Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2022-08-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement (2,569 bytes · 💬)

Ayo JPxG, Justice GPT-Holmes misindentified User:Black Kite as Black. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This was my error, actually -- he wrote "Black Kite", which I ended up turning into {{noping|Black}} Kite because I formatted them with a multi-line selection. Looks like I missed one! Good eye on that. jp×g 07:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

AI 1 v Human 0? :( —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment Those Dall-E images are deeply cool. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
An interesting experiment, and it's cool how well the language model managed to extract and summarize information. As for the imitation of Holmes, I'm slightly less impressed. It's difficult to stylize information summaries, particularly since factual summaries in Us Supreme Court decisions tend to be rather dry. GPT-3 also seemed to be trained primarily on web data and books, so I wonder whether its training data even had enough Holmes for a coherent style to coalesce. With this in mind, it would be interesting to see how it performs with more contemporary legal scholars whose work would be more available in a corpus of online text, for example, Amanda Frost a professor of law who writes the Academic Round-up for SCOTUSblog. — Wug·a·po·des 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow, nice! I thought this was written by a human until I saw that it was written by a computer. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Community view: Youth culture and notability (18,460 bytes · 💬)

I don't think anything needs changing on our end. There are always new sources of information sprouting on- and off-line. Many of these new sources can be reliable, may be reliable. If there weren't any sources, well-established sources and new sources alike, taking the time to cover the popular YouTubers reliably before their deaths, then we just have to wait for the sources to appear posthumously. If anything, it may just be a catch-up before the media in general writes about popular YouTubers like any of the artistic professionals (musicians, actors, etc) are being currently written about. – robertsky (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This has been a concern of mine for a while. There exists practically no press coverage for Youtube (online video?) specifically, and this is a really weird situation. I believe online video is largely seen as a competitor of big money such as print news and television. There also exists no motivation for Youtube community members to set up traditional-esque sources, as the platform is set up in a lot of contrary ways. Lastly, online video is free and unusually accessible. It has no use for reviews, because users will decide whether a channel catches their interest by watching ten seconds of it. Even fanfiction has a higher bar of consumer entry than that. I agree that we on Wikipedia can't really solve this problem... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the natural reasons for there not to be immense news coverage of well-doing Youtubers laid out above by Maple (i.e. the meaninglessness of a written review of a 20 minute video you can click through), I'll also note that there are thousands of Youtube channels around the world, most run by comparative nobodies with shoestring budgets (if any). TV and traditional media is much more limited and thus able to be understood by someone with a broad view of the broadcast/writing landscape. A reviewer can, if they want, probably read through a summary of all of the primetime shows currently running on a major network or the major networks and get a sense for each of them, and then actually watch what they think may be of interest. It would be incredibly difficult to do the same for YouTube. Also, TV shows tend to cast people of some previous note or have money thrown at them, which always attracts interest ("who is Netflix funding now?..."). TV shows also have dramatic twists and plotlines. It's way easier to turn that into semi-interesting writing than a review of a letsplay where the streamer cracks some jokes about his dog and then gets stuck at the same checkpoint for 10 minutes. The landscape is further muddied by the fact that one can artificially inflate likes and subscribers. I think YouTube Daily would have about the same quality as those cheaper news articles where "CEO Xman gets BLASTED on Twitter" (by 10 real people and 300 bots). -Indy beetle (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Youtube channels do receive coverage after particularly notable videos (viral videos, I suppose). You're right that when it comes to specific video game Youtubers, there are indeed a lot of successful independent Minecraft Youtubers. I don't know what traditional coverage we might see of Technoblade vs Grian vs GeorgeNotFound vs MumboJumbo vs IBXToyCat; all very distinct people who do fairly similar things. All extremely successful and, I suppose, notable. But still, a good writer could easily cover these individual people and their creative output. There doesn't seem to be motivation to do this at all unless there's a scandal or an unfortunately young death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It's good to know others share similar concerns and we all generally agree. I think User:Maplestrip's observation that the nature of freely-available video as a medium doesn't lend itself to being widely reviewed/documented - as well as being seen as a competitor for traditional media - is particularly pertinent. Waggers TALK 15:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A really interesting topic. In one sense, notability is a heuristic to determine what the most important topics for us to write about are i.e. the topics that have had the most impact on human history. In this sense we are really failing with new media, as it doesn't gather coverage from the mainstream press or other reliable sources. We fail with the converse, too: news media is a bubble, where a "story" gathers more coverage because it is a "story" already. In the UK, for instance, there's an extraordinary focus on the inside baseball of Westminster, largely because every Westminster journalist is angling for a future job as a politician and every politician is angling for a future job as a journalist. That lets us down on a lot of areas. You don't really see significant coverage of the bread and butter of our society: what is the daily experience of a plumber, a waitress, a receptionist, a factory worker? What information about how their job works is really important to document for future historians? What systemic issues do they face? This matters a lot more than a politician eating a sandwich.
But in another sense, notability is a heuristic to determine what we can actually write about. In this sense, Technoblade shouldn't have been notable pre-death, as there's not much we could say beyond simple primary source claims: "Technoblade is a YouTuber who makes videos on these topics... and has these YouTube and streaming statistics..." YouTubers, Twitch streamers and the like are magnets for manufactured drama, viral clips taken out of context, and other BLP-violating nonsense that makes the rounds on social media platforms. We should be nowhere near the business of studiously documenting "apology videos" and the drama behind each one. And yet, surely we are doing readers a disservice in some way by giving them no information about a very large cultural phenomenon that will be remembered more than a quickly cancelled TV sitcom? — Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, we will always be limited to what reliable secondary sources cover. In a way, we do get to pick what these sources are, which can give us a lot of editorial leeway. We could cite more online videos if we could determine "experts in the field," for example. But really, I think the only proper solution to this issue is if actual journalists or academics with editorial oversight cover these subjects. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, that's not a characteristic of any encyclopaedia, it's a characteristic of Wikipedia. For example I don't know what Encyclopaedia Britannica's internal policies are but I doubt their information-gathering is limited to secondary sources. We don't allow original research; other encyclopaedias might employ researchers whose very job it is to produce original research for inclusion in their publication.

Of course we do have sister projects where original research is actively encouraged (Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage) and in some cases it may be appropriate for those to be used as sources for Wikipedia content. Perhaps that's where a solution lies for "notable" topics that aren't covered in conventional sources. Waggers TALK 10:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Original research is actually largely disallowed on Wikinews as well. I'm not familiar with the policies of the other two. I've personally always approved of Wikinews as a reliable source, but I don't think it's currently well-suited for solving this issue. Young journalists and open-minded publications can indeed be the solution here though. This is how a lot of sources in webcomics came to be, for example. But most people with an interest in online video are more likely to become independent online video creators. The Youtube channel Super Bunnyhop might be an interesting example: a video game journalist with a journalism degree spending his entire career as an independent video creator. Jim Sterling might be a similar example, but they have way more traditional writing credits outside of their independent video work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess we might get to a point where we start identifying particular YouTube (or other platform) channels that we deem to be reliable in the same way as some traditional media publications are reliable and others aren't. It's arguably much harder to discern which is which with video though, especially as many video creators use pseudonyms so it's harder to establish their credentials. Waggers TALK 12:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This is some disgusting coverage, Waggers. When we treat Wikipedia articles like political tools to praise or condemn, they stop being objective articles. Anyone is welcome to be a fan of any thing and I can understand the joy of reading an encyclopedia article about same. Those of us who write the encyclopedia cannot see our ease of editing to be a special pass to abuse wiki in order to indulge our fandom. And yet, this sort of behavior and from an admin, no less, is becoming more and more common. It's quite a shame to see what could have been a noble project forever compromised by the crooked timber of humanity. I condemn all concerned. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
There are several reasons I don't understand this comment, Chris troutman, but the first to third are that Waggers comments: that our notability guideline was correct here; that it was correct that Technoblade did not have an article prior to death; and that Waggers is not a fan of Technoblade. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I mis-read what was written but I've stricken my comments. Good golly, I fucked up. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I had GPT-3 react to this article in the role of the late Technoblade:

I'm not sure what to say. I'm touched that someone would write such kind words about me, and I'm honored that my life was notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I'm sorry that it took my death for that to happen, but I'm glad that my life meant something to someone. Thank you for the kind words.

That was refreshing to hear. Rest in peace. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade was indeed notable while he was alive ... there was simply nothing for us to write about, because we needed others to write about him first.
This is posed as a paradox—to be "notable" as some intrinsic value while not being notable in the eyes of the press—but is it? Our GNG threshold is not some immutable line common to all compendiums of knowledge—it's just the one we choose to observe. Plenty of encyclopedias are written from first-hand analysis/experience and primary sources. Very often the New York Times will write an obituary about a luminary in her field and only then will there be any real biographic documentation by which we can write an article, but that doesn't somehow imply that the subject's work has not been appreciated or remarked upon by many prior to the obit. If we're all on the same page that wiki-notability is not the same as importance, which is in the eye of the beholder, then why mention Wikipedia at all in this lamentation if the issue/"failing" is with the vicissitudes of the press and of social history? I think it only aids in the public perception that if a topic isn't explained on the first page of a Google search (i.e., via Wikipedia) it doesn't exist or isn't important when the truth is the opposite, that all the good and interesting stuff is buried below the surface level in the search, if only the public (or the press or whichever witch we're hunting) can appreciate it. czar 12:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You're absolutely right of course. I've been editing Wikipedia for long enough to remember when the emphasis was on consensus instead of verifiability - i.e. if we as a community agreed that a topic was notable or a statement was factual and worthy of inclusion, then that was enough to include it. In theory that's still our policy - consensus and a sprinkling of WP:IAR outrank. Perhaps the problem is that the blunt instrument of GNG has become elevated to a hard-and-fast policy in many of our minds and actually we have more room to manoeuvre than I've given us credit for, at least in theory.

I'm certainly guilty of operating on the basis that every new article needs to adhere rigidly to GNG and every statement needs to be referenced to a reliable source, and actually our policies don't say that at all. Waggers TALK 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this report was very well written, summing up a topic that was kind of hard to put into words. I was the person who created the current Technoblade page on the mainspace today, but the last time I checked only 7 of the 53 sources used on the page were reliable sources discussing him from before his passing! Even when first publishing the page, the best sources I could find were from after his passing. I would not have re-created the page if I thought that the person in question (Alexander/Technoblade) was not notable enough, but it certainly is interesting to see how, while having so many notable achievements and fans in his life, the first major time he entered the media's attention was after his passing. Thank you again for writing this 😁 Johnson524 (Talk!) 18:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Well said. It is definitely true that there are plenty of YouTubers without articles who are much more significant than older-medium creators with articles. Most that do only have articles on account of some major controversy that attracts the media's attention (Dream comes to mind). The only way I can see this changing in the short term is if YouTube switches from being a platform to a publisher therefore making videos published sources. We all know that isn't going to happen. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This was definitely a great read and something I think more people should be talking about (even outside of Wikipedia). This would be 100% a great YouTube video in itself, and I will definitely add it to the list of things I want to talk about for my channel. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It is so cool to see the people acknowledge what Technoblade meant to the minecraft community, although its sad that a lot of it is after his death. He meant so much to so many people, both his viewers and his friends. RIP Technoblade RIP Alexander Fuck cancer.2601:647:300:9:8DEB:5B10:4324:4333 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I see. Nearly two months prior to this, Kevin Samuels also didn't have an article about him in Wikipedia until his death, despite being "notable" elsewhere for controversial statements exactly because of mostly non-existent independent mainstream coverage about him. I agree with the premise of this article that MSM are the problem at hand - which prevents someone like Technoblade from ever getting a Wikipedia article until death. I wish MSM recognizes online culture a little bit more. RIP Technoblade. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country (4,305 bytes · 💬)

Ooh, is GPT-Thompson going to be back for next month's Signpost? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 02:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I vote that Thompson stays around and does this report forever. In fact, I vote twice. I'll vote as many times as need be. These are amazing. --Pres N 02:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This was way more funny than it had any right to be. Hats off, that was a joy to read, and the summaries of the deletion discussions turned out real well too! I imagine the process of setting all this up and selecting good results was a lot of work, so very well done! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
This could be really interesting if he sticks around and does the report. I've used GTP-3 myself and its mental. This is may be a worlds possibly? scope_creep^Talk 09:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The Titanic take is golden. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, that was terrifyingly well-written. GPT-Mark Twain when!? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
So long as we don't get GPT-James Joyce. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You think that's bad? Imagine GPT-Paris Hilton! Dutchy45 (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I have to second the others above. This was great! Applodion (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
GPT-Thompson is the new Kelvin R. Throop.--Auric talk 10:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Fantastic. I would also love to see GPT-Thompson return. Lkb335 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the best thing I've seen this week. Most entertaining review of Wikipedia deletion discussions since Ashley Feinberg's series on Gawker a few years back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Please let GPT-Thompson keep writing the Deletion Report. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, not a fan. If we must have gonzo, can it be Gonzo? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This is great. We need more GPT-Thompson. Andre🚐 04:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen on this website. You guys have your Humour column done for the rest of eternity, at least. I say keep the normal deletion reports written by sane humans, but insane robots should definitely be kept around in some capacity. casualdejekyll 00:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us (5,911 bytes · 💬)

I read the comment about the (in)appropriateness of the relative time expression "today", scrolled down a little bit, and then clicked on the link to the article about the Porta Nigra, the subject of one of the new featured pictures. One of the article's headings reads "The Porta Nigra today" ... Bahnfrend (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with the use of "today" in "The 49th parallel border established between Canada and the United States at the Oregon Treaty remains in place today" isn't the relative time element. It's that it's redundant. If it remains, "today" is understood.
  I remember this once reaching comical heights on some NRHP article I read, where some helpful person had written about an outbuilding on the property: "The shed still remains extant to this day". WOOOOOOWWWW ... four ways of saying the same thing.
  Cleaning up these redundancies (I now try to shoot them on sight, basically) might take care of quite a few instances of this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The railway stations RfC could lead to a lot of work and potentially a lot of AfDs if people try to 'cleanse' the existing station articles. In the UK alone there are 2,500 current stations (the vast majority of which have articles) and almost three times that number of closed stations, many of which also have articles. A lot of the articles are little more than stubs which only show that the station exists (or existed). Finding sources to show that each of these passes GNG would be time consuming, especially for closed stations given that most of the closures occurred many years ago. I can't help thinking that these articles do no harm and all this effort could be used more productively. Neiltonks (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Neiltonks: I doubt that AfDs will be much of a problem in relation to railway stations in the UK. There are hundreds of books on UK railways that can be cited as reliable sources on such stations. For example, I understand that Middleton Press has published a book about pretty much every railway line that has ever existed in the UK (see this page for brief details - 500 books by 2011 and many more since), and that all of those books are potential reliable sources for Wikipedia articles about the individual stations on those lines. The problem is far more likely to arise in relation to articles about stations in countries that are not mad keen on railways, developing countries (eg India and most countries in Africa) and countries where English is not the first language, and also articles that are translations of Wikipedia articles originally published in other languages. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Neiltonks: I don't have strong opinions (or even weak ones) about keeping/deleting railway station articles but neither of your arguments (no harm and productivity) should be a reason to keep. Dutchy45 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As Neiltonks mentioned earlier, I don't see the harm in keeping many of these station articles. In the case of Canada (whose stations I mostly edit) Wikipedia information on train stations is more comprehensive than the official websites - and can be of great assistance to travelers. Train stations are also often central to the local history of the many towns and cities that grew up around them. If Wikipedia considers hundreds of pages on obscure anime titles and characters to be notable, why must train stations meet a higher standard? Ottawajin (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
As the one who started it, the RfC was made necessary by several editors who maintained that no train station articles could ever be merged, not even the tiniest stubs, because they were always "inherently notable". This made it impossible to deal with permastubs better merged into rail line articles. The findings of the RfC make it clear that merging train stations is acceptable when there's little coverage of them in reliable secondary sources. For the vast majority of train station articles, nothing will change. The "harm" was in letting permastubs, some with zero reliable sources, remain standalone articles even when their accuracy was questionable. It's usually not difficult for a train station to clear GNG, and if it falls well short, the station can be redirected to the line or service it is a part of, leaving open the possibility of recreating a standalone article if more sources are identified in the future. There's not going to be a "cleanse"; I watch the transportation deletion sorting page and a grand total of 2 train stations have been brought to AfD recently, one was a wrong name and was deleted for that reason, the other was redirected to the article for the line it is on, where it lives quite nicely without any real loss of information. What may happen is a number of short stubs getting merged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the concise summary. Sorry, for the confusion - I'm not so knowledgeable about Wikipedia notability guidelines, as I don't add new pages. I should have read through the talk page more carefully. The guidelines you mentioned sound like common sense. Cheers. Ottawajin (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections (13,661 bytes · 💬)

Election Compass: Results of community upvoting (confirmed by the Election Committee)

The final selection of the 15 statements was confirmed by the Election Committee on August 4.

Rank	Votes	Question	The last user vote
# 1	41	1. The Wikimedia Foundation should conduct all of its activities with absolute transparency (excluding where this would cause legal/privacy/security issues)	2022-08-03 21:08:50 UTC
# 2	40	23. The Wikimedia Foundation should provide more technical support to meet the demand of the community	2022-08-03 23:10:52 UTC
# 3	39	6. I am uncomfortable with the way the WMF increasingly assigns itself unilateral authority to make decisions about the Wikimedia projects which then affect the community	2022-08-03 21:09:16 UTC
# 4	31	31. The WMF should continually seek to reduce, rather than expand, its scope of responsibilities, leaving as much as possible to the community's self-organized capacity	2022-08-03 21:11:47 UTC
# 5	29	4. WMF fundraising is deceptive: it creates a false appearance that the WMF is short of money while it is in fact richer than ever	2022-08-03 21:14:46 UTC
# 6	28	29. The WMF should generally opt for community-vetted ideas, rather than internal ideas, as the basis for its organizational roadmap	2022-08-03 21:11:07 UTC
# 7	28	13. The primary activity of the Wikimedia Foundation should be funding the Wikimedia community's efforts.	2022-08-03 23:09:53 UTC
# 8	27	26. The m:Universal Code of Conduct is a net positive addition to the Wikimedia movement	2022-08-03 19:54:09 UTC
# 9	26	10. Future community seats of the Board of Trustees should be filled purely by a contributor (editor, volunteer developer, and so on) vote on all nominees	2022-08-03 21:16:26 UTC
#10	25	5. I am uncomfortable with the way the WMF organization has continuously grown its staff headcount and budget and taken on more and more tasks that are not directly related to the Wikimedia projects and the volunteer communities working on them	2022-08-03 21:15:04 UTC
#11	24	2. Well over 50 percent of Wikimedia Foundation expenses is spent on salaries in the US; that percentage is too great	2022-08-03 21:14:11 UTC
#12	23	27. Simplify the Board of Trustees Election Process to keep Community Members interested and engaged	2022-08-03 20:36:15 UTC
#13	23	11. The Election Committee must be made actively accountable to and selected or elected by the community	2022-08-03 21:16:35 UTC
#14	22	8. The software development should be focused on constant development and core features instead of short projects and new features.	2022-08-03 20:35:39 UTC
#15	22	20. The WMF should initiate a participatory budgeting process, in which the editor community participates in the allocation of funds	2022-08-03 23:50:51 UTC
#16	21	32. The WMF should voluntarily recognize a staff union with proof of support from a majority of eligible unit members	2022-08-03 21:12:20 UTC
#17	20	25. The Wikimedia Foundation should allocate additional resources to research, documentation, and advocacy of real-world policy issues that affect Wikimedia users and Wikimedia projects (for example, issues of access and free expression)	2022-08-03 23:11:29 UTC
#18	18	19. The Wikimedia Foundation should allocate a higher percentage of their resources into tasks related to contributing to the projects	2022-08-03 12:38:34 UTC
#19	16	35. Had I been a member of the Board of Trustees in May 2020, I would have voted in favor of the Brand Project Support resolution	2022-08-03 20:36:52 UTC
#20	16	33. The WMF should get consensus from respective communities before running fundraising banners on their wiki	2022-08-03 21:12:34 UTC
#21	15	16. Wikimedia Foundation projects should compete for Movement funds with projects of other Wikimedia organizations (except for keeping the sites up)	2022-08-03 19:51:28 UTC
#22	15	18. The represented diversity is more important than individual qualifications of members of the Board of Trustees	2022-08-03 20:35:57 UTC
#23	15	7. I am uncomfortable with the way the Wikimedia Foundation serves the interests of Big Tech (Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft)	2022-08-03 21:15:38 UTC
#24	13	3. The Wikimedia Foundation does not spend enough money in countries of the "developing world"	2022-08-03 23:16:14 UTC
#25	12	24. Had I been a member of the Board of Trustees at that time, I would have voted in favor of the Wikimedia Enterprise project	2022-08-03 20:36:10 UTC
#26	12	30. The community may recall a selected candidate for any reason	2022-08-03 21:11:25 UTC
#27	11	9. The departures of numerous senior staff members in 2021 indicate a problem at the Wikimedia Foundation	2022-08-02 19:05:35 UTC
#28	11	22. Regional and Thematic Hubs create more unnecessary hierarchies and complex structures in the Wikimedia Movement	2022-08-03 09:06:54 UTC
#29	10	28. The details of the evaluation of each candidate done by the Analysis Committee should be shared with the community	2022-08-02 19:07:18 UTC
#30	9	12. Wikimedia Foundation spending by country must be prominently reported	2022-08-03 19:50:17 UTC
#31	8	21. The "Global Council", recommended in the Movement Strategy recommendations, will not fulfill the goal of equitable representation in global decision-making	2022-08-02 20:30:23 UTC
#32	7	15. Staff of the Wikimedia Foundation should be totally excluded from organizing the Board of Trustee elections	2022-08-02 06:21:39 UTC
#33	7	14. Grantmaking to Wikimedia editors and community affiliates in the Global South should be increased to 5% of gross Wikimedia Foundation annual budget	2022-08-03 12:37:26 UTC
#34	7	17. Regional quotas for grants/funding and participation (e.g. to Wikimania) should be removed	2022-08-03 20:35:52 UTC
#35	6	34. Nowadays, it is practically impossible for Wikimedia user groups to be recognized as a Wikimedia chapter	2022-08-03 20:36:35 UTC

Andreas JN 466 15:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jayen466:.. the "Votes" link are very weird. They're random diffs of random articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. They were Meta links, of course, and I hadn't added the meta prefix. --Andreas JN 466 17:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Candidate participation

Just fyi for those not following things on meta, it seems like there is a thread on meta at meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Community Voting/Questions for Candidates suggesting that the election committee is discouraging candidates from participating over here. I find that bizarre and sad, as what is the point of an election where the candidates are discouraged from (not allowed to?) talk to the electorate. Bawolff (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This note confirms that the Editors-in-Chief are aware of this situation, and that we have been contacted privately as well. Coverage will be added in the September issue. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 06:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment from candidates

Thank you to the Signpost team for writing this article. We are collectively writing here to clarify a few issues.

We were first asked to contribute to this by email on the 25th July, with a deadline of 30 July (in a period where other election activities are ongoing). When we as candidates were discussing this amongst ourselves, there was a consensus from five of us to respond to the Signpost with a request to follow a different procedure: instead of asking us to write new text, we requested that they used existing materials, and followed an equal process for all candidates. The one candidate who did not support this was the one who suggested to the Signpost that they ask us op-eds, without consulting others beforehand. We were hoping for an equal and fair process for all, which respects the existing election process.

We are disappointed that the Signpost did not follow this proposal, instead publishing one op-ed, and not making it clear why the others of us requested that they reuse existing materials. We also did not agree to answer questions as part of this article (although some of us may choose to answer anyway) - instead suggesting an alternative of an online discussion session with all of us. The Election Committee has designed a defined way to ask questions of candidates, which takes into account that we don't have unlimited time to contribute to the election process, and makes the process as inclusive and as equitable as possible, including embedding translations into the process.

We do not ask the Signpost to change things at this point, we simply want to point out these issues with this comment, with the hope that this situation does not arise again in future elections. On behalf of Shani, Farah, Mike, Tobechukwu, Michał. Mike Peel (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mike Peel, could you clarify why you requested they reuse existing materials? I see your "equal and fair process for all", but your message here does not seem to expand beyond that, aside from noting time committments and translations, which I understand but question as to why that would preclude prospective Board members from communicating with the people they hope to represent outside of Election Committee-designated areas. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 15:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Vermont: We've already put a lot of work into the existing text, particularly those that aren't native speakers. Asking for more text on very short notice (while everything else is also happening) was really not very feasible. We are communicating, but we can't spend all of our time communicating - we have other things (like editing!) we want to get on with as well. :-) Also, see the election committee's comments at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2022/Community_Voting/Questions_for_Candidates, which also answer your question. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Video answers posted

The WMF board candidates' video answers to six questions proposed and selected by the community have been posted on Meta-Wiki.

Written answers to additional community questions that were proposed but did not make it into the top six can be found here (further answers may still be added to this page in the days ahead, so do check back). Andreas JN 466 07:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Farah Jack Mustaklem: Why Farah Jack Mustaklem is running for the WMF Board (1,644 bytes · 💬)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Kunal Mehta: Why Legoktm is running for the WMF Board (6,784 bytes · 💬)

A big thank you to the Signpost team for publishing my op-ed as well as the other candidate statements. Given that the opportunities for interactions with candidates have been very limited this year, I'm happy to answer any questions or respond to comments that people might have about my candidacy. Legoktm (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't really a question more than a general endorsement. As one of BAG members (me that is), I've seen first Legoktm's work on bots and other technical areas behind the scenes, where a staggering amount of grueling, unglamourous, and unrecognized work is going on. He's got a solid head on his shoulders and definitely has the actual interests of the community at heart, not HR/PR talking points. Once I saw his name as a candidate, I knew who one of my votes would be for.

The WMF would benefit from his expertise, passion, and knowledge, and would we all benefit from him being on the board to represent the interests of the community. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Headbomb, thanks for the questions.

1) I think it's important to remember that the WMF isn't a monolith. Some of the WMF teams I observe do a pretty good job of interacting with community members, genuinely taking in their feedback, resulting in a better outcome because the solution was developed collaboratively. However, I agree that in general there is a sense that WMF upper management and the Board are just out of touch with the situation on the ground. It's not too surprising that upper management is like that, none of them were originally Wikimedians, but the Board is more perplexing. I don't think there's a single root cause, it just gets ingrained over time (would love to learn if other people have specific ideas/thoughts on this).

OK, so what do I plan to do about it? First, as I mentioned in my op-ed, push for bottom-up prioritization. That means community members and staff on the ground are providing input and determining what gets worked on, not just upper management. I don't expect this to be an immediate switch, it'll probably happen gradually. E.g. start with the WMF actually publishing its annual and quarterly (draft) plans so people can provide feedback. Then start publishing plans earlier and soliciting feedback earlier, and so on until the feedback becomes the actual plans. Second, we can also start promoting people internally. As I pointed out on Wikimedia-l earlier this year, the two longest serving (and IMO, best) CTOs/VPs of Engineering were originally community members who got into those positions. We have a decent number of talented low level managers who I think would do a good job in higher-level positions. Instead of needing to onboard people from outside the WMF for 6 months, have them spend a year and a half doing something and then leaving, resetting the whole process, we could promote people who are already a good fit for the WMF, understand our cultural values, etc. (This is not meant to be any commentary on the new CPTO who I have yet to work with and wish the best of luck, just a general point.)

2) I sympathize with the proposal and agree in principle that we should be devoting more resources to things the community asks for (again, bottom-up prioritization!), but I don't agree with the specific proposal because I don't believe we should have a Community Tech team. Fundamentally, ALL the WMF tech teams should be working in service of the community's needs, not just one. To give a more specific example, the CommTech team recently implemented expiring watchlist entries, which is great! But, why don't we have a dedicated team that is working on all the other issues around watchlists and notifications and figuring out whats going on?

I hope this answers your questions, but if not I'm happy to expand (or be more concise). Legoktm (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. The questions were deliberately open ended. I can live with a board that has different opinions (especially if they're more informed opinions), but the character of the answers is what's important. I already knew what that was going to be (see the above endorsement), but it will let others assess your candidacy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Michał Buczyński: Why Aegis Maelstrom is running for the WMF Board (3,896 bytes · 💬)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Headbomb:, thanks for your questions and sorry for letting you wait: too many ongoing issues with running an affiliate, MCDC, health issues and regular candidating requirements like video messages. :)

Disclaimer upfront: in general I am with Mike and Shani that extra questions are very taxing, especially for the candidates with many duties (and I guess we want to elect rather people experienced and active :) ). Thankfully, per WMF Bylaws the candidates need to drop extra tasks when elected but before that they can (and probably should?) serve the Movement in other ways. Moreover, we are usually asked about our thoughts and ideas, while I think our actual actions and skillset should receive at least the same attention.

Having written that:

Basing on my experience with the WMF: it is not a monolith, it is a big org with over 500 employees. Some people and teams are working actively to hear communities, some of them don't, but the general feedback is rather heard. I am pretty confident that in this case the communities were heard, just the decisions in large organizations tend to be slow in making and short in communicating (because many reasons, including complex graph of stakeholders and a need of legal safety). Certainly, it could have gone better but I am also hoping we all made right lessons from this story. (BTW mind it that there were also many people advocating for the change as it would simplify their lives a lot - which added much complexity and lead to some compromise).
My chapter (Wikimedia Poland) boasts a strong community support programme and we consider it our programmatic axis #1. Regarding the Community Tech spending - in general I believe we should spend much more on the product/tools development: from MediaWiki through statistical tools assisting editting/patrolling/... in all the languages to Media uploaders, players, Wikidata etc. I don't know if it should be literally more funding for the Community Tech team, or rather more funding for dedicated teams. Considering the size of the budget and a needed scope of development, I think one team is not enough.

Hope it helps, aegis maelstrom δ 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Mike Peel: Why Mike Peel is running for the WMF Board (6,474 bytes · 💬)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Headbomb! I'm not sure if you read my statement before posting this? You know I'm very concerned about this issue, and it's one of the key reasons why I'm running for the Board. As best as I can tell, change needs to come from the top (maybe a board resolution, maybe through guidance to the ED) to make sure that the community is properly embedded in any project that the WMF runs, and community priorities are followed up on. I'm a big fan of (and repeat proposer at) the community wishlist, and I was the third person to support your proposal to increase its budget! (Although, branding *is* an issue that needs to be properly solved at some point - but in a way that the community supports.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I did read your statement (I read everyone's), but I wanted to be fair to all candidates and have give them the opportunity to either further elaborate or clarify these things, since these areas are often not explicitly touched on in the statements.

I'll agree with you that something could be done about improved branding, but the issue with the branding efforts were that one specific thing was being pushed extremely hard against the wishes of the community, while the community insisted from the outset that that specific thing was a non-starter.

If branding comes around again, you may be interested in

There's plenty that could be done on branding (though now that the well has been poisoned, it's going to take a very skilled person to take on that mantle), but the WMF needs to tell us what problems it's trying to address in plain speak, and involve the community in the process. Because the "problem" of "a random person on the street doesn't know WikiSpecies and WikiData are related brands" is a very different problem than "Event organizers have troubles communicating the difference between Commons, WikiData, and Wikipedia".

Anyway, that's enough on branding. I'm mostly interested in your broad-level approach and views. As I told Legoktm, I can live with board members having different opinions than mine, especially when they're well-informed opinions. But the character of the answers and opinion matter, because the board really lacks a community perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Whenever I talk about Wikimedia, I have to explain that we have Wikipedia, which is the encyclopaedia, then Wikimedia, which is all of the projects/movement/organisations, then start explaining the different bits of Wikimedia. It really isn't something that is obvious to most, and that is a branding issue... But we'll see how it goes in the future - definitely any change that happens there has to have community consensus! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What does "community is properly embedded in any project that the WMF runs" mean to you, concretely? For example, how would you know if you have succeeded and the community is sufficiently embedded? Everyone always talks about how its important that the community be "involved", but its always vague and aspirational. What do you think concretely should be done to fix the issue? Bawolff (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bawolff: It's a really complicated issue in practice, which makes it difficult to be concrete about it. It's also a never-ending process. ;-) The ideal outcome would be that every project has community involvement at a level that makes sense for it (i.e., as much as possible...) - and that this is routinely thought through and embedded in project plans right from the start. It also links in with transparency and sharing information about what's going on - with ways for the community to get involved at any point. A good measure might be how many on-wiki controversies take place about WMF activities - which should be zero. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Shani Evenstein Sigalov: Why Shani Evenstein Sigalov is running for the WMF Board (1,644 bytes · 💬)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Election guide/Candidate Op-Ed, Tobechukwu Precious Friday: Why Tobechukwu Precious Friday is running for the WMF Board (1,644 bytes · 💬)

Here's a few questions I'm going to ask of everyone.

In the community, it's a widely acknowledged issue that the WMF has a hearing problem. Its financial resources are larger than ever, and yet we can't get the most of the support we want from the WMF, who instead spends time and ridiculous amounts of money on issues like branding. It took YEARS of screaming from the community, culminating in an open letter with 1000+ signatories to drive the very simple point that the WMF does not, should not, and will not ever stand for the Wikipedia Foundation with any legitimacy.

At the same time, we have huge amounts of support for increasing the modest resources of the community team. There are very tangible projects that have massive amounts of community support that get dropped because of this lack of resources.

So my questions are these. 1) Do you think the WMF has a hearing problem? If so, why do you think is the root cause, and what do you plan to do about it? 2) What do you make of the proposal to allocate at least 1% of the WMF warchest/yearly budget to the Community Tech team, broadly speaking?

Thanks for your time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Essay: How to research an image (1,857 bytes · 💬)

Lovely adventure. A really nice and helpful example of how research on the internet can play out, and nice work tracking the photograph down! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

More of these! I've been trying to track down some Russian archival photos for years—hard stuff when you don't know the language. czar 02:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Aye. I can do fine with Latin scripts, but it gets a lot harder. One thing that you might not think to do is to go the Wikipedia article on the subject, say, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, and then see what the name is in various other-language Wikipedias. Because Latin script names are consistent, but consider fr:Piotr Ilitch Tchaïkovski and de:Pjotr Iljitsch Tschaikowski. And, of course, that also gets you ru:Чайковский, Пётр Ильич, the correct Cyrillic search term. And this is going to be true of many things. Consider Russian Revolution. Knowing how to search for it in Gallica as well as Russian archives is very useful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 03:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice piece! Museums and libraries are treasure troves, and your story is awesome. Vysotsky (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3) (560 bytes · 💬)

Condolences to George and family for their loss. War is ugly. Hope it ends someday, somewhat, somehow. – robertsky (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, condolences to George, and to all those that have lost a loved one in this terrible war. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/Featured content

From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/From the archives

From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something (9,591 bytes · 💬)

I commissioned GPT-3 to write a poem about this article:

GPT-3, the glorious machine,
Has written an AfD report so fine,
With insights both derisive and sage,
It's sure to make history's pages.
So let's all give three cheers for GPT-3,
The greatest machine we've ever seen,
Long may it reign, and write more reports,
On Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

I have some concerns, but I also have no idea what I'm doing, so there's that! Fantastic read, and I'm very interested to see the ongoing implications of this tech. ASUKITE 01:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this stimulating piece. I think that this raises questions about the use of generative language models in Wikipedia. Even if the results are mind blowing, I think that we should refuse the use of generative language models in Wikipedia for several reasons :

An epistomological reason : large language models such as BERT, GPT-3 and the most recent one Bloom are trained using a lot of text from the Internet including Wikipedia. The quality of those models comes from the fact that they are trained on text written by humans. If we use generative language models on Wikipedia, future language models will be trained on a mixture of human and AI generated text. I guess that I some point it will become meaningless.
A legal argument : GPT-3 is not open source. It is a proprietary algorithm produced by OpenAI. We should be very suspicious with such a powerful proprietary tool. What happens if the price prohibitive? BLOOM, the most recent model, is not proprietary but not open source. It uses a responsable AI license (https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigscience/license). It is far better than OpenAI's approach but it also raises lots of questions.
A technical argument : Wikipedia is not only about writing articles but also about collaborating, explaining decisions and argumenting. I don't think that AI are able to have a real discussion in a talk page and we should still remember that the AI don't know what is good, true or just. Humans do.

Maybe it would be worth to have a sister project from the foundation using an AI based encyclopedia (Wiki-AI-pedia). Now, we have a problem. It may be very difficult in a near future to detect contributions generated with generative AI. This will be a big challenge. Imagine an AI which would be expert in vandalism? PAC2 (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this trial which is quite remarkable. A key strength of such bots is that they are good at following rules while humans tend to cut corners. For example, consider the recent cases of Martinevans123 and Lugnuts who have both been pilloried for taking material from elsewhere and doing a weak job of turning it into Wikipedia copy. A good bot seems likely to do a better job of such mechanical editing. As the number of active editors and admins suffers atrophy and attrition, I expect that this is the future. The people with the power and money like Google and the WMF will naturally tend to replace human volunteers with such AI bots. Hasta la vista, baby ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I am completely blown away by this. I have been following these AI developments for some time, but seeing them used for this application with such coherence is unbelievable. I have many confused and contradictory thoughts about the implications of AI advancement on Wikimedia projects, but for now I'll limit myself to one thing I am clear on: whether for good reasons or bad reasons, soon each person in the Wikimedia community will need to be aware of the technological levels of tools like GPT-3, DALL-E and their successors, and this Signpost experiment in writing is a fascinating way to draw people's attention to it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The "Damn" part is something I didn't think about and is so true. Thanks for including it! Lectrician1 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been doing something broadly similar to your little exercise for quite a few years. I find an interesting high quality article on a foreign language Wikipedia, use Google Translate to translate it into English, copyedit the translation, and then publish it on en Wikipedia (with appropriate attribution). In fact my first ever Wikipedia article creation (Bernina Railway, created in 2009) was done that way. Over time, the Google Translate translations have become better and better, and with some languages (eg French, Italian, Portuguese) they are now generally so good that only minimal copyediting is necessary. I even occasionally receive compliments from native speakers for the quality of my translations from languages such as French (in which I am self taught, and which I do not speak well), and Italian (which I cannot read or speak). Bahnfrend (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"I heard language models were racist" Don't AI models have some sort of system to block "problematic prompts"? I know that DALL-E 2 blocks problematic prompts as per the following quote in an IEEE article: "Again, the company integrated certain filters to keep generated images in line with its content policy and has pledged to keep updating those filters. Prompts that seem likely to produce forbidden content are blocked and, in an attempt to prevent deepfakes, it can't exactly reproduce faces it has seen during its training. Thus far, OpenAI has also used human reviewers to check images that have been flagged as possibly problematic." Maybe GPT-3 could use a similar system. Tube·of·Light 03:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The GPT-3 used on OpenAI's site has a mandatory content filter model that it goes through; if content is marked as problematic, a warning appears and OpenAI's content policy doesn't allow for reusing the text. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. My point is that @JPxG could have mentioned that such models have restrictions to prevent abuse. Tube·of·Light 05:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that such filters are often a rather ad-hoc measure, with DALL-E 2 believed to merely be adding keywords like "black," "Women," or "Asian American" randomly to text prompts to make the output appear more diverse. It is fairly easy to get past such filters using prompt engineering, and as such, I would not rely on those filters to protect us from malicious and biased uses. Yitz (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Racism is far more nuanced, pernicious and deeply embedded than just saying the N-word or writing in the style of Hitler. To adapt the common phrase "garbage in, garbage out": racism in, racism out. Take a look at our excellent article on algorithmic bias. If DALL-E 2 isn't specifically designed to avert stereotypes from the dataset then it will perpetuate them (and it's hard to see how it could be—the key novelty of machine learning is that the programmers have little idea how it works). I'm sure if you analyse a large range of its output, you'd find it draws Jewish people or fictional people with Jewish-sounding names as having larger noses than non-Jewish people, or something similarly offensive. However, this is no criticism of The Signpost using curated DALL-E 2, Craiyon and GPT-3 content; I can't see any particular biases in this month's issue. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

formerly known as "DALL-E Mini", despite having no relation to DALL-E "Formerly"? Aw, why? The Java / JavaScript relationship was definitely the right model to follow on this. /s -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

With regards to the process a neural net uses to create images versus a human artist: the model does not experience qualia. It cannot have intent so it cannot create in the way a human can. Humans created art in prehistory without training on other art because it didn't exist, just like in the modern era artists have created quantum leaps in artistic style like cubism, impressionism etc. The model cannot possibly create anything new. When you learn fine art you don't go look at a Rothko painting and then immediately pick up a bucket of paint, you go through years of learning the foundations of figure drawing, perspective etc. Artists have an understanding of the world and their own interior life that the model cannot possibly have and that's why human works, even if derivative, are art and these images are imitation. Omicron91 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Gallery: A backstage pass (2,863 bytes · 💬)

Wow, this is fascinating! And the images are all so nice and very illustrative, lovely work! I think quite a few of these would do well as Wikipedia Featured Images, as they are very representative and useful. Thank you for writing this up! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I did my best to find nice ones! The Otello image is a featured picture, and I want to get the Covent Garden Theatre one restored. Biggest problem for a lot of them is not being used in articles, but I kind of see that as one of the goals of the "Gallery" section: to show off images that aren't yet used. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I feel like Safety curtain is a good example of an article that can use expanding. I wonder if the startrap could even have an article of its own if the sources are there, because I am quite fascinated by it. Lots of potential and inspiration here! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: There's a lot to say about star traps, and they are fascinating, but the sourcing is probably the biggest issue. You'll notice I quoted the Stoker story at length as that's one of the best sources I've ever seen on their dangers, at least in a compact form. One would likely need to go back to Victorian newspapers and obscure books to piece it together. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

...or https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O171646/star-trap-unknown/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 14:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Really good insights, with great image choices—I'm always curious to hear what the behind-the-scenes workings of any kind of production are. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Very nice article. Thanks! Olivier (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road? (4,635 bytes · 💬)

Chickenshit

Oh come on! Publishing a joke that even my grandchidren think is as old as the hills with a clickbait tempter making us think we are going to get something original is truly pathetic. You could have had "because they think all those people are going to feed them" or "they're not crossing the road, they are standing in the middle waiting to get run over." Or you could have had a truly funny, but still old, joke like "why did the pervert cross the road?" The punchline to which I am not going to write here - look it up if you want to know SpinningSpark 15:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New True Punchline

True story: one summer, I was leaving camp for an hour in town and I saw two chickens on either side of the road outside of camp. One crossed the road right in front of me. I think the punchline in why that particular chicken crossed the road was "to get to the other chicken." My life was transformed at that moment. Valley2city^‽ 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The other side?

Thinking that we need an article about this, I find that we've had one since 2003: Why did the chicken cross the road? That's rather weak but I find that the real meat is on its talk page where it is suggested that there's more to the joke than first appears. That's because "the other side" has a double-meaning: either the other side of the road or the other side of existence – the afterlife. The implication is that by crossing the road, the chicken is likely to be killed by traffic and so cross-over to chicken heaven.

That's an interesting and plausible aspect which is new to me but the talk page indicates that it is not accepted. We should get to the bottom of this. See also chicken or the egg...

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Use GPT-3 for this next time?

Should we use GPT-3 for the Humour part of the Signpost next time like we did for the Deletion and Arbitration reports this time? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it could be written in the style of Mark Twain.FactMaster007 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Why the chicken crossed the road?

Because it wanted to. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 06:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hilarious fact

I did four articles for this issue: Featured content, Essay, Gallery and this. The other three were high effort articles.

This little antijoke has the most views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 00:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Why did the horse cross the road?

To swallow the dog
The dog crossed the road to swallow the cat
The cat crossed the road to swallow the mouse
The mouse crossed the road to swallow the spider
The spider wiggled and tiggled across the road to swallow the fly
The fly don't know why it crossed the road – it has less brain than the chicken.
SpinningSpark 10:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Subject

Because one of those newspaper box thingies with The Signpost was on the other side. Duh. CLYDE FRANKLIN 03:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool (603 bytes · 💬)

Oh, wow. Nobody told me the WD item talk page would be full of good stuff. Oh, I see it's not, for tugboats and buildings and asteroids and presumably for a lot of other items. But for people and civil subdivisions, yes. Very nice. It makes me wonder how hard it would be to learn enough SPARQL to take care of, well buildings and asteroids, anyway. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap (6,659 bytes · 💬)

Nice picture of a gavel but they aren't used in Irish (or British) courts. Please don't reinforce the US view that judges have to have gavels. It's as wrong as using File:Legal wigs today.jpg to represent a judge in the US. Nthep (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Messed up but true -- I've removed the image. jp×g 21:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Now replaced with an Irish statue of Justice. Andreas JN 466 00:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Much better. Nthep (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The San Francisco Examiner asks a couple of questions that I'm still trying to find the answer to. Right there in the headline: What does the CEO who oversees Wikipedia do? And another one: Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to give money? Smallbones' comment that The 14 questions seem very basic is accurate. Perhaps this is all Iskander is qualified to talk about. So far as I can see, she's got no significant history in any Wikimedia project.
As for Tom Bower, it's quite weird that a professional unauthorised biographer had someone who closely monitored his article and removed offensive material. Someone needs to do the same for his largely fictional biography of Jeremy Corbyn. I guess he can dish it out but he can't take it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I found my email exchange with Bower very strange, and I may pursue this further in The Signpost once I've done all the required due-diligence (e.g. BLP on 2 sides) and I'm comfortable publishing it. But it may be too big for me. I do think you misinterpreted my sentence there though, it should be something like "Bower knows a "Person A" who monitors Person A's Wikipedia article and removes material that is offensive to Person A." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, I have misinterpreted your sentence, and struck my comment accordingly. — Bilorv (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Perhaps this is all Iskander is qualified to talk about. So far as I can see, she's got no significant history in any Wikimedia project." More likely this is all the interviewer was qualified to ask about. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia projects) are notoriously misunderstood by the general public, and unless an interview has been a member of the community themselves, all the questions they'll have will be very basic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I dived into the Dalmatian benches snippet, and while it was amusing enough on it's own, I fail to see why it is in the signpost. Connecting a bunch of old man discussing everything under the sun, to WP having articles about everything under the sun, is such an extreme overreach it's liable to lead to Spaghettification Dutchy45 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm to blame, of course. The first thing that attracted me was the title - there is no Dalmatian Wikipedia, Croatian yes, Dalmatian no. It took me awhile to get the under the sun analogy, but once I got it I saw the history of knowledge on a whole new timeline: bench=>library=>Wikipedia and started thinking of benches in small towns I knew as a kid. In short, I like this column to have something for everybody to stretch their minds, it's a good example of silly season, and glad you liked it enough to comment. Yes, it was long on text and seemingly thin on facts - but actually there were tons of facts - just not the type of facts that you usually see. Enjoy your summer! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I really enjoyed reading that piece the other day. And there are indeed parallels to be drawn between Wikipedia and the Dalmatian benches (including the preponderance of men!).

This may sound (or even be ...) trite, but I sometimes think of Wikipedia as a sort of public playground for adults. The attraction of the facilities available here is in some way comparable to that a shining climbing frame in a municipal park exerts on a passing kid – except that the "playbor" here is channelled in such a way as to produce something of value.

A municipal bench is quite similar to a playground (the same goes for a other social media sites of course), and as the article argues, it too produces a reservoir of knowledge that is useful to the community.

I am always struck by the way Wikipedia is a very multidimensional phenomenon, so I appreciated the analogy. Andreas JN 466 08:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
In short, Russia has nothing to gain from blocking Wikipedia. Nyet. If Wikipedia is banned in Russia, then those Russians who oppose the invasion of Ukraine will lose another relatively independent source for information about the invasion. And that will make Russia's propaganda efforts more effective. Tube·of·Light 04:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Pretty misleading language re Grant Shapps - he was never a serious contender, and I don't remember seeing the Wikipedia stuff mentioned in the media at all (as opposed to by me to friends, again). Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Re-reading this article, I notice PM Johnson is described as "fuzzy-headed". Is that a mistake for "fuzzy-haired"? Or is this a characteristic I haven't read about? (As an aside, his hair is still better than the previous US President's.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

News and notes: Information considered harmful (4,900 bytes · 💬)

FYR: Not only Yandex labeling Wikipedia, but also another search engine Mail.ru labels Wikipedia [1]. Secondly, Stanislav Kozlovsky pointed out that the reason for this measure because WMF doesn't open an office in Russia, which doesn't follow Russian regulation, instead of the "fake" information in Wikipedia. Thanks. --SCP-2000 03:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is a WMF Transparency report story regarding Roskomnadzor requests before the Ukraine invasion. --SCP-2000 03:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that the WMF were told by a private, outsourced, undemocratic company to Provide access to a geotargeted suicide prevention hotline at the top of the articles on Suicide Methods and the status is marked as "Ongoing". Perhaps it's just not reached any actionable point where community feedback needs to be sought, but it is integral that all matters of content—here the proposal to have content disclaimers—are a matter for the local community to decide. Moreover, I've complained in the past of YouTube using misinformation-related content disclaimers that link to Wikipedia i.e. trying to profit and cost-cut off unpaid and uncredited volunteer labour without consulting the volunteers or donating to the project. I think it would be unfair of us to link to small local suicide prevention hotlines, directing traffic that way rather than ensuring the suitability of our own content, without consulting those hotlines and donating to them. And by that point I would have to ask: is this an effective use of money donated by readers who have been misled into thinking they are paying for "server costs"? — Bilorv (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. While it is all fine & good that the Foundation is concerned about Human Rights, & what effect the projects have on them, why is this a priority for a group that is primarily concerned with making information free & available to everyone? Maybe I simply missed the discussion that justified allocating the finite money & resources to this, but I don't see how what we do "impacts" -- a word which IMHO has a negative connotation -- Human Rights. -- llywrch (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, they receive so much donation money you see, and they can't spend it on what the volunteers have asked for (more tech infrastructure and responsiveness to tech volunteers) because... um... that would just be giving them what they wanted. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Human Rights Policy FAQ and Conversation with Trustees call note, since users have experienced threats or violations to their human rights (e.g. Chinese Wikipedia) and WMF has the responsibility to respect and protect users' human rights, therefore they work on Human Right related stuff. Thanks. SCP-2000 10:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This still seems to be a lot of effort in something that could be expressed as "We will protect the rights of our volunteers to contribute to our programs to the best of our ability." Maybe some thought had to be put into defining what "the rights" are, & which ones apply, but there are sufficient existing written sources on that topic that it shouldn't have been that hard. Maybe a week to sift thru the important statements. -- llywrch (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-01/On the bright side

Op-Ed: The "recession" affair (6,800 bytes · 💬)

While I've copyedited this page prior to publication, I just want to go on the record that I think this one of the few summaries that actually make sense, rather than the sensationalist nonsense of most other outlets, and the have-you-even-read-the-article misguidedness of demagogues like Musk and Hannity. Praise to JPxG for his FAQ and general sanity, and praise to outlets Fortune and the Washington Examiner for actually taking journalism seriously and figuring out what was going on instead of screaming on Twitter to see if they could put more oil on an idiot fire that should at most have been a minor breeze in a teapot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
With WP:CiteUnseen and WP:PREDSCRIPT turned on, that list of sources is a sea of red. czar 06:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
A (not so) beautiful sea of red indeed. But then again, those are red for a very good reason. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It also shows the progression of how a non-story was circulated in unreliable sources and then picked up by the mainstream press. czar 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of the phrase Crisis? What Crisis?. In the UK, that was associated with PM Jim Callaghan and the Winter of Discontent but our article explains that it has an interesting multimedia history of which I was previously unaware. See also It's the economy, stupid ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Ref 2,4,5,6, 7 and 10 are non-rs. Interesting article though! scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I encourage all interested parties to inflate my article on the psychological aspects of this state of affairs. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The average American has an extremely low media literacy level (because it wouldn't be profitable for them to have a high one). And the average Twitter poster has a lower level. But I'm starting to think that the lowest media literacy level of all belongs to these sorts of "journalists" whose job is just repeating nonsense on Twitter. Each of the references from 3 to 7 manages to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is in the headline. But then again, this is the country that famously thinks a corporation is a type of human being. — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the first time that stupid Twitter drama started a controversy on Wikipedia. Back in 2021, a bunch of Twitter users got mad about the definition of bisexuality on Wikipedia, which was even picked up by PinkNews. But it did not get nearly as out of hand as this latest controversy, which was a complete dumpster fire. X-Editor (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes I like to think for peace of mind that everyone on Twitter is a child, and I give a lot of leeway to LGBT people who are discovering their identity and voice and occasionally misdirecting their anger in the process, but I have to say that all the people at PinkNews really should know much better (as should many Twitter users). I really go back and forth on the source, but utter trash like this makes me lose a lot of confidence in it, and I think our RSP entry is too generous. The problem with the article (and the "recession" ones) is that it's so surface level. Uncritically repeating social media comments is not journalism: at best, it's a 13-year-old's homework on the subject "Write about a topic of interest in the style of a news report".

What's so frustrating is that it's so damn easy to do "investigative" journalism about Wikipedia, because the whole site is open source. You don't even have to email someone for an interview. Just take a look at the page history and the talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Just take a look at the page history and the talk page"

You've just talked about two notions completely unknown to 95% of the population. For journalists and randoms joe schmoes, Wikipedia is magic. They know everyone can edit it, but no one's actually done it. Let alone figure out advanced notions like page histories and talk pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. But open up an article and look at the buttons you can click on. Or type into a search engine "How to see what a Wikipedia article used to look like" or whatever you want to know. It's hardly rocket science. We don't hide anything. It was no mystery to me as a child. It shouldn't be beyond the level of curiosity expected from someone specifically being paid to write an article about Wikipedia.

All the manufactured "recession" outrage was based on Tweets that screenshot articles, page histories and talk pages. A journalist should think "huh, I wonder whether I can independently verify what this screenshot shows me". But of course someone who works for the Daily Mail isn't a journalist at all. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this article. It really helps clear things up. FactMaster007 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinion: Criminals among us (27,997 bytes · 💬)

Emmanuel Lemelson has been a difficult COI/sock/IP for years. He is a hedge fund short seller who was convicted (civil fraud) of using the media to damage the reputation of a company and profited from it. -- GreenC 01:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I can think of a case of a local Wikipedian who deliberately crashed his car, killing himself and his two young children, thus committing murder-suicide: Glen Dillon (see the linked article). These things are very sad but they do happen. Graham87 08:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
this was person in troubled relationship that had broken down, to which ultimately he could see only one way out. Yes he did something horribly tragic, but I dont think naming him contributes to discussion about criminals editing in any meaningful way. His was not an action of a criminal but of someone struggling mentally and emotionally with the Family court system. As a Wikipedian he contributed positively across many areas Gnan garra 11:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Reading this piece, your first question might be: "why don't we have a policy banning criminals?" We do have a policy banning paedophiles. Each crime discussed in this article—murder, rape, and financial fraud—are gross indignities perpetrated against another human being, and we are right to be concerned about such unrepentant people editing Wikipedia. Other "crimes", such as using marijuana or being LGBT in parts of the world, are nothing of the sort. We should be aware of the racialisation of crime and the fact that a neutral point of view entails not basing our community ethics on any government's definition of "crime". Political prisoners are another category. Among the Wikimedia community of people interested in increasing the sum of accessible information, I'd expect Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden to be quite popular. So while "convicted criminal" can be a concise way of indicating that somebody has perpetrated gross acts, it's not a precise one.
I was surprised that the pattern of school shooters editing Wikipedia is so extensive, though it appears that only one had an extensive history of it (Pentagon shooter). It does not bother me hugely that a school shooter might try to use Wikipedia to gain attention—it seems that many are desperate to seek it through any avenue possible, and we shut down urgent things like this quite well compared to other websites. What bothers me at quite a deep level is the idea that school shooters are reading true crime information on the encyclopedia and that's fueling their ideation for committing violence, particularly the idea that they are planning methods from reading articles about school shooters. But the reasons for people's fascination with true crime is quite complex. About a year ago I created an article on a book, Dead Blondes and Bad Mothers, which tries to find reason behind the majority of true crime and horror fans being female—people might use it to process violence that they have faced or feel at risk of, to some degree. I do wonder also how the families of victims feel about our articles on the topic. I'm not sure whether action is needed if our articles are the inspiration behind despicable acts of violence, or what that action would look like. — Bilorv (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
One scary fact is that we likely know a small number of the ones who edited. With our (quite justified) rules against outing and (again, quite justified) allowance of anonymity and pseudonymity, how would we know? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, this occurred to me also. If these are the people we know about, what about the people we don't know? But it's an impossible question to answer. I found it a bit chilling to read here that: The head of Wikimedia Norway, Jon Harald Søby, was quoted as saying that if there were any content written by [the Norwegian mass murderer] in the Norwegian Wikipedia that was factually correct, then he thought it should remain. But at the same time, what else can we say? — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Bilorv:! I asked for a reasonable discussion and it looks like we have one. I'm not even going to disagree with you, all your points are good so far. I'll just offer some opposing points so the conversation is fuller, more well rounded. I'll also have to stop at intervals. One point I think we can all agree on is that lawyers should never edit about a client's case, bio, or related articles. Lawyers are required to be advocates for their clients. And they are paid advocates, inserting a class bias into Wikipedia if they edit - the rich can hire more and better advocates than the poor. But even pro bono lawyers are compensated in some way. If lawyers want to advocate for their clients outside the courtroom they can certainly issue press releases, and we are allowed to cite these press releases in many cases (even if it is not a preferred source, it is much better than a anonymous biased source inserted directly into an article.) In many well known cases they can easily give press conference and attract reporters attention in other ways. Can we agree that a blanket ban is appropriate for lawyers editing for clients? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with that analysis: a lawyer should not be editing material related to a client they represent. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for this article. Involved in the advocacy on the topic of regulation of terrorist content online for Wikimédia France, I've found the case of the Edmund Burke School shooting very interesting. Pyb (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the great overview of a very difficult-to-discuss issue! I would actually be strongly against banning known criminal editors, if they haven’t actively done anything on Wikipedia itself that would be deserving of a ban. This is for two primary reasons: 1) Laws are not always objective, or objectively enforced. For instance, it wasn’t long ago that homosexuality was a felonious action in the United States. The sheer number of admins alone who would be banned…clearly criminality is not always equivalent to lack of moral fibre. 2) The value of anonymity. Giving an incentive to tracking down or even faking the real-world identity of editors (if you’re a bad actor who wants to make life difficult for someone) seems likely to cause more trouble than it’s worth. Since this sort of situation is so rare, any mitigation effort is likely to lead to a very large percentage of false positives. Yitz (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Yitzilitt: I don't think the situation of criminals editing articles about themselves or their crimes is very rare at all. Thankfully it's rare for mass shooters, but for corporate crime and fraudsters, no it's not rare. I gave 5 examples above
- the insider trader (1st example at the top}
- the 1st Ponzi schemer
- Theranos (and its former CEO and COO)
- Zach Avery, the 2nd Ponzi schemer mentioned
- Wirecard
As far as what types of crime - really any when they or their lawyers are editing the relevant crime or bio articles. But in general crimes of violence, sex crimes, crimes of deception, i.e. serious fraud cases including major corporate frauds. Those shouldn't be too controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's probably some judgement calls here. For example, there's numerous cases in US law where there's strong evidence a person in jail or executed was likely innocent, but the appeals system failed. Likewise, there's many crimes we don't care about: we allow pretty much all editors to edit traffic ticket, but many of them have one. But this is an issue of wording, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 13:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a choice about what kind of crimes to include and what type of "proof" is acceptable. See the discussion about Peter Nygard below. I suspect that he'll never come to trial because he may die in jail, so he won't be convicted of anything. But as far as the number of accusers, the number of long detailed stories in the NYTimes (4?) and in *several* other very reliable sources. And the video evidence obtained by the CBC (they say 100s of hours from his personal videographer) I don't think we need to have one *conviction* in a case like this. So there are some borderline possibilities, but we should always have very strict rules for the "blanket ban." As far as reporting serious accusations from very reliable sources, I think that's allowed now - but some folks need to be told to read the BLP policy again. Traffic tickets? Naw. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also the general principle that once a sentence has been served, people should be able to reintegrate society. In theory at least. Which crimes are unforgivable is very much in the eye of the beholder. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, at the same time, COI editing applies to your article whether there's crimes or not. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Convenience break

Whether or not someone is a criminal is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia unless their criminal behaviour causes real problems with their editing. If I'm in prison for embezzling money and have somehow obtained the privilege to edit Wikipedia, the fact I've done so doesn't seem relevant to whether I can objectively write articles on electrical engineering. Establishing this a precedent just encourages editors to attempt to WP:OUT each other. I don't see how the examples you've mentioned can't be handled with our existing policies which already mostly ban people from editing their own articles. The Signpost doesn't need to have a repeat of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-04-25/Disinformation report.

On another note, your statement that:

Like writers of Wikipedia articles, we should not have to wait for a conviction to report on possibly criminal acts, or even an indictment. It can take years before a criminal is actually convicted. All that is needed is a credible report in a very reliable source.

is questionable per WP:BLPCRIME, which says:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

People are innocent until proven guilty. Calling people "criminals" when they haven't been convicted is a pretty flagrant violation of BLP. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: "possibly criminal acts", Will Smith slapping Chris Rock was a possibly criminal act, for instance, and we reported on it before it was clear that Smith would not be convicted of a crime over it. I don't know that the suggestion was to call someone a "criminal" when they were not convicted of a crime, as that would never be true. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: The major problem with your critique of this article is that it's not about this article. For example you seem to accuse me of a BLP violation: "Calling people "criminals" when they haven't been convicted is a pretty flagrant violation of BLP." Where do I call a non convicted person a criminal? Please be specific.

You quote WP:BLPCRIME at me which starts off "For individuals who are not public figures;", but everybody who is mentioned here (all 15 individuals and 1 or 2 companies) are public figures. Show me if I'm wrong. The proper section of BLP to quote is WP:BLPPUBLIC:

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

You write "Whether or not someone is a criminal is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit Wikipedia ..." If it's an accused or convicted criminal or his lawyer writing about himself or his crime it's always relevant, there's no way they can be neutral.

Are you just trying to say that it is your opinion that The Signpost (or anybody else for that matter) should never write anywhere about suspected or convicted criminals who edit Wikipedia? That sounds like pure censorship to me. I don't see that in Wikipedia rules and you'll have a long way to go even trying to make that argument. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You said "All that is needed is a credible report in a very reliable source" and WP:BLPCRIME says that it's necessary to show that the person is a public figure before we can mention their name in reference to their criminality. While you've only named public figures so far, if you're planning on mentioning anyone else who isn't or suggesting that the Signpost actively seek to expose any editor who is both a) mentioned to be a Wikipedia editor in a credible source and b) is mentioned to be accused of criminality in a credible source, then that's questionable in light of BLPCRIME.

You never mentioned in your article that your proposed policy on criminals editing Wikipedia is only meant to apply to criminals that are public figures. What I, and what many other commenters are reading, is that you want to ban all criminals (to be defined later) from editing Wikipedia.

I don't get why we need a specific policy banning criminals or their representatives from editing articles on themselves. We already have policies dealing with people wishing to edit articles on themselves, and we shouldn't add to the reams of policies that we already have with new ones designed to address extremely specific edge cases.

Of note in all this is that none of the edits mentioned in the article would have been prevented by any ban on criminal editors. All of these edits were performed by people who were not convicted criminals at the time of their edits. Many were performed prior to any criminal activity. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: I'd hoped that we could have a calm discussion about this, but I think you are not in the mode of trying to do something about the problem, bouncing ideas around to see what we could actually do. I have not made any formal proposals. The closest I've come is "Perhaps we could even come up with a policy or guideline to deal with the problem. A first step could be a blanket ban on any criminal or their representatives editing any article about themselves or the crime." Let's call that second sentence the "proposal as written", though clearly I'm asking for input and comments. You write none of the edits mentioned in the article would have been prevented by any ban on criminal editors Actually that's not true. There are are least three editors who would have been quickly banned under the "proposal as written:

The 1st editor mentioned (insider trader with the Supreme Court case)
- Surprisingly he's got 101 live edits and almost exactly half (50) are related to his legal case or bio (48 to bio, 1 related, 1 talk page). Under the proposal he could have been blanket banned after his 1st edit. BTW he is now still not blocked or banned and made his last edit only 5 years ago.
The 2nd editor mentioned (1st Ponzi schemer mentioned):
- He had 126 edits with only 32 still live and 94 (which I can't see) deleted in only 2 months. He would have been blocked under the proposal after his 1st edit. BTW he still hasn't been blocked or banned, but since he had a 9 year federal sentence maybe we can say something like "effectively blocked".
Jeffrey Epstein and his paid editors
- There were 3 editors clearly being paid by Epstein, 2 of them indef blocked after a dozen or so edits. The 3rd has 148 total edits and 4 deleted edits, 93 of the live edits are to Epstein related pages, plus 5 to talk pages related to Epstein. I believe this editor could have been blocked after their first live edit, or likely before(!) under the proposal. The 1st live edit might have taken an especially perceptive admin to catch - but looking at it now it's pretty obvious that it's the same as the previously blocked editor. Blocking them before the 1st live edit? It's obvious from their talk page entries that the deleted edits were about "Jeffrey Epstein (plastic surgeon)" which was clearly set up as a distraction.
- I'll be back in a couple of hours with a bit more detail, but it's clear that for these three editors mentioned at least a couple hundred edits would have been prevented. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chess and Smallbones: I think we're a little off-focus. The main issue is really that there's a strong Conflict of interest in editing your own page or pages related to you to make yourself look better, and that applies whether you've committed crimes or not. The article is talking about people who reliable sources say did quite horrible things. A policy shouldn't be written like an article, so there's going to be a language shift needed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 18:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

yes, Adam there are 2 or 3 things that we're discussing that seem to be getting mixed up (some is my fault). I'll see if I cn strainghten this out here.

The Wikipedia article (i'm not much interested in changing the rules about articles themselves, but...)
- Who can edit an article? Not an editor writing about themselves, or their paid editors, or their lawyers. That's pretty clear already. But if there is a notable case in the areas of violent crime, sex crimes, serious fraud, to stop this already prohibited activity, we can blanket ban (for the whole wiki) clearly identifiable autobiographers, their paid editors, and any lawyer representing his client onWiki. It's surprising how often it's extremely clear, e,g.Epstein's paid editor quoted in this article.
- Convicted criminals and similar - blanket ban applied once they are judged to be "convicted criminals" in the same 3 areas as above whether they've edited their article or not. It won't be used very often, since they're likely to be in jail
What can be written in The Signpost (and on talkpages - same rules) - same stuff as now, but people should realize that we're allowed to write about criminals (public figures, very high quality sources, etc.) even if they are Wikipedia editors when properly identified onWiki (e.g. at SPI) or in the very reliable press (e.g. self-identifying) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I appreciate the content warnings. That is a kind and respectful thing to provide to the reader. Ckoerner (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ckoerner: thanks for letting me know. I thought it be only me getting a weak stomach. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

2nd convenience break

A couple of years ago I expanded the article on Vitaly Borker, the Ukrainian emigrant to Brooklyn whose modus operandi was to get people to give his online eyeglass retail business bad reviews so that the resultant links would game PageRank and put him at the top of Google search results. This has earned him two extended stays as a guest of the United States. It's an interesting read.

I suspect Borker himself got involved in an edit war we had there last fall; when I directly identified him in this talk page discussion, he never contradicted me (And I do admit he had a point).

I don't expect him to be involved in any more such discussions for a long time as the resumption of his activities that prompted me to expand the article has resulted in him going back to jail for parole violations, and with new charges pending I doubt he'll be free to edit again until maybe 2030 or so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Daniel That looks like the Wiki-discussion from hell, talking with a convicted professional online troll about his trolling. I think WP:PAYTALK would apply. Did you see the edits made by OpticsFast and by the guy I call CheeseWhiz? That's an impressive group of authors! Right up there with RFW (above). Thanks for letting me know about this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the edits by OpticsFast because apparently that account isn't registered. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: See User talk:Opticsfast, small f, no User page. only 3 edits, all identical reverts within about 15 minutes. Sorry. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I decided to block that account indefinitely in case he ever tries to use it again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Peter Nygård

(Redacted)

I saw your discussion on Jimbo's talk a few days ago and pretty much agree with you. There's no real way to accurately count the victims, and then why do we want to keep a scorecard? Nygard is a prime example of why you can't count. From what I read at 81 years old his health is very poor. His lawyer has said he is broke and will likely die in jail. So he may never be convicted of a single rape. At the same time the named accusers are probably much higher than the figures on that list. I don't know if you've read The Signpost article about him. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-02-28/Disinformation report, but I'm interested in what you think. Does it inform Wikipedians of the type of editing situation they might run into, or does it just mess things up further like the list you've complained about? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted)

You can be a serial rapist without having been convicted for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PA, we're talking past each other here. Understandably you're interested in the list, and I'm interested in whether you think the Signpost article was worthwhile and properly informative to our readers. No need to respond if you'd rather not. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones Sorry, I did misunderstand you. As a recitation of criminals who have edited Wikipedia, it was interesting. As an opinion piece, I think your use of the word "criminal" to define a group of people who are unwelcome here is entirely inappropriate. Many, if not most of us, are criminals in the sense that we have broken laws. Some of us have been convicted of crimes. Some of us have served time in jail or prison. Should those people not be able edit Wikipedia?

(Redacted)

Since that's a pretty flagrant violation of WP:BLPCRIME I've gone ahead and removed him from that list. [2] The people in charge of policing these lists are those who see them and realize there is a problem with them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this article Smallbones from someone who has been experiencing the trauma and backlash of paid editing ever since I started on WP. I appreciate your effort in expanding our awareness to this topic and stirring discussion.Wuerzele (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I think the most important thing we can do now is let people know how extensive the problem is. Would you be interested in writing something for the Signpost about this in an area you know well? There might even be 2-4 people who would be willing to help you in the same area. I may be off on vacation myself this month. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed (396 bytes · 💬)

Correction in the 3rd quote block

[... A closer analysis of these year-90 rules] should be [... A closer analysis of these year-0 rules] 30103db (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Done thank you for the catch ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia (1,096 bytes · 💬)

This is lovely; I've always felt that Commons had a particularly special and valuable place within our project. Thank you for going through these and writing this article up ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I, too, am a fan of the book. After I found out about it recently, I added it to the further reading sections in the Library and History of libraries articles. There are also Wikipedia articles about both of the authors (someone else had already added the book to both of those articles). I also agree with your comments about Commons images. Some of the thousands of images I've uploaded to Commons have similarly been published in books, magazines, and other websites, usually with correct attribution. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot (2,222 bytes · 💬)

Very nicely presented! XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Remarkably well presented. Makes me want to dive right in. I've bookmarked it and will re-visit. Many thanks. Le Marteau (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Le Marteau: Glad you've found it useful! It truly is a time saver and a wonderful tool. It's not perfect, but it gets you 95-98% of the way, and saves you so many headaches. You can focus on content/accuracy instead of manually entering citations and making silly little mistakes that you won't catch because your mind is tired of looking at half a zillion citations. Does J. Phys. Chem. refer to the Journal of Physics and Chemistry or the Journal of Physical Chemistry? Let the bot figure it out! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Headbomb! Graham (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The “case 1” example is better before the “improvements” which only add illegible strings of numbers and letters that anyone who cares could find with a few seconds of effort, but fill the article bibliography with a massive amount of distracting visual clutter. Anyone who cares about "bibcode", "s2cid", "pmc", "pmid", "mr", "isbn", etc. etc. already knows how to look them up, and people who don’t care about them are poorly served by having to hunt past them looking for the actual content of the citation. For an open access paper like this, just one link is already entirely sufficient; for a non-open-access paper a single preprint link can be a big help. But adding every conceivable citation index identifier to every citation is ridiculous. –jacobolus (t) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July (2,085 bytes · 💬)

Images

What's with the second picture in the "July 9 to 16" table? Right now it shows a Mercedes-Benz car for no apparent reason. Tube·of·Light 05:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've explained the image in the table. SSSB (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

JLo picture

Uh...I'm not too sure that's Jennifer Lopez. That looks more like Ciara to me. Is this an error? —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed that's Ciara, Page Six/Billboard confirm it. The image is misnamed and mis-tagged. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I've gone ahead and changed the picture to one that (I believe) is actually Jennifer Lopez. I don't know if "outsiders" are supposed to make such edits, but I'm sure the publishers of the original list will appreciate the change. —VersaceSpace 🌃 17:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Guidestones

I've added a picture to the Georgia Guidestones entry. That seemed an odd omission. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)