should rely on the rather indirect "Time between edits" metric which has a lot of shortcomings (e.g. unable to exclude bot edits or to focus on mainspace edits), when filtered monthly edit count stats are readily available now and show the same thing more clearly.

(By the way, it should be noted that the while the volume of edits has been increasing, the number of active editors remains stagnant. Still, its former downwards trend that gave rise to so much "decline of Wikipedia" discussion and theorizing has already stopped about half a decade ago.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems to line up with the increase in users making 100+ edits per month since the start of the pandemic. Perhaps a reflection of increased time for superusers (or use of WP editing as a stress coping mechanism). The more casual user brackets (1-4 and 5-24 edits per month) remain stubbornly flat. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
But how much is just administration? Categories, short description, tagging, general fixes (See Also --> See also) and so on. It could be nice with some statistics... Christian75 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I like Time Between Edits because it is such a Direct measure. You know it isn't going to be effected by things such as the creation of draftspace. True at least two spikes in it over the years have been attributed to bot activity, but I find it interesting to log that as well. And yes it isn't the only stat - if anyone had time available to expand the story then looking at another stat would have been a logical route. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


@WereSpielChequers: Can you please take another look at the first sentence of this single-paragraph section in the singpost? It appears to be incomplete and I'm not sure what you're trying to say so I can't make any suggestions to fix it. Specifically, it seems to be lacking a verb. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that pre-publication but let it slide. Perhaps As the world comes to 12 months of lockdowns, we recall ... ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
That works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I wondered if the 2021 uptick might be linked to the "race for 6M" articles on English wikipedia. That was clearly an internal "campaign" which would account for the regular contributors making higher contributions than usual rather than attracting new contributors. We've had COVID lockdowns in my country on and off since March 2020. If lockdowns were the cause of increased editing, the uptick would have started back in 2020. I don't think an increase in 2021 can be attributed solely to lockdowns. Kerry (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Our 6 millionth article came last January at a time when we were doing 10 million edits every 62 days or so, so I don't see a link. The uptick did start a year ago, and I put that in the Signpost, but this latest spike went above anything we saw last year. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Article creation is a drop in the ocean compared to the many edits that the grinders make. They were chasing the billionth edit which was this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, a new preprint that came out a week ago examines exactly this question in a more thorough fashion (finding that "contributions to the English Wikipedia increased by over 20% compared to the expectation derived from pre-pandemic data"). If anyone is interested in reviewing it for next month's "Recent research", feel free to sign up for it here (search for "Ruprechter"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's amusing to see this happening at the same time as there's an attempt to delete our putative article about corporate media. Nothing to see here folks ... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond (3,521 bytes · 💬)

#WMFWomen Firestar464 (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • If you are a writer, journalist, or media personality: Cover women’s stories. Profile them in your newsletter, blog, magazine, newspaper, YouTube channel, TikTok, etc. Magazine and newspaper articles yes please, but is the WMF seriously suggesting people make blogposts and TikToks about subjects as if that will provide us with reliable, citeable sources on which to build articles? Because some well-intentioned person might do just that, and another well-intentioned newbie editor will try and use those only to run afoul of our sourcing policy. Other than that I'm very pleased the WMF took the time in this piece to give an overview of our notability policy and discussed the need for references. This is something new and/or potential Wikipedia recruits need to be familiar with sooner rather than later. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
When the WMF says to create blogposts and tiktoks about women, they might be suggesting to do so in order for reliable sources to pick them up and discuss. But I do agree with you that what the WMF said could be taken the wrong way and result in people creating articles about non-notable individuals. X-Editor (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Indy beetle. We absolutely should encourage people to write about women and all underrepresented topics in actual reliable sources with established editorial control and reputations for accuracy. But blogging, newsletter and TikTok content is worthless for improving the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Having been in AfD discussions were a supporting editor may argue, "She has 300,000 Instagram followers!" I have to agree with X-Editor and Cullen328. While it may be of noble intention to use these platforms to amplify a woman's significance, it also gives the impression of these social media outlets as credible sources. We would be sending a mixed message to new editors on what is a WP:RS. Blue Riband► 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • We also need to distinguish this from the practice of spamjournalism, where media reprints or paraphrases a press release from a professional or company or non-commercial organization or conducts a mock interview with leading questions but no analysis, giving the sponsor of the interview the chance to say whatever they like about themselves. (We no longer accept these as reliable sources for notability for organizations, and usually in practice we do not for people). It can be quite difficult to tell the difference, especially in some sorts of media.They're not useless entirely in WP for routine uncontested facts, but not anything else. I estimate we have a half million articles using them, at least a hundred thousand wouldn't have anything to pretend to use fo notability without them, and some are still being carelessly accepted). DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Obituary: Yoninah (1,443 bytes · 💬)

Memory

  • I remember interacting with Yoninah over at WP:DYKN! The suggestions given helped me improve my editing so much and in turn the quality of the DYKs! It was truly a pleasure interacting with Yoninah. 🌻 🌼 🙏 DTM (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    DTM, thank you, but perhaps better place memories on her talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    Noted. Thanks. DTM (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • All I can say is, I have always loved that username. GeraldWL 11:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm deeply saddened to learn this. She'll be missed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent research: 10%–30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Recent research

Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack (1,080 bytes · 💬)

  • Ah. Interesting charts. And here I thought you were talking about me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Nippon Todo-kai introduction page (in Japanese)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2021-03-28&oldid=1125230881"