User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:12, 6 January 2009

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

User talk pages with the most edits

As of October 2008. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1	OrphanBot	34634
2	Jimbo Wales	26347
3	SandyGeorgia	13766
4	Alison	13295
5	Raul654	13006
6	Bishonen	12621
7	Tony Sidaway	12135
8	RickK	11578
9	Durova	10407
10	Keeper76	10114

I should stop talking to myself so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYC meet-up video

I am aware of the issue you raise on the "arbitrator confidence" page. The father of the younger editor in the video was present at the meet-up. I discussed this issue with him before the video was made, and he told me that he had no objection to his son being included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are broader than the one child, one situation in the video. Some parts of the video are hard to hear, so I may have missed critical statements or moments, but I was left confused. Either the adult participants in that meeting are unaware of the number of issues arising with child editors, including the affect on content review processes and admin actions; not concerned about those effects; or perhaps they were being polite in deference to the father and child. Unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific how you believe that child editors are affecting content review processes and admin actions. I am aware of concerns expressed regarding younger editors' personal safety and privacy issues, as well as the never-ending argument concerning whether younger editors who are otherwise qualified should be granted adminship. I don't believe I'm as familiar with how younger editors are affecting, say, the FA process, so I'd be interested in more information about that issue. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, thanks for taking the time to inquire.

I've come across nine- to 12-year-olds submitting articles to FAC, so when we talk about children on Wiki, it should be clear that we are not talking only about minors close to graduating from high school. A 9-year-old or a 12-year-old is a child; I'll avoid the euphemisms and call a spade a spade in this discussion.

I raised the concern because I found that video so surprising. Although much of it was hard to hear, the general impression was of a gathering of adults who appeared to be universally and casually accepting, condoning, to even embracing acceptance of child editors and admins on Wiki. Perhaps the discussion was one-sided in deference to the child and parent present, but it was surprising that the serious issues appeared to be ignored.

I'm sure you're already well enough aware of the "personal safety and privacy issues", which are significant (even for adults, more so for children who aren't yet equipped to deal with issues that may present on the internet), but I understand that parental decisions and supervision are not within the scope of this discussion. I'm unaware of what the legal issues are in public schools or in other countries, but for schools in the US that don't rely on federal funding, parents can demand and expect that Wikimedia be placed behind the school firewall, as with any site that contains adult material, because of Wikimedia content that is unacceptable for school children. The content issue, or the notion that children should be able to become admins, is unlikely to change, so I understand you're mainly inquiring about the effects of child editors on content review processes.

Since children will be children, they often engage in reward-seeking behaviors with the ultimate goal to become an admin, and they are aware of or coached to engage processes that will help them accumulate awards on the path to RFA. This reward-seeking behavior affects all processes via the accumulation of DYKs, GAs, "Triple Crowns", barnstars, and attempts at FAs and often creates a drain on already thin reviewer resources, utilizing the time and energy of other editors who could be better engaged in generating and improving content themselves. It is unclear that the content generated is commensurate with the effort other editors have to expend in review and cleanup. The concern is whether the content being added aligns with the goals of a professional reference work.

Tracking down specifc examples would be time consuming, and it might not be helpful to point at specific cases or editors. Often, the problems don't become evident until an article hits FAC, as other processes have fewer reviewers and don't have a director or delegate where the buck stops. Of course, these issues are not unique to children, but are more common with child editors IMO.

IRC, MySpace and strength in numbers

The child editors tend to congregate together on- and off-Wiki. Quid pro quo FAC supports and GA passes via on- and off-Wiki contact are an issue (you support my articles, I'll support yours). They meet and congregate on MySpace, IRC or secret pages, and may exchange quid pro quo GA passes or pile on support for each other at FAC. This used to be a big problem at GAN, because a GA can be passed by one editor only; when numerous extremely deficient GAs began showing up at FAC, both the GA and FA editors shone a light on this issue, and I believe the problem has substantially subsided. However, it's possible that the quid pro quo deficient GAs are still being passed, but they're no longer being submitted to FAC, as editors now understand they won't get through FAC by piling on IRC-generated supports. When fan or group support is piled on at FAC, serious reviewers have to spend a disproportionate amount of time documenting the issues on ill-prepared nominations. The deficient articles don't (hopefully) pass FAC, but reviewer time is expended on ill-prepared articles: this time could be better spent on maintaining standards and reviewing prepared articles, and reviewers are stretched extremely thin.

Plagiarism

DYKs are easy to accumulate: even easier with plagiarism. Reviewers are stretched thin, and checking for plagiarism is one more thing for mature editors to review. Plagiarism is not only a problem among children, but children may be less aware of what constitutes plagiarism and more likely to take shortcuts to gain awards.

Translations

This issue has shown up at GAN, FAC and DYK; en editor accesses an FA on another language Wiki and runs it through an online translator, cites the foreign sources without accessing or even being able to read them, and ties up multiple content review processes, reaching FAC before serious deficiencies and inaccuracies are discovered. Many resources are expended along the way, again, disproportionate to the value added to Wiki or the reviewer resources expended.

Triple crowns

All three of the above-mentioned problems come to roost in award-seeking behaviors via Triple Crowns. The problem is not the Triple Crown awards per se (Yellow Monkey has many), but that the children may be taking shortcuts and generating inferior content, stretching reviewers thin, on their award-seeking path to RfA.

Award centers

Although they are routinely MfD'd, the children tend to form and congregate around award centers where they can earn prizes for generating content. The same problems of quid pro quo supports, plagiarism, misreprentation of sources, translations, etc. result. The goal is to accumulate barnstars and prizes to be touted at RFA.

GAN

Mentioned already above, seems to be greatly improved since both FA and GA editors shone a light on the issues, but numerous quid pro quo, IRC, and buddy passes among the children were noted in the past. It matters because it ties up reviewer time in sweeps, GAR, etc., as the deficient articles are uncovered.

FAC

FAC is where the buck usually stops and problems often surface, because FAC is not a vote, and pile-on buddy IRC-generated, quid pro quo support doesn't get an article promoted. But many FAC reviewers can speak to the disproportionate amount of time they have to spend on the articles that make it all the way to FAC before the deficiencies are uncovered. The deficiencies are often serious.

That's a basic framework from me: other GA and FA reviewers will probably elucidate, clarify, and add examples. The bottom line is that it's the childish award-seeking drive to RFA that is impacting articles, sapping reviewer time (most of our better FAC reviewers could be generating conent themselves, rather than trying to address deficient articles that appear at FAC), and generally generating review and cleanup work for other editors that is disproportionate to the content generated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece I forgot to add last night, the effect on admin actions. As a typical example, I once submitted a BLP issue to either the COI or the BLP noticeboard (intentionally avoiding the type of interaction that characterizes AN/I), someone else picked it up and reported it at AN/I, and the immature admins swarmed, creating unnecessary drama and ill will, escalating the issue without need. Eventually, a non-admin stepped in to calm the waters (and I've been trying to get him to RFA ever since). Immature admins are not typically equipped to handle delicate COI or BLP situations, but unfortunately don't realize that, and wade in anyway. Since then, I've been more careful to avoid all noticeboards, and go direct to a mature admin for assistance. Some of the rift between content contributors and admins might be traced to the increasingly younger age of the admin corp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue at RFA is that, because it is a vote, child adminship perpetuates via the MySpace, reward-seeking, IRC-chatting group supports, while a mature PhD or superior content contributor may be opposed because s/he hasn't engaged the typical admin-coached path, even though that person has demonstrated capacity and need for the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's not like an admin gets any more of a vote on RfA than the next guy? How does it self perpetuate?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via the IRC, MySpace, secret page groups voting for each other, and curiously, often against editors of demonstrated maturity who haven't followed the path recognized among the group that dominates at RFA. (Consider those RfAs that aren't worth opposing because you know they'll pass anyway, and if you question the maturity of the nom, ageism will be charged.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, have you encountered any examples of an RfA influenced by IRC? –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 16:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on my Talk you'll see that Sandy asked me to comment here. Sandy's discussion above seems a bit objective and impersonal. I suppose I can only put a face (or a sig) to her comments, as a near-casualty (from my point of view) of the friction along values-driven fault lines (you'll notice I didn't say age-driven, though age is certainly a proxy for values... see below). The observations she makes above are not hypothetical, as I'm sure you know. What you may not know is the emotional toll they can take on other editors. I've been near to quitting Wikipedia twice during my time here, and both incidents were cases where I invested major time and emotional energy in opposing the actions or planned actions of under-aged editors. When I was finished, I ended up being instrumental in obstructing their goals in both cases... but I was.. I wish the pixels on the screen could come to life and show you the emotional toll the two incidents took on me. I was a basket case.
The main problem, from my point of view, is this: under-aged editors are not reflective enough to step out of their own skins and at least countenance the possibility that their actions are simply ethically wrong. They don't slow up to discuss the possibility that they are wrong; they are too hell-bent to pass the GA (I wasn't initially involved in that one), pass the RfA (my first incident) or to get that bronze star for the FA (my second incident). In all cases, as Sandy pointed out, it's all about Approval. Younger editors are simply (but deeply) blinded by their need for Approval. The second problem is that it's easy for them to find groups of similarly-blind fellow under-aged editors. This isn't a case of the blind leading the blind; it's a case of the blind forming a scrimmage line (with "ageism" as their battle cry) and cheerily trampling others underfoot.
Let's talk concrete ramifications. In these incidents, we had folks swapping pass-for-pass for GA on IRC, divulging personal info as a means of retaliation for a souring RfA, and... how do I describe it? The FA incident was mind-blowing. An editor copied a foreign-language FA, used Google translate to translate the text (very badly, I have been told; I speak no French), NEVER CONSULTED OR READ EVEN ONE of the sources for the article, blindly copied over anti-American propaganda that was cited to a source that in actuality said exactly the opposite of the anti-American claims, never attempted to establish whether any info was missing (by searching for further sources).. and here's the topper of it all... in true MMORPG style, the editor(s) contacted the principal contributor to the French FA, told him people were French-bashing and French-wikipedia bashing, and asked him to come Support them in their FA drive. They went across the ocean via the Internet to stir up (or perhaps play upon) a meme of bad feelings between en.wiki and fr.wiki, all to get that bronze star— for an article they had simply copied without ever examining, copying propaganda in the process. These are real consequences. That FA was headed for a Pass, I believe, until I started trying to slam on the brakes. Everything about it (if you don't speak French) had a surface air of credibility. FAC is undermanned; it is not impossible for folks to slip stuff through that is profoundly unacceptable.
Finally, emotional ramifications. Really, for quite a while, I felt like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness... and it was exhausting. It's exhausting, really exhausting, to fight a group of people who cheerfully trample upon all academic norms in the name of gaining Approval. They value Approval more than they value the norms of Wikipedia or of academia. That's the final word; that's the final problem. It's all about values. It's a values-driven conflict. They value Approval more than they value long-established Wikipedia processes (GA and FA). The value Approval more than they value other editors' fundamental right to privacy. They value Approval more than they value the goal of presentng academic-quality articles on the encyclopedia. They value Approval from Wikipedia (in the form of admin buttons, green dots and bronze stars) and from each other (in a process where the groupthink is a hotbed where they reinforce each others' blind spots.. crap.. folks were putting up userboxes saying they respected the decision of the young adult who divulged personal info during the RfA). They stand ready and willing to sacrifice Wikipedia processes, Wikipedia editors and academic standards for approval. They also stand ready to fight for their perceived right to that approval. In short, they don't get it. They don't get the fact that the world outside them is more important than the world inside them. They don't get it. And that's all. And it drove me once to being so burned out that I could barely log on. Chalk that up as another consequence: discouragement to those whose values are different. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide specific examples (by e-mail, if you do not want to name editors here)? I am very interested. Ruslik (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that this was a significant problem at WP. I'm following this thread with interest. I shudder to think what I would have written at age 12 or so. My sympathies.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Laser brain (talk · contribs) (who was a particularly helpful FAC reviewer) just gave up. He was always troubled by the quid pro quos and award centers and the effect at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where Sandy and Ling are coming from and would never say otherwise that the type of actions such as poor judgement, hasty FAC noms and sloppy writing in general are major issues, I feel one should "speak up for one's self" and state that there is little evidence that the above actions are perpetuated entirely or even mostly by children/child admins. People of all ages are capable of acting like children online and often do act like children online because "nobody can see me!" I'll admit when I was younger or even when I was made an admin (coincidentally, I passed RfA on my birthday) I had much less an idea about how to write quality articles, to the point that I've been sprucing up my old FA's with new sources and better prose because they are somewhat poor by my standards (and knowing my standards, you know that's bad :P). But the point is that in many cases it's not the age, but how long people have been on the Wiki which determines their online maturity. So in short: all the above are problems, but I very much doubt it's due to gangs of children; the child in the NYC video was actually rather articulate, engaged, and professional. Let's judge the content, not the contributors... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm well aware that there will be a swarm of editors here to defend or deny the actions of the children, with arguments that have already been played out many times in other places. It would be nice to have one discussion where we could really examine the issues without the swarm of child defenders and without the misplaced charges of ageism. Although I doubt that will be possible, at least I've spoken up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; butting in here) Adding my two cents here within going on a rant, I can name 10 admins off the top of my head under the age of 16 (of course, I'm not going to specify who). I think people mistakenly perceive children as inherent MySpacers, but they're really not. Sure, there are some immature kids on Wikipedia, but there are just as many, if not more, immature adults on Wikipedia. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of our most time-consuming FACs this year were not submitted by children, and some of our most misguided admins are not children. But it would be nice to have one discussion of the issues that do arise with children on the internet, and on Wiki. It is not a given that most, or even many, children are equipped to deal with professional content generation or admin decision making or any of the other issues that occur on the internet. It is unfortunate that any discussion is often shouted down with charges of ageism, and it's politically incorrect to even question the maturity of a child at RfA; it would be nice to keep this discussion focused on the impact in content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that content review processes need to be monitored for hasty nominations and other immaturity, but I believe that it isn't necessarily the fault of people below the age of 16 or 18. As a side note, the editor in question in the NYC meetup video appeared to behave in a very mature and professional manner. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, my son is 14. A pretty mature 14. I let him do a lot of things that most American parents wouldn't (no, nothing illegal) because he is pretty mature. But, he doesn't have what it takes to be an admin on Wikipedia. Nor do I let him edit Wikipedia. While I'm sure there are under age admins that do fine work, it's just a fact of life that younger people as a whole lack the maturity/judgement/experience, in general, of older folks. Yes, there are always exceptions, just as there are always exceptions with adults also. However, can we please discuss this without assuming that everyone who is discussing this is out to bar children from editing Wikipedia or is suffering from agism? Please? Let's not get defensive. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do something very rare and use my actual degree here, so brace yourselves. The young man in the video was, as said, very articulate. Surprisingly so. His address to the NYC meetup is not characteristic of his age, nor that of people at about 25 years or older. I would say, just by his words and manners that he probably performs in the top percentile of children in his age range. He is, to summarize, extraordinary. It is a shame that the children who perform in the top percentile are grouped too often with their peers who do not share their sensitivities or their passions. Many people, despite age, who perform at such a level, often focus on issues and topics that interest them, and consume information only in order to learn more about the subject; no other reward is needed. Others, unfortunately, participate in the Wikipedia process only to gather accolades, that without the honest work that has gone into a task, are motivated so much by rewards and approval that the article work becomes meaningless over external gratification. We as yet have to devise a tool that assesses an editor's true motivation, regardless of age, so it is only experience that we may assess an editor is ready to be an administrator. For only the top percentile, I do not believe that age should be a prerequisite, but I recognize the pickle that puts the system in. I have also run into the award-seeking corner-cutting youth who do not value scholarship as much as they do rewards from their peers. I know it is exhausting and straining for all editors who value quality. With the system we have in place, I do not see a solution for this. Perhaps the young man in the video can create one. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni hits it on the nail here. I'm not trying to dissolve this into ageism crap (god knows that WT:RFA is full of that bonk), but minors will always edit wikipedia, and I don't see any solution that's feasible besides trying to educate all users about proper conduct or attempting to ban kids or make them feel unwelcome. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Very well said, Moni. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think all we can do is judge people by their actions at WP, regardless of age. Be careful casting votes at RfA. Kids using WP as a playground, treat them like any other problem editors. That kid in the video, though, is obviously striving for acceptance at WP, but in a positive way. He probably gets little of it at school, from what I care to remember of high school/junior high. Don't know who he is, but I hope WP is as welcoming to him as he deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the problems are, I think we're agreed that the solutions are going to be different in different places around the wiki. Since a single persuasive oppose can hold up a FAC, everyone who comes to FAC expecting to vote their way to success gets really frustrated and gives up. I support the trend not to spend too much time and energy on these FACs. It's a bigger problem at GAN, but note that GAN is in the process of switching over to a system of encouraging multiple reviewers, and that may over time start to insulate GAN as well. RFA is a harder case, but note that 70%-80% is the bureaucrats' discretionary range, and bureaucrats are very good at sniffing out "write-in campaigns", and so are at least 20% of the voters, generally. So, we seem to be heading the right direction. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that one of the problems is the award based structure. Most professionals come here to put needed content up. Most children come for the awards and atmosphere. This is not to say that these groups don't criss cross in motivation, but this is how I read the general state of things. I don't approve of the younger crowd, but there are exceptions. I definitely think that some of them only fuel drama and tend to start feuds that are detrimental. I will withhold names on who. I'm here for an encyclopedia aspect, and I believe that an encyclopedia is a scholarly tool. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SG, whilst I believe you bring up important points regarding this issue (I acknowledge that younger editors are a problem in some of the processes, especially GAN) it is key to remember that not all younger-generation children are particularly the same – as has been mentioned and you, I think, accept. Saying that, the worst way to target these mindless editors is to automatically assume the worst – whilst they may validify some of these notions with their actions, it is almost an obligation of us (referring to the supposed wiki ethos of every editor being involved) not to remove them without justification. Each case should also be reviewed individually, without sounding like too much of a process-wonk. Whilst I may not agree with extreme options, particularly this one, the only realistic avenue of removing this timebomb is to set age restrictions (say, legal age in place of residence) on accounts – the implications of this would be drastic and would exclude several administrators, including myself. Caulde 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blah blah blah "case by case" blah blah blah "very well said" blah blah false dilemma blah blah blah I'm good, you're good, we're all good, I love you, you love me, we're all fine, blah blah blah paint by numbers thread.. Funny. Why does it still suck so very very much? These discussions are so pointless and so predictable. And also pointless. And also predictable. Did I mention pointless and predictable? Hey, if you young folks wanna help the encyclopedia, then police your own ranks. Look for MMORPG behavior and steer the culprits in the right direction before RfA and before FAC. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much point in saying anything different, otherwise all you get is "assumption of bad faith" this, "irresponsible administrator" that, shoved in your face. I am sure you are well aware that although this sentiment is shared by a large majority of the community, it never raises its head in these discussions and we just wait, waiting for the next time it happens where the exact same thing will happen over and over again. Caulde 00:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing solutions, Caulde; in fact, I don't imagine there are any. I was just surprised to see so many mature Wikipedians in a video who seemed unaware of the extent of the issues. That we do have some mature child editors or admins on Wiki doesn't negate that there is a real problem. Brad inquired about the effect on content review processes; I answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Perhaps the only realistic way to remove this obstruction is have to experienced editors vouch for the nominators and the nominated article before approval for a GAN/FAC whatever – at all processes. This would obviously incur the wrath of time, however. Caulde 00:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Caulde, I didn't understand a word of what you said about bad faith and waiting and so on. Care to fill in all the blanks for me? I'm slow. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's way past my sleeping routine (hope you appreciate the irony) - I meant, if anyone provided real substance to a directive which stopped these mindless editors then that is what you would be called – precedent says that whenever you believe in something on here, there is always someone else who believes their point of view is stronger, and they end up winning - hence why this discussion is so perennial. SG's point of view, which I share, is so often oppressed (at WT:RFA and the such) it is difficult to see a way in which the "consensual" community would ever accept such a resolution. Caulde 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for not the first time, I find myself in complete agreement with Ottava. Caulde is a young editor, and in the interests of full disclosure he and I have had run-ins in the past, over his claiming credit for work that he had not actually done. He knew better than me how to play the system. He is now an administrator, and I will never be an administrator. Go figure. I bear Caulde no ill will; he learned how to play the system and I didn't bother to take the same trouble. Maybe that's why there's a unhealthy preponderance of kiddie-admins? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, I am offended that you would say that, you ageist scum! That is a personal attack!!! I'm dragging your soerry ass to ANI! Put up your dukes! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MF, I love you too. Caulde 00:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI holds no fears for me. Been there, got the T-shirt. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SG did not invite me to this party, but I have some experience with high-exposure pages of interest to young editors. I could document cases where content was copied from one article to another (when it obviously didn't apply), and other content apparently just made up. Some of these cases took a lot of time to identify as the content was supported by multiple accounts, which often turned out to be reincarnations of the same editors. I think this comes from the segment of online culture experienced. Younger editors often come to Wikipedia conditioned by a culture of myspace, youtube and blogs, and may not share the notion of a fact-based reference work. They often edit mainly to make the subject look better or worse (hence copying irrelevant material is OK and part of the game), and seem to act primarily to improve their online reputation or harm other's. Some level of education conditions editors with a culture of print encyclopedias, non-fiction works, textbooks and academic journals. Many such editors [with some level of education] give little or no concern to "online reputation". Gimmetrow 05:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't giving "little or no concern to 'online reputation'" inconsistent with the notion of gaming the system to collect what passes for bling on WP concluding with the Big Brass Ring of adminship? (though why that should be so attractive to the MeMeMe Generation, I have no idea) I'm just surprised that so many no doubt easily bored kids would be willing to put in so much misguided commitment to get prizes of dubious value here on WP and worth nothing in the real world.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added bracketed phrase to clarify. But some users (probably more adolescent) create new accounts on a regular basis, which prevents collecting bling. Gimmetrow 11:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't see that anything is to be done except blowing off steam. Complaining about the other generation has been au courant since caveman days, since Ugggh complained about his son Grrr's penchant for using that newfangled stuff fire and actually being nice to his mate, why he hadn't even dragged her from her old cave by her hair.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy seems very odd, as it equates youthful open-mindedness with falsified information. Are you really saying that "getting facts right" is merely one patriarchical point-of-view, and that youthful "anything goes, however false or unverifiable" is an equally acceptable point-of-view that the old folks ought to tolerate? Gimmetrow 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not, my thought is, as I expressed above, that we should be less concerned with the age of editors, and worry about what they do here on WP individually. Hopefully they will become committed to the project, as the young editor downthread seems to have become.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about issues particular to a class of editors. Of course, some very young editors can be remarkably helpful on topics they know, helpful enough to warrant fixing the grammar and so on. Also, young editors mature and become productive in other ways, and I'm happy to say I've seen this occur. My observation, however, is that some individuals in this class of editors treat information in a way other editors wouldn't. People can misunderstand or misinterpret a source, and I can vaguely understand the motivation behind "sneaky vandalism". But the specific issue I'm talking about - copying information from subject X to subject Y - doesn't seem to be about sneaky vandalism. It seems to be about making subject Y look better or worse without regard for the facts. I can't imagine any sufficiently-educated editor, even those I strongly disagree with, ever doing something like that. I don't know exactly where "sufficiently-educated" falls or what to do about it, but that's my observation. Gimmetrow 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I edit a few articles which are of interest to teenagers (mostly bands), it isn't something I've personally seen much of, so forgive me for not getting your point earlier. Although I have seen a lot of drama in attempts to label a band "emo", which is seen as denigrating. So I guess I have seen it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant something a little deeper than just adding some "bad" genre to a band - that's just a form of vandalism. Gimmetrow 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to change the topic back from its current place, but I'm just kind of in awe of all that I've been discussed here.

Just to clear up a few things: I have done some bad things to Wikipedia (as you can all go look I was formerly blocked, not trying to hide anything). I also did hang out with the "Young Editors", some of which did not have the maturity they have now. However, I am trying my hardest to get on the upswing and help the Encyclopedia as much as I can. And truth be told, adminship is at the back of my mind right now. Once again, I'm kind of shocked about all this discussion. Sam ^Blab 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is so surprising about it, if you don't mind clarifying. Many of these issues have been discussed at FAC talk, although I know not everyone keeps up with comments there. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rare that I've been discussed positively. Because of my age, I've not been seen in very favorable light for quite a while. Sam ^Blab 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows how old you are unless you tell us or it is very clear from the way you act and/or write. Early mistakes can be overcome. Build some solid articles, do serious work on building this encyclopedia, and do good work in a way that avoids ticking people off (the true test for admin, IMHO), and there is no reason why your early misdeeds should count against you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Shapiros10, welcome! (From my point of view, this conversation isn't about you; it's about whether a group of experienced Wikipedians at a Meetup understand that there are issues with child editors, of which you may or may not be a typical representation.) @Wehwalt, there usually is value in the real world to child adminship: it's worth a sure write-up in the local newspaper. I imagine points on the playground as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good on the college application, I guess. Or even private high school application . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this will be hard to hear, but we need to do what I've been saying for years: drain the swamp. Remove the awards. Remove the pages with huge edit counts. Kill the ability to promote yourself based on numbers or arbitrary figures. Once you kill that, you kill the motivating force that these kids have for coming here and doing the problematic actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Assuming good faith for a moment, have you considered that "kids" might be coming here to build an encyclopedia? I highly doubt deleting WP:AWARD and WP:WBE will completely eliminate youth participation. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want a nice, simple, and easily implemented suggestion, make WP:WBE opt-in instead of opt-out. That way the "gamers" would have to declare themselves as such by adding themselves to the list, and everyone could read into that as much or as little as they see fit. – iridescent 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Julian, wouldn't that be the point? Scare off the kids not here for building an encyclopedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's necessary. As I see it, the ultimate reward to the children is adminship, and they clog the content review processes as part of the route to adminship. That has to be addressed at RfA, where it is considered unacceptable to question the preparedness of a child to administer one of the net's largest websites, one that aims to be a professional reference work. Shining a light on the problem may be one part of resolving it; putting a lid on unreasonable charges of ageism whenever these discussions occur is another. We should be able to talk about the growing presence of children on Wiki, and its effect on content review processes, without the misguided use of the term "ageism". If we're going to deal with children, we should be realistic about ... children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested Sandy in what you see as the "proper" response for the editors at the meetup, since that's what your main point is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is funny how adminship is an award to a lot of people, but many o fthose same people vote on RfA saying that adminship is no big deal and it should be given out to many people. The contradiction bothers me. We should probably have something in which admin must disclose their real identity and only have 18+ to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec @ David) Again, I'm unsure if a different response was possible in that situation, as reactions may have reflected deference to the father and child present, and it may not have been the right time and place for a full discussion of the broader issues. My concern is how much awareness there is of the effect on content review processes, and some issues that spiral out of control at ANI. I'd have to watch the video again, but I remember one long discussion of a particular child RfA (can't recall the name), where the opposes seemed to be discredited as ageism. As I recall that RFA, the candidate presented as a content contributor based on one GA: in the sometimes quid pro quo world of GA passes, I need to see a lot more evidence of preparedness to administer Wiki than one GA. @Ottava, the meme that adminship is no big deal should have been put to rest long ago; it most clearly is. And children have figured how to rally round the cry of "ageism" to get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are refering to this RfA, which eventually lead to an admin stepping down.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee, Sandy, it seems to me the appropriate thing to do was to oppose on the ground of lack of qualification. A content editor with one GA, maybe a couple of diffs of the candidate putting indifferent material into the article or showing immature behavior. Don't play on their playground, you are a longtime evaluator of content, make them play on yours, don't mention age, mention edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will remember the name on that particular RfA, but in that case, although I recall that I did do just that, the opposes were still discussed in the context of ageism in the meetup video. Ageism is a rallying cry that prevents us from evaluating the children to the same standard as other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JamieS93 (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Julian: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93. I hadn't remembered that you were a co-nom (but that explains some statements elsewhere from Majorly). IRC redflags went off early in that nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it was a mistake to mention IRC in the nomination statement, but in all honestly, IRC had no influence in that RfA. –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism here is the same as any other measure to determine if someone can handle something or not. Just because it has an "ism" behind does not mean that it is wrong. That is a problem with our society. Its okay to discriminate, because the term itself means to choose from what is good or not. We should be picky, and we should be careful. We are here to have best product, and we need the best people. Children are not allowed to vote for a reason. They are not allowed to have legal authority for a reason. etc etc. Children have not mentally and emotionally developed fully. Sure, there are ones that may be more developed, but those extra years of experience are a part that you cannot suddenly gain out of no where. Once of the problems right now with FAC is the same mentality of people pushing through children admin: they don't care about it being the best, they just want the recognition. I rarely put any of my work through FAC and I wont attempt to put most of it through. Why? Because we should hold every aspect to the highest standards and work towards an ideal. The more we just pass things through to have more passed through, the lesser the rest becomes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, it is a rather hideous read, that RfA. Do we have any examples of any RfAs where the nomination succeeded, and justified opposes were cried down with shouts of "ageism"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to name names here :-) But I've seen several that got so full of the multi-colored sigs on Support that I knew it was futile to oppose, and didn't bother. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people, myself included, don't get involved in RfA's that are going to pass once they reach the tipping point. Once an RfA gets 20 Supports (and no more than 1 or 2 opposes) the RfA is for all practical purposes is successful. A strong oppose won't really matter, which is the problem with RfA's. If candidate A runs for adminship and one of the first 10 people to !vote is a strong oppose, then that candidate might as well withdraw. The RfA is doomed. The same oppose coming after 20 supports won't matter because the RfA is going to pass. Part of the problem is that most people are too lazy to:

Do their own research into the candidate, there is too much of an emphasis to "beat the nom."
Review the !votes after they chimed in.
Change their !vote for fear of looking like they didn't know what they were doing when they made their initial vote.
Cling to notions such as "Adminship is no big deal" or "Why the hell not."

Most RfA's are determined not by people who actually review the candidates, but by people who vote support almost all the time! 25% of people who vote in RfA, support 90% or more of the time! 47% support 80% of the candidates, and 65% support 70% of all candidates. 90% support over 50% of the candidates they review. Only 10% of the project oppose more than 1 out of 2 candidates they !vote on. (NOTE: This was not a scientific study.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest RfA nominee does, on the surface, seem to have a lot of those characteristics. Five months as an editor, a fair number of DYK, two rather borderline (to my jaundiced eye) GAs created in only a couple of weeks, and barely 2000 edits. User:Suntag, by the way. However, he does have positive interaction with some editors I respect, so I don't know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disturbed that Wizardman was willing to nominate such an inexperienced user. That is not including the various problems that the user has demonstrated in addition to that while at DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think they're reasonable over at the RfA in asking for diffs. I'm still looking into the guy. I'm really raising my eyebrows at his GAs, they are really borderline. The park one especially.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those GAs are borderline at all, but I won't say more for fear of encouraging SandyG. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I'm carefully reading the park article now, and wondering how the guy got away with such an awful lede and the use of "grassy expanse recreational area", a phrase otherwise unknown to google, TWICE in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

I have a lot to say on this topic. I'll try to add my two cents later today. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! (No hurry, I won't archive it at month end.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that bothers me the most is that the youngest children (those under 12 certainly) often have no understanding of what real scholarship is. They are still learning how to evaluate a sources's reliability and appropriateness, how to properly interpret the information they read, and how to assign weight to different aspects/opinions. The overwhelming majority of these very young kids simply don't get it - primarily because they haven't been taught yet or because they aren't mature enought yet to understand what they are being taught. And generally, young children are not introspective enough to realize how much they don't know. So what happens? Many of them come to wikipedia and begin writing articles. Many times, very bad articles. The children are happy with their contribution because they don't realize how much they don't know. Then those articles come to GA/FAC/DYK. Experienced contributors are often sucked into trying to train these children on how to do basic research, which takes a great deal of time and often has minimal impact. As far as these children are concerned, they are equal to all other editors (because it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all), and they are often unwilling to believe that they are wrong or that they don't know something. It leads to emotional stress for the children and often for the experienced contributors who got sucked in (as Ling.Nut mentioned above). Teenagers are more hit and miss; many of them have already been trained in research techniques and can put together very good articles and/or can be easily guided onto the right path. Other teenagers still have no clue and operate at about the disruption level of the young children. I don't think we should allow anyone under the age of 12 to edit, although how that could be effectively enforced I don't know. I don't think we can do anything about the teenagers, because enough of them do great work to balance out those that cause lots of work. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there are plenty of children editors who are mature and avoid drama, Julian, for example, is an admin. I don't see why this has generated such a heated discussion, as I personally oppose ageism (though I will never run for adminship). I'm rather young and haven't done anything incredibly immature. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed some teenagers who are excellent contributors and who are quite mature; they appear to be outnumbered by the throngs of young children (12 and under) and the teenagers who have yet to reach a higher maturity level. In my experience, very few young children notice or understand the problems that can be caused by young editors. This, unfortunately, means that those young children can't fix the problematic behavior (either in themselves or by pointing it out to others in their age group), because often they aren't mature enough to recognize why the behavior is problematic. Because, after all, what is wrong with our behavior as long as we aren't flat-out vandals? When problems (or potential problems) are pointed out, the children tend to get defensive. Most simply don't have the maturity level (yet) to handle criticism well, especially since they can't understand why what they did is different from what so-and-so did. Many resort to crying "ageism" to show that it's really those mean old adults who have a problem. Note: Ceranthor, please don't take this personally, as it is not intended to be a reflection on only your behavior; you may, however, want to rethink whether you've "done anything incredibly immature". [1] Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, that is merely a lack of experience, not maturity. I have shown remorse for that action, and moved on. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 19:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the "contributor" coin

Sandy, I'll back you all the way on respecting the encyclopedic contributors here, but there is also a dark side. Have a read at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Resizing_references, which discusses on its face the difference between use of <references /> and {{reflist}} (a distinction of which I have been completely unaware, something about less than ten?).

Read the thread though, and observe the attacks of User:Jump_Guru opining that if one doesn't provide at least ten sources in an article, one is being selfish; Jimmy Wales says it should be brutally deleted; "mindless blabber"; etc. The editor then goes on to flaunt GA achievements, using the inclusive "Well we have..." no less. Use of a GA award in such a belittling manner, to me, argues rather for the abolition of all article assessments. If it will be used as a weapon, it should not exist - possession of a GA star conveys no particular authority on achieving excellence for Wikipedia as a whole.

Anyway, happy New Year, not sure if my point is clear, I'm a little heated up right now. Did I say Happy New Year! ? :) Franamax (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf is a "GA award"? Or any editing award? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia for the public to use? Gah. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-post: User_talk:Jump_Guru#Comments_on_your_wiki-demeanour

Yes, I'd ask the exact same questions, however those FA/GA/DYK stars are prominently displayed on upages and bandied about quite often in places such as RFA &c. Heck, I wrote a whole set of subroutines to divine such and it turned out that Charles Matthews broke my software with an incredible number of valuable contributions that didn't exceed the threshold for recognition.

There is a reward-seeking culture here on the wiki which can be in equal parts beneficial and destructive. We need to channel it towards the good direction. Franamax (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a nasty discussion so I didn't read past Collectonian's first post, which I agree with. {{reflist}} is not required and should not be automatically placed on articles with few references unless there is consensus to replace <references />. {{reflist}} automatically smalls the references, which is harder on people who don't have excellent eyesight (like me :-), so unless there's a good reason to use it, it shouldn't automatically be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I was actually talking about the behavioural issues (the "nasty" part) and making a dig about how GA/FA contributions are not the sole determinant of wiki-fitness, and can sometimes be counter-productive (again, the "nasty" part). In any case, the editor in question was treated to multiple advice and quickly repented, so it's not an issue at all. The enduring lesson (to me) is that GA/FA/DYK achievements give you nothing more than a platform from which to help others make the same achievements, but they don't convey any a priori superiority. Or put another way, you can make an FA but still be a dick. This is spoken as a dedicated wiki-gnome who enjoys cleaning toilets and not meant to detract from the achievements of those who can actually see a difficult task through to the final reward.

I'll take your comments on the references vs. reflist issue to heart, but I'll likely keep on typing the curly braces for reflist. I feel confident that I can equally compete with you on declining eyesight, but in these difficult economic times, I think it's my duty to help prompt people to buy newer, bigger monitors for their computer. :) Franamax (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bwaaaahaha !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the #NYC meet-up video thread people said award centers can encourage bad work. I wonder how much this is really an issue for children. The very young seem satisfied with "secret page" barnstars, which don't seem to have much obvious consequence for articles. Other awards are more directly about content. A DYK medal, for example, is an award for volume in article space. These seem to be more a concern for adults, who may end up doing sloppy, volume work. Gimmetrow 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the functioning of DYK?

It looks like the bot that updates from the queue isn't working. There's no obvious place to leave a comment about that either, since the DYK talk page is the page for submissions. Thegreatdr (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ameliorate! (talk · contribs) the admin who ran the bot has resigned the admin-bit and retired from the project. From a bit of looking, I think Nixeagle (talk · contribs) has taken over the bot but isn't running it as regularly as Ameliorate!. Either way, not something I think Sandy usually gets involved with either way. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy is the FAC director. I think she has enough on her plate than to deal with DYK. Plus, do you guys remember that for over 95% of DYKs existence that there were no bots and everything went smoothly? But the bots have horrible problems and easily screws things up? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 is the FAC director; I'm his delegate. Thegreatdr, I'm sorry, but I'm not involved at DYK and can't direct you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sandy. I didn't mean "Director" as the title. I just mean "operator" or "omg this takes up a lot of my time and now I have no free life". I forgot that it was an actual title. lol. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have no free life? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Thegreatdr probably didn't realize that WT:DYK exists, since the submission page for DYKs is, confusingly, a template talk page. Thegreatdr: DYK pages should have a navigation box at the top right of each page; there you should see links to the various pages of DYK, including the discussion page at WT:DYK, where you can discuss issues like this. BuddingJournalist 17:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sandy, I was not expecting that you ran all of wikipedia's various functions, just that you might know who to contact. =) Now I know more about reporting problems with DYK. Was posting a comment on the main wikipedia talk page not the preferred method of reporting this issue then? Thegreatdr (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Help Desk :D Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year, too! Gimmetrow 02:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sandy, please forgive my lapse in good manners; I haven't thanked you for nominating my RfA. I hated being in the spotlight, but I am glad to gone through with it and was amazed at the support I got. When I am more familiar with the new tabs, I will be delighted to assist you with any administrative chores. Happy New Year, and thanks once more. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear SandyGeorgia,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE : Thank you

No problem! Happy new year to you too! Let's look forward to a great year ahead. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Sorry, I guess I didn't read all the instructions. Didn't know there was a restriction against having two FACs open at the same time. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the withdrawal; I'm wasn't even sure what the procedure was for that. I assume a bot will take care of the talk page notice, etc. I will wait to see if the Isaac Shelby article garners support before re-nominating Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy. Normally, I wouldn't have the time to get two FACs ready at the same time, but the college closing for Christmas is an exception.

Maybe one day I'll start reviewing FACs, but I much prefer doing the research and writing the articles to reviewing them. I have occasionally done some GA reviews to alleviate that backlog. They're backed up three months over there! Plus, GA reviews don't take as long. Thanks again for the help. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviews don't take any more time than GA reviews, it's just a different process. Trust me, I've done plenty of both! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear SandyGeorgia, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks again Sandy for all off your hard work and running everything smoothly. Here is some fuel from my tree to keep you firing in the new year! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Science, a request

Sandy, I originally wanted to post a response to this. In my response, I would have mentioned the importance of what Geogre states about academics, scholarship, and the rest versus non-academic sources. I would also talk about academia needing to be addressed as a whole, and not just allowing people to think that only "hard" science is the only area that needs help. I wanted to mention the FA process and problems that come in through both prize awarding mentalities and young editors. However, you have spoken eloquently in the past on these issues, have a lot more experience, and know the need for scientific/academic rigor. I would ask for you to make a statement in my place. If you don't have time, or if you do not want to, then that is fine. This is just a simple request because I do not feel adequate to the task. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Goble

I did the image check and all images are certified to be in the public domain by the Australian War Memorial. While they still want "permission" to reproduce the photos, we don't have to do it since they are not the copyright holders of the images in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small question RE

Thank you for answering my question. Have a nice day! :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I decided to nominate Meshuggah for a FA again. Do you have some tips how else could I help this article to get promoted this time?

As I think I mentioned earlier, the best thing would have been to wait until the holidays are over; I think many people are still on break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I just didn't know how long are the holidays in US... If you think it is not appropriate to nominate it now, I am allrigt if you just undo it and I'll nominate it later...I am very sorry for giving you extra work :(-- LYKANTROP ✉ 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quim Monzó

Is this source enough for inclusion in the article? (Just ignore any inaccuracies in description I'm sure you'll find :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fv, thank you so much, I think that will work (although it's riddled with inaccuracies). I'll add it back in as soon as I finish reading FAC. You're a gem, as always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG egregious MOS violation by the FAC Director's delegate I must alert ArbCom!!!!!!!!!!11111111 :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are so naughty :-) I saw that I need to clean up all the references there (for date delinking), so I didn't bother. Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Red Cliffs

... thanks for the heads-up! :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown (2008)

I want to say thank you for promoting the above article.--WillC 03:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikibreak

sorry your break was canceled. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, Sandy! I'm sorry... take a spa day tomorrow (hugs). I'm going to be rushing around buying supplies in case we get snowed in later in the week... blech! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amusement: List of sovereign states in 240 BC. Also I just became aware of the 'agency' field in {{cite news}}. Gimmetrow 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one is amusing :-) Thanks for the info, Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

OK, I am officially fed up and have transcluded this - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse_3. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp FAC dab check

Sandy, at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jack_Kemp, you have twice slapped in a dab template. I have issues that need human consideration and advice in this regard. I have twice noted it at the FAC and you seem to have missed the issue. Please advise at the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TTT, the dab link checker in the tool box has been broken for about a week; since it is now repaired, I ran through all of FAC tonight, identifying any that needed link repair. I did not read each FAC, so I'm sorry I missed that it had already been raised on that particular FAC. The answer to your dilemma seems to be in the incorrect construction of those three dab pages (aide, blowout, draftsman): see

In those three cases, it appears that the dab pages have been incorrectly constructed to include dictionary defintions. You could either define the terms yourself in the article, avoid the links entirely, link to wiktionary, or create correct articles if appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves over redirects

Checking my watchlist, I noticed this page move over redirect [2] by Sherurcij who is not an admin but is a rollbacker. I tried this myself with my non-admin account and it worked [3]. I remember you saying before that non-admins couldn't do moves over redirects? Perhaps the MediaWiki code or permissions have changed to allowed non-admins to do those page moves, which would be useful. --Aude (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Aude; I've never been able to sort this. I've seen some editors do it, can never figure out why I can't and others can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here; it depends how the redirect was created and what its history is. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how it was explained to me before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... If you still can't do page moves over some redirect pages, then the way to get the developers to change it, is to file a Bugzilla request so they are aware of this. I'll have to look into this more and maybe submit a request. --Aude (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing up a request at User:Aude/Bugzilla, but need to explain more about why it's a problem. --Aude (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aude, I've never fully understood it, but as it was explained to me before, it's not a problem; it has to do with how the original redirect was created. There's a long old thread somewhere in my talk archives, but I'm not sure where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand this now. If the page has one edit (only a redirect), then a non-admin can move a page over the redirect. Otherwise, an admin is needed. When I saw Sherurcij move a page, I was hopeful things had changed, but apparently not. --Aude (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway for trying to sort it out; it's one of the few areas where I'm frustrated by not having the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coenred of Mercia

I will add some px to the family tree and see if that improves it; I was glad to see Kablammo's note about allowable px sizes on diagrams, as that will really help. I have not yet asked Tony to revisit; he asked for a copyedit and qp has just completed one, but I wanted to do one more pass as I spotted a sentence or two I thought could be improved. I am a bit busy with other things this evening but hope to get to it tonight. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. I've got it watchlisted, but it sounds like Kmusser needs a few more days to get to it? They are really hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article and the FAC, and have left a note for Tony.

Regarding the images, I tried increasing the map size and it can't be increased to the point where it is easily legible without becoming unwieldy at the same time. I wouldn't expect Kmusser to respond in the time frame of the FAC, necessarily, though I suppose he might. I've always thought legibility of images was not a requirement, only a nicety -- there are surely numerous FACs which have images which have this issue. Is there anything in WP:FACR that covers this? I was responding to Kablammo because I think it was a good idea to improve those images if possible, but I didn't think it was a requirement. Mike Christie (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"legibility of images was not a requirement" - um - don't we all think readers should be able to look at the image and gain something from it? That would be "appropriate use of images", would it not? I'm a bit concerned here. Awadewit (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are hard to read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I believe, is referring to the fact that because the image is a thumbnail on the article, it's not legible without clicking on the image and making it bigger. At the large size, it's legible, it's that to make it legible on the article would require the image to dwarf the article, I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Anything thumbnailed is unlikely to be as valuable to a reader as the image they see when they click on the thumbnail. That applies much more to text, of course, but it applies to many images of works of art too. Mike Christie (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood: what I'm saying is that even when you click through, the text on the family tree is hard to read. I'm wonder what differentiates it from the other family trees on some other royalty articles (don't have any particular one in mind, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. When you look at the image, having clicked through, there should be a line below it saying something like "Size of this preview: 1,024 × 768 pixels". Can you tell me what yours says? It might be that you have a low screen resolution set, so that a low res image is being displayed to you. In that case I might be able to generate a version that is inherently lower resolution, which would then resize a little more readably. Mike Christie (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hve 1280 x 800 on my laptop, and 1024 x 768 on my desktop; should I go to another computer? (I haven't noticed this problem on other royalty trees.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Mike, I think I answered you incorrectly; those numbers are my screen settings. When I click through on the tree from my desktop, I see

Size of this preview: 800 × 600 pixels
Full resolution‎ (1,238 × 928 pixels, file size: 26 KB, MIME type: image/gif) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running at 1400x1050 on the computer I'm on now. Let me take a look at both images tomorrow evening and see if there's anything I can do to improve readability on click-through. Mike Christie (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to the MOS (somewhere), maps and charts can be sized so that readers can see them. They do not have to remain unsized. I also find the map hard to read at full resolution. Awadewit (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the tree is already set at 500px (huge), and the text is still muddled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be something wrong with the file, then. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(double ec) Yes; I just found that out in my current FAC; very handy. Unfortunately there are still images that aren't really readable at any useful size in an article. For example I was just noticing that you have the family trees at Jane Austen listed in the "See also" section, which certainly solves that part of the problem. Per my reply to Sandy above I will see if I can do something about both images. A possible problem is that they are GIF images; gifs are notoriously quirky on resizing. Mike Christie (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it looks fine on my son's computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey, please prove this is relevant to the over all problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 355: / Line 355: @@
 :(double ec) Yes; I just found that out in my current FAC; very handy.  Unfortunately there are still images that aren't really readable at any useful size in an article. For example I was just noticing that you have the family trees at [[Jane Austen]] listed in the "See also" section, which certainly solves that part of the problem.  Per my reply to Sandy above I will see if I can do something about both images.  A possible problem is that they are [[GIF]] images; gifs are notoriously quirky on resizing. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 :: Mike, it looks fine on my son's computer.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
+:::Mikey, please prove this is relevant to the over all problem. &mdash;[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates view edit
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Music of Athens, Georgia	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now