Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-06-28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-06-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation (9,572 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

When is "today"? Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the report, 28th, I presume. — Pretzels Hii! 23:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason Piotrus is being singled out to be represented as a questionable editor across all of WP as there have been other appeals? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This part of Signpost previously reported on requests for amendments that had been filed in the week, however, this was dropped due to a lack of interest. Early last week, I decided that this position will be reviewed in this issue. So in response to the loaded question, the Piotrus request was singled out because it was the only request that was unclosed/unpassed by arbitration process, and it had also been filed before the end of the reporting date (that is, it was the only recent/new news). Signpost reported both views that were expressed to date (primarily by Malik Shabazz and Skapperod): one concerning the burden on WikiProject Poland and his constructive edits, and the one that questioned trustworthiness which cited the findings of deceptive (or misleading) conduct for the purpose of causing disruption. The reason for the adverse latter view being made by Skapperod or others is presumably because of the obvious: resigning ones tools does not absolve that user of responsibility - that is, no one else can be blamed for the extremely serious breaches that Piotrus committed during the time in which he was an admin (an established position of trust and clue). Had the Piotrus request been made later, it would not have been reported in this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not just with the fact that you (for some reason) "decided" to focus on this particular appeal but also in the way you wrote about it. "However, questions are raised..." is a weaselly way of making a personal attack ("However, questions are raised about Ncmvocalists journalistic integrity"). "engaged in severe misconduct that disrupted (and was calculated to disrupt) Wikipedia's processes," - there's no FOFs to that effect anywhere and you pulled this straight out of your thin air. Basic problem blindingly obvious to anyone who's ever read a newspaper and understands the difference between a newstory and an editorial, or a respectable newspaper and a yellow journalist tabloid is that you presented the one side of the argument as just an argument: "The filer is arguing that...", whereas you presented the other side as fact "who over a lengthy period of time..." (which you made up). If I was cynical about this sort of thing, I'd venture that you're trying to use the Signpost to engage in Wikipolitics and influence the outcome of the appeal, which would be, were I cynical about this sort of thing, quite a shameful use of the project. Since when do personal attacks get put into the Signpost? Final question - did you get any outside "input" or did anyone suggest this to you? Not to be cynical or anything.radek (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My decision to review the position of recently filed amendment requests was as a result of a suggestion that was made shortly after the publication of the previous issue. As I just said, had the Piotrus request been made later, I would have had no choice but to sit on the suggestion for another week. I think the rest of your comment consist of exaggerations and nonsense. Again, one user was making an argument based on their own views about edits since the case - another user was raising questions on the basis of activities & edits made prior to the case that resulted in the linked ArbCom's findings of facts. The material part of these views were conveyed, but seeing the latter view is in question here, I think some copying and pasting is warranted. Fof 8 states that "Piotrus was aware that usage of the list was inappropriate, and made efforts to keep its nature and existence secret from Wikipedia editors." 10.1 states he "participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list, including 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, encouraging and advising list members to circumvent Wikipedia policies...." An arbitrator also observed "the emails show that Piotrus knew' that the group was doing something wrong, yet he supported forming the group, and used it to promote his agenda." Also "Piotrus participated in the mailing list's campaign of canvassing". All of this was conveyed within one line for the purposes of this report - the alternative would have been to convey the context by copying and pasting every single case, line, diff and email reference, and date. I think others prefer the short version I posted where they can look into the substance of prior findings that justified the remedy that was imposed; similarly, I think others can look into the details of what is actually said at the request for amendment. I also think others can identify the commenting users who have (or have had) an actual vested interest in the area/dispute, be it due to their own participation in coordinated disruption of Wikipedia or be it due to involvement in the EE content disputes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who made this suggestion? Nonsense and exaggerations yourself. You took one person's statement and presented it as an "argument". You took another person's statement and presented it as a matter of fact. Then, however you try to Wikilawyer it, you added your own highly biased interpretation of some of the ArbCom findings. Where in those findings does it say, for example "over a lengthy period of time"? That's nowhere in there and it's straight out of one of the COMMENTATOR's opinion. These kind of things always end up with people making wacky allegations and you presented these wacky allegations as truth, when they're not. Look, this area is enough of a battleground without the Signpost acting as a mouthpiece for one side or another, fueling the drama with these kinds of editorials and personal attacks, and being made into a vehicle of Wikipolitics.radek (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radeksz, whatever the outcome of this particular appeal, the gravity of the presenting issues are of interest to a wider audience than any run-of-the-mill appeal. Your above comments, all-too-typical of the whole tone of the protagonists in the debate, are in my view unhelpful and I urge you to desist. Ben MacDui 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to argue a straw man. As far as I can see Radeksz have not argued that the issues are of no interests or that the Signpost should not report about the case, but simply that the issues were not presented in a neutral way, in fact they were presented in a very negative way for Piotrus.  Dr. Loosmark  18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Loosmark is exactly right. If Ncmvocalist had written: "There is an amendment proposed to case x. The person making an appeal is y. The sanction being appealed is z. There are comments from users p, q, and r. Arbitrators m,n, and l have commented and/or voted on the case. The case need epsilon votes for the motion to pass." that would've been fine - that's how regular news stories, rather than attack pieces (what is this, Lou Dobbs? If so, it should at the very least be labeled as an editorial), are written. And I would still like to know who was it that made this "suggestion" to him.radek (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and (ec) My (original) point, in short, was the announcement was prejudiced. Let's just leave that while mistakes were made, privacy was also grossly violated based on absconded Emails and statements made in private interpreted literally, i.e., inappropriately, and evidence provided by the "protagonists" to the contrary was wholly discounted. I have not seen you, Ben MacDui, before, and we have not interacted, so I would prefer you not make sweeping "all too common" contentions regarding the protagonists, who include myself. I invite you to contact me off-Wiki if you wish to discuss the case from the perspective of a "protagonist." (Also, my comments regarding "canvassing" are in evidence.) Thank you. That you so freely make sweeping statements already proves the damage done. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Features and admins: Approved this week (408 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

It's nice to see such highly notable articles hitting the main page as featured articles; only two pop culture articles, and even then, right at the top end of pop culture. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos? (6,314 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • But I thought everybody loved Wikipedia. Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 18:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Must have been a slow newsweek for the 'traditional' media. :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm seriously pissed off that I'm not being asked to join all these groups that are secretly controlling Wikipedia. C'mon, guys, I wanna join the club too! EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOX News spread lies, bears shit in the woods.

I did discover one interesting thing after reading the article though. It mentions a campaign by a pro-paedophilia web site to keep an AfD on Marthijn Uittenbogaard, the leader of a Dutch pro-paedophilia party with only three members. The article is still there, though the name now redirects to the party, Party for Neighbourly Love, Freedom, and Diversity. The deletion debate, from February 2008, seemed to move smoothly towards delete, until User:AnotherSolipsist made a strong pitch for keeping it. This was followed by four more "keeps", and the closing admin decided to keep it.

Here's the kicker though: AnotherSolipsist was blocked indefinitely in June 2008 for "Questionable activity in pedophilia-related areas". As for the other four users who voted keep, I make no assumptions, but this nevertheless seems like a pro-paedophilia campaign that succeeded. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, can wikipedia be leftist at times? Yes. Extreme? Heck no. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I am not a pedophile, I certainly am not an islamofacist, and I am not left wing (well, on the American scale I might be, but not the Canadian), so I guess that makes me a communist commando, whatever the hell that is. I guess I'm doing my Soviet heritage proud! Maybe? Resolute 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wonder which one of us are the bigger trolls, us Wikipedians or Fox News?  Marlith (Talk)  04:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it rather funny how there's four huge long negative sections, and one really short positive one. Well, perhaps a slow news week for you guys, but apparently not here- we never get any coverage of Wikipedia, regardless what happens. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good on Jimbo for putting unprofessional FOXNews in its place. Tony (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article runs against the law of attraction. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breifly: "Wikipedia is now recording anonymous posters’ IP" well that is not exactly news! Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

  • The section on Islamofascists doesn't have any independent information. No sampling of what must have been a huge move debate, no comments from appropriate WikiProjects, no verification or refutation of Lieberman's claims. I appreciate how much effort went into the FOX section, but this one seems a little underdeveloped. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm Facepalm I can't help but ask: is it time to explicitly remove Fox News from the group of reliable sources? Yes, this may appear to be a tit-for-tat, but when considering a given source reliable, one always assumes it is making a good faith attempt to present the truth. And after reading this latest story, I'd say assuming good faith on behalf of Fox News would violate the general consensus that "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact". And lastly, Wikipedia has a bigger audience than that cable entertainment channel; while they may buy ink by the barrel (to allude to the old canard), Wikipedia owns one of the factories which makes the ink they buy. -- llywrch (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are secondary journalism sources on both the left -- FAIR -- and the right -- AIM. They are similar-sized and funded, and they take different sides on the typical left-right split issues. Why don't you ask WP:RSN to do a survey of the two to decide which is most reliable? Because they both clearly have opposite views on whether reporting by Fox News (and other Rupert Murdoch outlets, which tend to the same side of the spectrum) are accurate and reliable. It should be a useful exercise. Clearly both of them can't be reliable because of the vast number of different topics on which they disagree very profoundly. Why Other (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: 2010–15 plan, Smithsonian outreach, Teaching Wikipedia, brief news (5,770 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

I must say this comment by Sue Gardner was not quite what I expected to read:

"Based on the plan, Sue Gardner projected the Wikimedia Foundation's staff to grow to as many as 200 full-time equivalents by 2015, with annual spending reaching $40 million"

My view is that the basis of contributions to Wikipedia and other projects come from volunteers, and that the staff on Wikimedia Foundation, some 35 persons, are there to maintain servers, fund-raising for servers, legal stuff and some more. Expanding the staff by a factor of almost 10 in five years seems to change the nature of how we work in a way I don't like, seems like the law of the ever expanding bureaucracy. I don't think I will give money for such an expansion and I think it will be a hard sell. We built this with volunteers, no need to change course dramatically now. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that funding goes to hiring University Outreach and WP:GLAM coordinators, that is where we need to get support for Wikimedia and Wikipedia to gain more reputation in the scholarly community. Sadads (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article describes only the state of 2010-15strategy plan as it was made quasi-official back in April. As indicated in the article, the contents of the plan are still in flux and the final official version will come out in the fall. The current numbers given on the strategy wiki (strategy:Strategic Plan/Role of the WMF - page seems to have been authored largely by the Bridgespan consultants) are 188 employees by 2015, with a $51M budget in 2014-15.
There is an interesting discussion on what this expansion would mean on phoebe's blog, with several board and staff members (current and former, e.g. Brion) weighing in.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, increasing Foundation headcount from 35 to 188 is very much a surprise to those of us who've been around for a while & helped to take Wikipedia from obscurity to one of the top ten websites in terms of page views when there were less than a dozen Foundation staffers. And I believe the problem lies in, to use Ulflarsen's words, the "and some more" area. Beyond IT support, legal support, community outreach & coordination, fund-raising, & the inevitable office administrators, I can't think of any need for more Foundation personnel -- & substantial parts of those areas are handled by volunteers as it is. Now if some of the money were to find its way to those of us who contribute the actual content that people read, now that would be a different discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read through what seems to be the main strategy documents and there are a lot of good stuff there, recommended reading. We have challenges in reaching out, gender and nationality of readers and contributors is very unevenly distributed, and some of the underlying problems (difficult to contribute, partnerships with large organisations, like states, companies etc + better infrastructure; servers and such) can only be fixed by WM Foundation.

But, in one of the documents there is this statement which somehow seems to be a vital part of the foundation for the resulting proposal of drastically expanding the staff of the WMF:

"How will we achieve this vision? We believe there is a virtuous circle between between a growing participation in our movement and the quality and reach of our content. These three elements are inextricably tied. Without a healthy and diverse community of participants, the quality of our content will suffer. Without high-quality, multilingual content, we will not be able to reach broader audiences. We believe that investing in any one of these elements will have a positive effect on the others. Or, put another way, reach drives participation, which drives quality, which in turn drives reach."

Even though it states that the three "are inextricably tied", focus seems to be on reach, and to build reach, we need to build up WMF. I may have got this wrong, but all the same volunteers started to participate long before there were reach. When I got into this in June 2004 the English language Wikipedia was some 250K articles, while the Norwegian was about 5K - still I contributed, because I saw the need - and of course because it's fun, and I could.

A $50M budget and 180 staff is in one way really not that much, one could argue that just with what we contribute in the Nordic countries that money should be handed out from our state coffers, Wikipedia is what the pupils/students, journalists etc use. But the thing is the volunteers. We got were we are today with a massive amount of volunteers, this and our non-commercial goal of spreading knowledge set us apart from the other big five (Google, Facebook, Yahoo & Microsoft). I am not against some more staff at WMF, but I think volunteers are essential, and that we should be able to recruit ten times as many as we have today, given two factors: Purpose & easier editing. If you are a professional and your respected community leader - who ever it is, says Wikipedia is good & needed, then you have purpose, and if you don't get turned off by trying to edit, then I think we can achieve a lot. So - Why & How. Ulflarsen (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content (1,852 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • The article says "Harris' report and recommendations are due to be tabled at the fall meeting of the Board of Trustees." I assume from reading the linked Q&A that that is using the UK definition for Table (parliamentary procedure); I suspect many readers familiar with the US definition will be confused. Anomie⚔ 20:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was introduced in the copyediting process, I restored the earlier version which should be unambigous.
By the way, Wikinews just published an article about the same topic: [1]
Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harris has now introduced himself and described the project at meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gathered a list of past Signpost coverage there:Image controversies covered in the "Signpost" (2006-2010). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a small request back when this mess started - a small request that we would get a simple policy and not end up getting a giant lawyer-proof policy that may or may not address Jimbo's original complaint that the images are non-educational. Nobody listened and now the commitees are forming. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-28/Public Policy Initiative

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (2,939 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • "noc.wikimedia.org, which provides up-to-date copies of files not included in the Wikimedia subversion (SVN) repository, now applies appropriate syntax highlighting to many of its files." Maybe I'm missing something you're saying here, but the syntax highlighting is nothing new. ^demon[omg plz] 13:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think maybe it's more (?) syntax highlighting "07:38 JeLuF: enabled PHP modules on fenari so that noc.wikimedia.org deliveres syntax highlighted config files." - I was kinda guessing what he meant by "config", I assume a large number of files but it was just a guess. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vector is terrible. I hops that it doesn't become the default on Wikibooks. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody reply with a link to any actual statistics that conclusively show that Vector is liked by users more than Monobook? Has any usability study been done here? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the usability study said "X, Y, and Z components of Monobook need improving". Vector is an attempt to ease that. Statistics exists for the number of people who opted-out of Vector; I can't recall the exact figure, but it was something like 10%. No-one has yet, to the best of my knowledge, asked the readers which they prefer. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Jarry1250. I hadn't seen that number before. Ten percent actually sounds like an very large percentage to me. It seems to me like the bulk of users never go out of their way to change anything (think IE, etc.). Jason Quinn (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well maybe a better stat would be that 17% of users that opted in to the trial opted out again before Vector went live. Since both processes were one, possibly two clicks - and Vector has by most people's estimations got better since then - I think it's fair to draw the conclusion that most editors prefer Vector. Maybe not all, but most. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships (5,634 bytes · 💬)[edit]

  • This week, you'll notice that I tried a different 'format' for the article, instead of the Q&A format that we've been using for a while. I'm open to feedback on this new format and I'd like to hear what you think. Regards, mono 21:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done guys, this formatting is really quite good. Keep up the good work! Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 08:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, it reads well. To play devil's advocate, will it work so well when there's only one or two interviewee, do you think? Also, maybe some formatting should be applied (like before, with questions bolded) such that casual readers can hook in and out. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 10:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Jarry. Bolded question/answer alternation would be a return to the other style. I'll comment on your probing questions about one or two interviewees at WT:Wikipedia Signpost.
        • I'm not sure I like it the new format, mono. I liked the feeling of a bunch of editors telling war stories in a bar after work. It seems forced into the third person article style. Interviews give you personality, opinions, and anecdotes. All three are best suited to the first person. I appreciate the creativity. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 out of 9 pics are of US ships. Is this bias indicative of bias within the project as a whole? 86.159.193.193 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would imagine that it is because a great number of editors here are American. Airplaneman ✈ 21:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any real bias in the photos, but I would not dismiss any charges of bias with a statement like that just above; we are a very global project. —innotata 22:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's rather the availability of high-quality photos. If there is a bias, it's in file uploads; the US Navy in particular loves to take great photos of its ships, which are PD. WPShips and OMT in particular are very international and careful to be balanced. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly what bahamut said. The U.S. Navy and the federal government put many of their photos online, and we can upload all of them because they are in the public domain. You can't say that for any other country barring the older photo collections in the UK and Australia. Re bias, I can see Australian, Russian, Japanese, Dutch and Brazilian ships in this list... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are only three photographs of American ships. There is a fishing boat from Mozambique. American Star was Greek registered at the time of her loss. TIV Resolution is registered in Cyprus, Oasis of the Seas is registered in the Bahamas, INS Jalashwa is an Indian Navy ship and Lightning was a British ship. Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←Yes, the pictures do involve a wider nation-related scope than might at first be apparent. In any case, users from en.WP and other WPs who would like to contribute to this rich area in whatever cultural or national field they choose will, I'm sure, be most welcome to join up. Please consider! Tony (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2010-06-28&oldid=1125229017"