Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Plagiarism of Wikipedia

Hi All

Does anyone know of any page that lists everyone who has been accused/caught out/admitted to/etc plagiarising Wikipedia?

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not that I am aware, and I think such a list could be quite large and hard to keep complete. Chris857 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth listing widely reported or otherwise notable instances. bd2412 T 14:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Press coverage lists Rand Paul on the bottom of the 2013 subpage, so we have a list of one at least. Chris857 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks lists many websites that don't comply with all legalities for reusing Wikipedia content (and some that do). Rmhermen (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mrjohncummings: See WP:copyright problems#Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first and its template {{backwardscopy}} which as a hidden category Category:Wikipedia article talk pages incorporating the backwardscopy template which currently has 928 member pages. -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Internet Archive and HTTPS

Without getting too deep into tin foil territory, encryption is one of many essential steps to ensure readers' privacy. Since October 24, 2013, the Internet Archive uses HTTP Secure by default (see the video announcement by Brewster Kahle). They encourage their visitors to access their site using an encrypted connection.

In my opinion, Wikipedia should support this effort and start to use HTTPS for all outgoing links to the Internet Archive. I've been told there are currently about 160,000 of them in Wikipedia. According to Alexa, Wikipedia currently ranks fourth among upstream sites to archive.org [1], which means we'd really have an impact here. Yesterday, I started to fix a couple of hundred of those links semi-automatically (with AWB) before being told by several editors it would be better to first discuss this topic more generally in Village Pump.

So what is our stand in this issue? There was a “HTTP vs. HTTPS” discussion in the context of The Pirate Bay in 2010, but obviously TPB is not nearly as important on Wikipedia as is the Wayback Machine, so we better discuss this here on a broader scale. As far as I know, Wikipedia supports websites' efforts to encrypt and authenticate their incoming traffic. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been using https:// by default for years, and our link templates {{Facebook}}, {{Twitter}}, and {{YouTube}} acknowledge this.

The question is: should our guidelines encourage editors to prefer HTTPS over HTTP links (in the case of the Internet Archive!)? In fact, I was already being bold and changed WP:WBM in this regard three days ago, so I guess this edit is up for discussion here, too but this edit has already been reverted by User:Lexein. --bender235 (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, guidelines should not encourage HTTPS links over HTTP, unless HTTP is no longer supported by that site. Template support of HTTPS is fine. Further, AWB or bots should not be used to switch links in articles from HTTP to HTTPS. Excuse the length of why not:

1. Wikipedia is WP:NOT your nanny. WP is not here to secure people's web browsing from snooping. That is the user's responsibility (VPN, secure proxy, EFF's HTTPS Everywhere, etc). Wikipedia itself is not HTTPS by default. When it becomes so by consensus or WMF decision, then perhaps links to outside resources should be HTTPS, but not by AWB or bots. Instead, such URI switching should be done by server-side on-the-fly link substitution.
2. YouTube has not been using https:// by default for years - they do not automatically switch to https if accessed via http://. Try it on a browser lacking HTTPS Everywhere (example: Opera, for testing purposes).
3. Facebook, Twitter and Archive.org do default to HTTPS, but they already handle any URI HTTP protocol switch automatically. We do not need to mass edit WP articles to use HTTPS in links to them.
4. As of 2013-09-02, 24.6% of the Internet's 168088 most popular web sites have a secure implementation of HTTPS.[2] When it gets to 50%, we should revisit this as an RFC. Looks like it's 50% now, so I'm just fundamentally disagreeing with mass edits for this purpose. See #1.
5. AWB and/or bots should not alter links in articles unless HTTP protocol is not supported anymore for that site. Flooding watchlists is a serious concern - it's annoying to thousands of editors at once and has been beaten back dozens of times. Example: when an editor changed user names, she used AWB to rename herself in every Talk page and archived Talk page she had ever visited; that editor lost all the good will she had ever built up in the community, just for watchlist flooding.
6. HTTPS is blocked or snooped anyways in many corporate environments, and some countries. Imposition of HTTPS by Wikipedia will break access for those users.
7. HTTPS is not supported well in many handheld devices (meaning slow & buggy, cert issues).
8. It imposes certificate handling burden on users. It forces connection startups to be slower in every case. HTTPS will, for many users, break access to resources, by adding complications.

Should this be in WP:Perennials? --Lexein (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is going to HTTPS as a default Josh Parris 11:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, HTTP access doesn't automatically switch to HTTPS. Default means default. My "if" clause kicks in when it truly defaults to HTTPS. --Lexein (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to your arguments, do you see the circular reasoning in Point 1? You oppose to establish consensus on using HTTPS because there is not yet consensus to use HTTPS.

Also, Points 6–8 sound more like 2008 than 2013. Which current handheld device cannot handle HTTPS? --bender235 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(3 ec)You're asking for a single guideline change, I'm saying wait until other, broader consensus is reached. Not circular, AFAICT. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

... which is what I'm trying to find out here. --bender235 (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're asking for a single guideline change. You want a real RFC for the broader discussion. --Lexein (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

All I wanted was the answer to a simple question: Internet Archive switched to HTTPS by default; do we respect that, or not? --bender235 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Point 5: A quick-fix can be implemented in templates; urls (in cite templates and infoboxes, etc) can be transformed from http to https using lua. No editor cost, no watchlist impact. Josh Parris 12:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(3 ec)Agreed for templates and infobox specific cases, if HTTP is no longer supported or always, for all devices, the site switches to HTTPS anyways. --Lexein (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much how we do it, but rather should we encourage this at all. Internet Archive switched to HTTPS by default for a reason. Do we respect that, or not? --bender235 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Point 4:Sure, if you want the best. But over 50% of sites implement some kind of SSL right now. Josh Parris 12:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

And then again, it is not about every website, it is about the Internet Archive. And they use TLS 1.2 with AES_256_CBC and PFS key exchange. It doesn't get any better. --bender235 (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

50%? Where's that from? Closer to 25% per the source above. --Lexein (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"SSL Security Summary", first graph on the page you linked to. Josh Parris 23:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's at 50% - quite a jump. Hm. I still don't want AWB or bots changing links - See my #1 above. --Lexein (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Point 6: I don't see the necessity of waiving reader's privacy for 99% of Wikipedia readers just because 1% may browse from within a company network that disallows HTTPS for the purpose of deep packet inspection. If anything, those 1% of users can switch to HTTP manually if their HTTPS request returns an error message, instead of asking the other 99% to do it the other way round. --bender235 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, editors should be encouraged to link to archive.org via https rather than http Josh Parris 23:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• No Totally pointless. If a target site wants to impose SSL, that's their call and they can do it through HTTP, same as ever. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What makes http:// preferable over https:// if both are offered by a given website (in this case Internet Archive)? --bender235 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes - Let's not get on the matter of snooping and other red herrings. The simple fact that it promotes the safety of all users without having any negative impact and is highly encouraged by all manner of IT professionals and even the target site shows that it is preferable. According to my URL, I am browsing Wikipedia with HTTPS and when I google Archive.org I am directed through it via HTTPS, but if I go through a link to Wikipedia I arrive at HTTP. It'd be beneficial to update these even if it means doing them in the labor intensive way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• No Not everybody is using https: for Wikipedia. Some are unable to do so, others choose not to. If a website offers access via either http: or https: we should provide protocol-relative links so that readers are not inconvenienced by having the protocol switched unnecessarily. Something very similar came up recently at Template talk:OCLC. If the site allows either form but immediately switches people from one to the other (like Google switches people from http: to https:), that's their business; we should not pre-emptively force one protocol to be used when it is not necessary to do so. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Could everyone please get their heads around the fact that this isn't about "a website" or "every website" for that matter, but only Internet Archive. The IA uses https:// by default. They explicitly want people to link to them via https://. It makes absolute no sense to encourage people to create new http:// links to IA when they are outdated. I'm still waiting for the explanation on what makes http:// preferable over https:// at all. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I begin to get an idea that the main knock on this proposal is not "http:// is better than https://", but only "Changing it would disturb my watchlist, so please don't." --bender235 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about Internet Archive: although I did mention OCLC (indirectly) and Google (directly), the first was as an example where a similar question has recently arisen; and the second was as an example of a site which permits http: URLs but redirects those to https:. Back to the point: are the http: links to IA actually broken? If so, fine, let's switch them to https: - but if they still work, why bother? If the site really want visitors to use https: they can set up their own redirection in the same fashion as Google (that's if they have not done so already). But the page linked by bender235 (which incidentally is also available at the equivalent http: URL without redirection to https:) does state "Visitors to archive.org and openlibrary.org will https unless they try to use http", "It is still possible to retrieve files via http to help with backward compatibility", and "Users of the Wayback Machine, similarly will use the secure version by default, but can use the http version which will help playback some complicated webpages", so not only is the option provided, but they do recognise that http: may be preferable in some situations. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

IA does still allow http:// deep links. It only redirects you to https:// if you start from the homepage. Yet they encourage you to use https:// for all deep links from now on. Why? Because it benefits readers' privacy. Is that any of Wikipedia's concern? Apparently it is. But unfortunately not for all Wikipedians.

I'm not naive. I know https:// does not offer perfect privacy for everyone. But if offers some compared to none. At least https:// protects you from this (eavesdropping from non-US intelligence agencies) and this (eavesdropping from private entities). Which, to me, is better than nothing. And seriously, apart from the "oh god, my watchlist looks so messy today" there's no downside at all for Wikipedia to do this: to not only have people reading Wikipedia on a secure connection, but also enabling to check references (in apparently our main online repository) on a secure connection. It is just so easy. I don't understand why we still argue about this. --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Use protocol-relative links (that is, // instead of http:// or https:// -- Ypnypn (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is neutral, and uses whatever protocol the user is currently using. This was recommended already long ago in several places on WP, Mediawiki, and meta. Couldn't find it at the moment. Too sleepy. --Lexein (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC) No, agreeing with Andy Dingley below. --Lexein (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Help me out here: where's the difference between switching from http:// to https:// and switching from http:// to //? Does not both require the same amout of changes and cause the same amount of watchlist hassle? --bender235 (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No - because WP has already started (a pointless piece of security theatre) to use https:// itself. Going protocol-relative would make every link into https://, which is ludicrously unworkable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite the risk of going off-topic: would you mind explaining to us why Wikipedia's (or any site's, for the matter) switch to https:// is "pointless security theatre"? --bender235 (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just read about "security theater". My main point is still my #1, above. --Lexein (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that "you want reader's privacy? Then take care of it on your own!" being shamefully egoistic, hasn't your Point 1 already been rendered moot, since Wikipedia will in fact soon use HTTPS by default?

Also, could someone please explain to me why Wikipedia's (and Wayback's) switch to HTTPS is "pointless"? --bender235 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how protocol relative links work. If a user is visiting Wikimedia sites using HTTPS, protocol relative links will point to HTTPS. If a user is visiting using HTTP, protocol relative links will point to HTTP. They are called protocol relative because they are relative to the protocol the browser is currently using. If a user is browsing the site using HTTPS, obviously it works for them and they want to be on HTTPS. Internet Archive supports HTTPS, so there's no harm in using URL protocol links for them. In fact, it's absolutely what we should be doing from a technical perspective. Stop bringing politics into this.--Ryan lane (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Saying "In my opinion, Wikipedia should support this effort and start to use HTTPS for all outgoing links to the Internet Archive" is a poor way to begin a discussion about what is actually proposed running AWB to change tens of thousands of existing links. If we're talking about future edits, we should be discussing how we can get thousands of editors to stop using HTTP links to IA when they do future edits. Do we want to create a guideline? Do we want to use EditFilter to block this? Do we want a bot to change HTTP to HTTPS, after a human makes an edit, and then notify the editor who made the HTTP link of his/her "error"? But that doesn't seem to be the main issue here - so I, too, oppose modifying 160,000 existing links, for the reasons cited above involving disruption of watchlists, and the precedent that this would set. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It amazes me how many people put their personal convenience over the benefit of the whole Wikipedia. "Yeah, I'm for readers' privacy and all that, but not if it messes up my watchlist." Is this the new approach to the Wikipedia idea?

Do we want to create a guideline?

Not a guideline, but an update of the existing WP:WBM manual. I recently fixed it, to have it recommending a https:// link, but that was reverted by Lexein.

Do we want a bot to change HTTP to HTTPS?

In fact I wanted just that. This whole debate started with this bot request of mine. Since most (not all) Wayback links are implemented in one of the many CS1-based citation templates, we could also very easily implement some sort of filter that automatically takes |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/... for a HTTPS link, as suggested by User:Werieth.

Running AWB to change tens of thousands of existing links?

If that's what it takes? Sure. HTTPS support for Wayback did not exist only short time ago. Obviously, the large majority of links to them are still http://. But why keep them as such, after we finally agree on respecting Wayback's request to link them via https:// only? Is there some grandfather clause in regard to external links I missed? If we for some reason dediced to no longer link to YouTube or Twitter tomorrow, would we keep all the links that have been added until then, or would we gradually delete them? --bender235 (talk) 09:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's done as an optional change in AWB, then it wouldn't kill people's watchlists, because it would only happen when the article is being edited anyway. (You'd still have extra mess in the diffs to view.) You could also have a bot run very slowly (e.g., one article per minute) to avoid killing people's watchlists. Since there are a few hundred thousand links (often multiple links per article), it might take about a year at one page per minute, but it would get done eventually.

If we were going to make such a change, then I'd rather see protocol-relative links. Some people have gone to some trouble to turn off HTTPS links, and that ought to be respected whenever we reasonably can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in support of the bot option. And it might not even take as long as you projected, since about half of all Wayback links are within the |archiveurl= parameter of our citation templates, which means some Lua script could solve the problem without actually having to edit the pages.

As for the "protocol-relative option", I don't really see the point of it. Wikipedia is going to use to HTTPS by default soon, and Internet Archive already does. So who would we keep that http:// option for? I don't see those corner cases existing. --bender235 (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I would use protocol relative links for two reasons...

1. Reader difficulty in accessing the archived web pages, and
2. If Wikipedia does go HTTPS only no further edits will be needed.

– Allen4names (contributions) 19:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally support the idea. Following User:Jimbo Wales's talk in Wikimania 2013 I think we need to make Wikipedia more secure for its editors and readers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was in Hong Kong, and I remember Wales' opening speech. He confirmed what one can read here, that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to move Wikipedia and all its sister projects to HTTPS by default. And if we do, why stop there? People should not only read Wikipedia on a secure connection, but also check references on one. --bender235 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand why there is any controversy in this thread. It looks like internet archive force redirects everyone to HTTPS except for the wayback machine, which supports both HTTPS and HTTP. This is simple. Use protocol relative URLs for the wayback machine and use HTTPS links for all of the rest of internet archive. Using protocol relative URLs for sites that support both HTTP and HTTPS should be our default policy. Using HTTPS links for sites that only support HTTPS is the only sane approach as otherwise the user will get a dead link at worst and a redirect to HTTPS at best which would harm their privacy and harm their performance. Also, let's keep the rhetoric away from what Wikipedia is doing or plans on doing in regards to HTTPS; it has nothing to do with this topic. If you're really concerned about that, start a new thread and I'll happily discuss it.--Ryan lane (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Use protocol-relative links for wayback machine and https links for the rest of internet archive
  • support: This topic is really a technical topic and politics have nothing to do with it. The wayback machine supports both HTTP and HTTPS, so if a user is already using HTTPS on Wikipedia they should continue to be on HTTPS when they visit internet archive. Since the rest of internet archive is HTTPS only, we shouldn't bother using protocol relative links (though that's an option), we should simply use HTTPS, since the user will simply get a redirect to HTTPS otherwise, which is a waste of time and of the user's privacy. The only other technically sane argument in this topic is to use only protocol relative URLs so that it's easier to remember which sets of links to internet archive should use which type of url.--Ryan lane (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I opened a new thread at WP:VP/P. --bender235 (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What happened to Special:WantedPages?

It says, "The following data is cached, and was last updated 05:54, 12 October 2013. A maximum of 1,000 results are available in the cache.

Updates for this page are currently disabled. Data here will not presently be refreshed.

There are no results for this report." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Awwsome (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like bugzilla:15434. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Split founders from their companies

I've come across a few watch founder articles where the article is about both the person, and the company - for example, Richard Mille, Franck_Muller, Abraham-Louis Perrelet, David_Yurman. Is there a general approach on this? It seems when the person is independently notable, we create a separate article for them (e.g. Alexander McQueen, Ralph Lauren) - but what should be done in these cases? I find it rather odd to have an article about a company also classified under "Living people".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it wrong rather than odd. If there's a single article, it should be either about the company or the person, not both. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquette review requested

I apologize in advance for this: This is really too long, about something probably trivial, and most won't read it. For anyone that does, thanks in advance.

I'm an editor that has recently returned after a long lay-off and things appear to have shifted in some ways during my absence. So I'm looking for some assistance to see if I handled an interaction with another editor "the right way" (for whatever values of "right" are applied). I'm coming here because, frankly, I don't know where to go. The old Wikiquette board apparently blew up while I was gone and other areas like the coaching assistance are now marked "historical." Even Village pump (assistance) is a memory. Odd.

Anyway. My interaction is with the User:Navakawiki. Judging by his/her contributions, this user has been here for some time. They mostly make edits relating to the Royal College Colombo or its alumni. Many of these changes are made apparently based on their personal knowledge.

1. They made changes to the article C. L. V. Jayathilake to change the spelling of the subject's name without providing a source, and against the two sources that had previously been linked.
2. They posted a notice on the BLP noticeboard asking for the article title to be changed to their preferred spelling.
3. I reverted those changes as unsourced BLP edits.
4. I replied on BLPN explaining why I had reverted and linking to the policies such as RS and BLP.
5. They embedded a request to "revert the revert" in a barnstar on my talk page. Which seems bizarre.
6. I responded on their talk page saying why I would not (yet) restore the spelling change and explaining the need for sourcing in changes to articles on BLP

Yeah, I know, tl;dr-inducing. What I want to know is two things:

• Did I respond appropriately to Navakawiki according to whatever norms are on wiki these days? Everything now seems to jump from talk pages directly to AN or AN/I, and I don't think this merits discussion there. On the other hand, they apparently have a record of not sourcing their edits on their favorite subject so there's clearly some changes necessary. I would once upon a time have suggested coaching, but I see that is not any longer an option.
• Have barnstars been deprecated in some way? Even when I look at other user's pages, they seem to stop sometime last year. Was there a discussion I messed about them? This use of one as a request to edit is also not how I remember their usage from before.

Thanks for any advice. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have been absent from June 2007 to September 2013 (with brief returns in May 2010 and May 2013). In that time, yes, there have been many changes, so you probably missed the deployment of WikiLove, a method for sending out barnstar-style messages more easily. Unfortunately, some people use the feature for negative comments too. You can still send out barnstars in the traditional way, but Flow might stamp on that. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Great to see 'evidence' that this is run by some true enthusiasts. :) Yes, I have been here for sometime but was not really active. Reason is, most of the time I come across complete articles and the articles are getting updated rapidly. Furthermore, I do not intend to provide false information, that is why I started with my Alma Mater and town, so that I can be sure of the credibility of the information that I provide. Actually want to achieve a higher status to add photos etc. since some of the Sri Lanka related articles lack those and to progress with familiar edits up to that point. Hope it's not bad..! :) - Navaka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navakawiki (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

The copying of text from out of copyright 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition (EB1911) is allowed providing the text is properly attributed under the conditions laid out in the plagiarism guideline and there is a template to help with this called {{EB1911}}. However many of the Wikipedia articles that incorporate text from EB1911 were created a decade ago when WP:V was in its infancy. as a result there is a hidden category called Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter‎ which contains about 10,000 Wikipedia articles that acknowledge text was copied from EB1911 but do not state from which of the 40,000 articles in the 29 volumes it originates. To meet the requirements of WP:V all these templates in the 10,000 Wikipedia articles need to have the parameter title=EB1911 article title added to the {{EB1911}} template (or wstitle=EB1911 article title if the EB1911 article exists under Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.

So to give a focus to editors who choose to work on the backlog or to add more content, I have created a new sub project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles called Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. -- PBS (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

One day left to nominate, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty₈₄₅ 18:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia informed me that sent a password reset link.

That was more than 12 hours ago. It does not allow more than one password reset in a 24 hour period. What's going on? Is the password reset email composed and sent by real people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.77.79 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Check your spam folder. If it's not there the most likely explanation is that you didn't register with an email address (possible in the past, maybe even now) or that you used an email address that you're not checking. Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Killiondude, No sign of a Wikipedia password resent in Junk or Deleted. I tried to use my USER ID and Password first. A User id that I normally use was found but the password didn't work. I asked a reset using my user id and email address. Wikipedia informed that a password reset had been sent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.77.79 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You can always just make a new user account. They're free. :) Killiondude (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No password reset email more than 12 later. I tried to get another reset and found that Wikipedia will only send one reset in a 24 hour period.

What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.77.79 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

the "languages" list of available wikipedia languages font has changed ! !

I have always appreciated Wikipedia's use of simple fonts that don't require platform / browser "font smoothing"

Recently I just noticed that the font used in the list of available wikipedia languages has changed that appears to now require font smoothing - - is this a new change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.95.77 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It changed at the end of October. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Interlanguage links in different font. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation November update

The lastest Wiki Education Foundation (WEF) update is at the education noticeboard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

FindArticles deadlinks

FindArticles stopped working sometime in 2012 (a bit more info at Talk:FindArticles). There are at least 20,000 links to FindArticles.com, most of them in article space, and the number is probably much higher. I checked a few and they haven't been marked with {{dead link}} or similar. They are excluded from WayBackMachine due to robots.txt; what other options do we have? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A password reset email has been sent.

I posted here yesterday, but now I cannot find that earlier post / thread.

Killiondude responded yesterday.

I waited 24 hours and requested another password reset. As a result, the following: "A password reset email has been sent."

I provided my (supposed) user name (It is the one I normally use), and my email address. But no reset email has been forthcoming ... as happened yesterday.

I think I need the password reset to ask a few questions, mainly about finding the licenses of Wikipedia articles, but for other reasons too. Whether I need a password reset or not (to ask those questions), I would like to reset my password; it doesn't work.

I am not exactly a neophyte with respect to logical navigation, but I have had a hard time learning your navigation use and structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.217.166 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello

On russia wikipedia apears that Lana Del Rey died. It is true?--Scymso (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Which article, and when? I can't find anything about her dying at ru:Лана_Дель_Рей. Chris857 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody doesn't understand the title of ru:Born to Die --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I find the license for any given Wikipedia document or image?

I have read and bookmarked the general license, but I think each document and image should be inspected to determine that it conforms to the general license or has exceptions to the general license.

Furthermore, if I use excerpts from Wikipedia articles to explain a complicated concept, do I cite each document that used as a source of information (eg. Wikipedia, "Preconscious") and its license, whatever that might be? I am looking for a pointer and specific example. At this point, the Wikipedia discourse is difficult to navigate and understand.

Thanks.

By the way, am I posting this question in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubina 6 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

About place, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be better, but this isn't necessarily a bad spot. All images (*should*) have licensing information on their page, for example File:Brooklyn Bridge Postdlf.jpg states it is dual-licensed GFDL 1.2/ CC-BY-SA-3.0 (in this case, in the "Permission" spot, but the tags could appear anywhere on the page). All text on Wikipedia (unless someone has released something under a more permissive license) is CC-BY-SA-3.0. For excerpts of articles, adding a link to the particular page, or at least mentioning it title, is preferred to just saying "from Wikipedia" or some such thing, because that for sure satisfies the BY (attribution) requirement of the license. That also means, if you attribute it, you could repeat the whole article. You didn't ask, but I believe all code on Wikipedia (scripts and stuff) is GFDL.

If anything is confusing, just ask. Chris857 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See also WP:REUSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Technology for featured candidacy

• Portal:Technology

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology.

Notifying you here, as this is the last submission as part of my initiative, the Main Page Featured Portal drive -- to get all those portals already linked from the top right of the Main Page to featured quality.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh

I'm almost sorry I had to fix this. I liked the lede and "The film was... not popular enough to bring in the dough", but "the second of her last two film appearances" was a nice construction too.

Hey while it's circle time, I'd like to share this user edit history, which I came across while doing research for a matter on a different forum. This editor is not a bot or someone using automated tools to make repetitive edits. These are real content edits of different types and made steadily and with care and thought, with just a handful of objections. No edit summaries, either. I don't know what to make of this, but we may have found our King. Herostratus (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to know what topics this editor was working on. If the topics were ones that lots of other editors work on, then the lack of objections is quite an achievement... if they were more obscure, with only two or three other editors work on them, then not so much. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's quite easy to work that out, you just need to follow the clues - no admin powers are needed, despite that black blob in the image where the user name should be. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, it's very easy to find the editors identity, if you want, which is OK because this is all public record; I didn't want to focus on the actual editor or talk about him behind his back (I'm confident he won't read this or anything else that's not an article though), it's just that the phenomena caught my eye. Certainly this edit history is mostly admirable. It would be nice if he used edit summaries or engaged on the occasional objection, but that's a quibble compared to his contributions.

It's just... different. Some might say this is the ideal editor, some not, but it certainly shows that there are all kinds of people in this world. Herostratus (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Notion Capital

Notion Capital was recently deleted by PROD, due to notability concerns. User:GiantSnowman kindly userfied the article at my request, at User:Pigsonthewing/Notion Capital where I have improved it. It is now ready for publication, and I believe that our notability requirements are satisfied by coverage by TechCrunch, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and more. I declare an interest, as I have a professional relationship with Norton. I therefore invite and request an uninvolved editor to review the article and move it back to its original location. It may then be sensible, if it had any content, for an admin to undelete the original talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ping WP:WikiProject Cooperation if they're still active, this is right up their alley. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Overtly Using Wikipedia for Marketing

Recently Wikimedia Foundation sent a cease and desist letter to Wiki-PR for engaging in paid advocacy editing of Wikipedia. Here is the article. Oddly, I am writing a paper (little one not a doctoral or anything) on motivation and Wikipedians. One of my claims is that being paid to edit Wikipedia would be considered a crime to the community as a whole. Not to mention, such marketing is almost definitely biased. That's not my point here though. I want to ask Wikipedians their opinion of finding out someone was monetarily compensated for editing. I'm very new here, but to me its a violation in spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia's intent. If you would share your opinion, I'd appreciate it. Be careful what you say, you could end up in my little paper. : ) Pugsly8000 (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't care if someone is paid. An edit should be judged on its merits, not on the motives of the person who made it. Disparaging an edit simply because someone was paid to do it, not because there's something wrong with the edit, is ad hominem. Think about most of the sources that we summarize: nearly all of them were written by people who were paid for their work. The people who wrote other encyclopedias were paid. The people who wrote the Oxford English Dictionary were paid. They were paid to maintain high standards of scholarship. There's no contradiction there. On the other hand, advocacy editing violates WP:SOAPBOX, whether the author was paid or not. The resulting bad, biased writing doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and we already have plenty in our policies and guidelines to address that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Not what I expected. Very grateful for this response. Pugsly8000 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ther is a significant distinction between "being paid for editing" and 'using Wikipedia for marketing". There have been several significant policy debates on this issue recently. A distinction is often drawn between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy", Many people here have no objection to the first, but thing that the second should be prohibited or greatly restricted. I have been paid to tutor someone in how to edit Wikipedia, with over-the-shoulder examples. Would you consider that paid editing. Several libraries, museums, and universities permit, or perhaps even require, certain scholars or professionals to edit Wikipedia, within the area of their expertise, as a part of their paid employment. No one that i have heard of thinks this is unwanted or unethical. In general, if someone is paid to edit be allowed/required to do so in a neutral and helpful way, then I and many others think it perfectly acceptable.

OTOH, if someone is paid by a corporation or other entity to edit on their behalf, then there is an obvious problem with conflict of interest. But if such a person discloses the conflict in advance, and has any edits vetted by uninvolved editors, many people here (although fewer than on the previous point) still think that this is quite acceptable. So the response isn't as simple and uniform as you might have supposed. DES ^(talk) 22:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thought: A consulting service that edits Wikipedia on behalf of people or businesses who pay for the service could actually be a good idea. Most people, when they try to represent themselves or honor their friends on Wikipedia, and most businesses when they try to represent themselves or their products on Wikipedia, do a terrible job. Typically they toss around WP:PEACOCK words, write a WP:RESUME, cite self-published sources or no sources at all, or otherwise fail to write in a scholarly, impartial tone. Sometimes that's OK if it triggers serious Wikipedians to clean up the problems; error is one of the main triggers of improvement on wikis. More often, though, the junk hangs around a long while before it gets to AfD, and it harms Wikipedia's credibility. It could make a lot of sense to hire someone who knows the rules on Wikipedia and knows how to add material that neutrally represents verifiable sources. I don't know what Wiki-PR was doing, but they bill their service as "the easy way to accurately tell your story on Wikipedia". If "accurately" means following our rules for reliable sources, they could be making Wikipedia a lot better than if their clients clicked Edit and wrote themselves. I'm not entirely sure of this, though. WP:COI contains a lot of accumulated wisdom about editors writing about themselves and people they're connected with. A hired advocate would certainly fall afoul of WP:EXTERNALREL (which, BTW, is a guideline, not a policy—and that's probably wise, too). WP:COI#Wikipedia's position addresses your question pretty directly, by suggesting a way for paid advocates to get information onto pages without editing themselves. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

These are excellent responses, despite not being what I expected. To clarify what I was thinking, in case it seemed I misunderstood being paid and advocacy editing...I expect Wikipedians are by and large intrinsically motivated. Being paid to do something is an extrinsic motivator and the introduction of such a motivation has proven in studies to have a crowding-out effect and lowers intrinsic motivation. What appears to be the overriding factor here is certain Wikipedian values, that I did not really consider (being pretty new here) the overarching value of a good edit, quality prose, accurate citations and the like. I truly appreciate these responses, they have led me to a better claim for my little paper. Something along the lines of Wikipedian values and the community that holds the contributors, paid or not, accountable to them. This was very beneficial to me. Thank you. Pugsly8000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You are showing more understanding of the issue than many editors. Bear in mind that a lot of participants in discussions like this have no experience of the issue in other contexts. Furthermore, there is strong support for maximum liberty among many editors—let everyone edit without questioning their motives, and someone else will fix any problems. I wasn't thinking of the paid editing question at the time, but I put some thoughts regarding motivation in the third paragraph on my user page. In previous discussions, several editors have pointed out the corrosive effects that paid editing will have on volunteers when it becomes more established. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Students and forced paid advocacy editing

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After seeing the horrible mess that is WP:ENB (and the output of a class I have been an ambassador for), I've been thinking. If professors and students were ever supported (or felt in any way supported by the WMF) to use primary sources against our policy of WP:PRIMARY in order to just satisfy a WMF "byte" metric (the WMF graded the success of its own program by the quantity of content added), then wouldn't the WMF itself be guilty of supporting paid advocacy editing? And wouldn't it even be worse than that? Wouldn't it even be forced paid advocacy editing? I use the word forced because I never had a choice to look at a syllabus before I took a class in university. The students are paid because they are motivated to edit by a grade (and not from their own free will) for article space additions. So if they are supported by their professors in using primary sources, which "boosts" the online prominence of their instructor's field, wouldn't this theoretical scenario I describe just be WMF-supported forced paid advocacy editing? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Paid advocacy requires that the editor is being paid to present a particular point of view, presumably in favour of their client. Having students write article has been compared to paid editing, and there may be a case to make along those lines, but it only falls into paid advocacy if they are being required to push a particular perspective. That doesn't appear to have been the case in the courses I've seen before. - Bilby (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC) This is a standard misunderstanding—no one is planning to pay a professor or a student to write an article that only mentions the good things about a particular subject, or an article which omits problems acknowledged by reliable sources. There are lots of problems with many student-written articles (copyright violations; "essay" style; last-minute copy/paste of junk), but there is nothing similar to the case of a PR company being paid to write an article where both sides understand that payment will not be forthcoming unless the article fluffs up the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Bilby, for a recent and random example from a class I am involved in, I would point to this section, which does not follow WP:MEDRS or WP:PRIMARY, in my opinion. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL. It is effectively promoting the field of neuroscience, the field of the person forcing students to make these edits, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I maintain that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit—not the encylopedia you can force anyone to edit. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC) The word can in the motto should always remain voluntary, which appears to contradict the WMF view. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Are students "paid" to take a class and do the assignments??? No in the U.S. (and many other countries) where students pay real money (mostly in the range of $500 to $3000 per course) to attend classes. The grade certifies the quality of their work--those who fail the course pay the same tuition as those who get an "A". As a regional ambassador in the WMF education program for 10 US states I have never seen a situation where a) a student was required to take a specific course and b) the instructor course required the student to write for Wikipedia with no other option available. Furthermore, unlike in Biosthmors's day, syllabi are routinely posted online, especially those in the Wikipedia Education program. Let me note that the allegation that students are being forced to 'satisfy a WMF "byte" metric' is false. The "advocacy" business is garbled--the student editors are diminishing the prestige of the field by poor work. Bottom line is that Biosthmors has mis-identified the problem (the problems are mostly poor quality edits, poor supervision, and the clustering of new edits at the end of term when assignments are due.)Rjensen (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Students are being compensated with a grade (which is paid in my mind), for violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as far as I'm concerned. And this is done to promote the field of the person forcing the students to edit, it appears. Are the students allowed to be graded from the sandbox? No. This is purely disruptive, and brought to us courtesy of the WMF, in my opinion. I graduated from university in the last 10 years, FWIW. I am also a regional ambassador, FWIW, and I've also found some of your arguments at WP:ENB lately to be spurious. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Do you have an example where students are being required to advocate for a particular position when editing? It would be unusual for a university to require students to present a particular point of view in this sort of work - I would expect the courses to require students to contribute to WP, and that in general the students will tend to be pro a particular position, but not that they would be required to advocate in any direction. I would also be very surprised to see any course requiring students to violate policies - there have been some odd examples with a hoax or two in the past, but I can't see anything like that through the education program. Unless you simply mean that students are getting a grade, in spite of violating WP policies and guidelines? - Bilby (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Biosthmors seems to be admitting that he has been complicit (as a course ambassador) in this "violation" and he wants to blame the students or the professor for it. If he sees that a professor is in violation, I suggest that he is himself guilty if he continues to helps that professor. Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Cute. Do you have a potential conflict-of-interest in this conversation, by the way? I've previously expressed an interest in working for the WP:WEF but I'm disinterested until they change course. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Bilby, it's not blatant like that. It's more subtle, and I think I've already provided a fine enough example. They're advocating for the possiblity for neuroscience to "cure diseases", which boosts the online reputation of the professors field by not following our guidelines. I am not arguing that this is motivated by anything other than ignorance. I'm just stating what the effective result is, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Biosthmors says that a) classes are producing bad articles in field X (neuroscience) and b) this IMPROVES the prestige of field X. What nonsense. Rjensen (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Unless they are tagged for their policy/guideline violations, then yes, I think they serve to boost the reputation of the field (per the logic of the statement at about minute 2 of this promotional material). If I went around and tagged everything that needs it with cleanup templates then the articles would no longer serve as subtle adverts for the field. (Thanks for throwing me under the bus for trying to participte in a "harm reduction" process, by the way.) Another example of an inappropriate student assignment would be here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Samer Hattar, IMO. A professor forced their students to edit biographies for people in their own field. Blatant violations of WP:PRIMARY/WP:RS are visible, per that discussion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Biosthmors seems to think 1) professors "force" their students to do things, 2) that these things are designed to promote the professor's field, and that 3) all this is hostile to the spirit of Wikipedia. Biosthmors seems to reject university professors' authority (he keeps calling professors ignorant and self serving -- and to be candid I'm a retired professor who resents the insult), while INSIDE Wikipedia he rejects the guiding principle that anyone can edit it and thinks that experts like himself should be in control. How he got to be such an expert in neuroscience is his secret. He says that he continues to be associated with a course that violates W guidelines and yet refuses to quit it. Rjensen (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Closing this. I don't know how to describe this situation, but it's not something that's going to produce a productive result when Biosthmors is making numerous claims that are so wildly inaccurate, despite corrections from everyone else. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I took off the templates. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC) I'm with @Rjensen: on this. The attitude is insulting to educators, especially when they are sharing their educational plans regarding Wikimedia on project for the community to see and address. Furthermore, I have not seen much evidence that suggests students are any worse than other new contributor populations. The biggest issue appears to be the time crunch during certain period as students endeavor to get things done in a limiter period. I've been involved with setting up the education program on English Wikinews and presented about this at EduWiki 2013. When the analysis is said and done,it looks like there are no real differences. Moreover, it looks like strategies designed to assist students have a positive flow on effect in terms of assisting all new contributors. The constant harking about the random neuroscience class do not at all appear random. Rather, unless the methodology is explained to demonstrate a truly random selection process amongst all student edits that resulted in the random process being his class, then we have selectively chosen data points intended to make a point. I'd love more data from Biosthmors where the methodology is repeatedly to see if the problem he identified actually exists in a broader context. --LauraHale (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Reclosing. Do not revert. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)