WP:POST/TIPS

Suggestions

This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please use Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

You can leave a tip in several ways: value if doesn't exist

Leave a message on this page
Email us at WikipediaSignpost@Gmail.com (you can also use this link). It is monitored by a handful of trusted Signpost editors.
Send a tweet/dent to @wikisignpost on Twitter or identi.ca, which is maintained by User:Ragesoss.

Not every mention of Wikipedia in the media will make it into the Signpost, but please consider adding to Wikipedia:Press coverage or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source so we have a comprehensive record. Please do not post newsletters to this page; news from WikiProjects is always appreciated, but templated messages are much more likely to be ignored.

Archives: March 2010 – present, November 2009 – February 2010, July 2009 – November 2009, January 2009 – June 2009, October 2008 – December 2008, older: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Ongoing

Requests for WikiProject features

Requests for WikiProject features have moved to the WikiProject desk.

August 1–

F.B.I., Challenging Use of Seal, Gets Back a Primer on the Law

The NYTimes reports that Wikipedia got a letter from the FBI requesting to remove the FBI seal from the Wikipedia and MediaWiki Commons. Mike Godwin has replied something along the lines of "Learn to read the law and see you in court". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I love about Mike Godwin. :-) Dcoetzee 06:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported at BBC News. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is already being written up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to suggest this, except with the headline "Mike Godwin pwns FBI". Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a facebook advert now in rotation highlighting the same skirmish. It reads "FBI threatens Wikipedia - The FBI has threatened legal action if Wikipedia doesn’t remove their seal from its site. Read more at CNN Tech." This may go viral soon, the media seems to want to take up this issue. The funny thing is, Fb has the FBI seal as the picture in their ad and it is also shown in movie credits. So I guess this administration will have to sue them too? Yahoo has the story on their start page now too.. CaribDigita (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia microgrants available in the UK

Grants of £5-£100 are now available to Wikimedians to help their Wikimedia activities. An overview is available on the Wikimedia UK blog, with more information (and the application process) available on the WMUK website. I would be more than happy to answer any queries about this (I'm one of the organisers of it). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

macrogrants available everywhere :)

Although this year's chapter grant process deadline has officially past, grants submitted now will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The process was recently expanded to include consideration "in a limited way" of grants submitted by "volunteers and like-minded organizations" that follow the grant requirements, as well as just chapters. Barry Newstead, the new head of Global Development at the Wikimedia Foundation, has taken over the grants process and intends to experiment with grants to non-chapter entities in the future. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 09:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Indy's Wiki balls-up"

An article about The Independent quoting unreferenced Wikipedia information reported by The Guardian. ISD (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Wanky Balls" is currently trending on Twitter. At the time of writing it is the third highest trending topic. ISD (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews, 2010 Chile earthquake

Well, I was thinking of (Don't know if this is some kind of Conflict of Interest ;) that I published lots of pictures of the February 27 Chile earthquake damage, but they were not mentioned on "in the news", is it too late for that? :-) Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Hong Kong publisher plagiarised photographs from Commons

Wan Li Book, a leading Hong Kong publisher (sadly they don't have an en.wiki article yet) recently published a book which plagiarised 100+ pictures from Wikimedia Commons without any acknowledgement. ~~I'll put a story onto the "special story" section and see if the editors like it.~~ --Der yck C. 12:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an interesting story. Unless the write-up becomes really detailed, "News and notes" is probably a better place for it (I assume the content will be similar to [1]? The Signpost's writing style is a bit different though, and perhaps examples of the images in question would make a nice illustration). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly the article which I would like to submit to the Signpost! Feel free to use it the way you wish, as it is indeed CC-BY. I suppose you're more capable than I am to move it from my blog to the Signpost; I will join in the editing afterwards.

As linked from my blog post, zh:Wikipedia talk:香港維基人佈告板#萬里機構挪用維基編者圖片 has a list of pictures plagiarised from Wikipedia and Flickr. Deserving particular mention is File:TaiPo New Town.jpg by Samuel Chan (zh:User:CX257), a Hong Kong/Belfast Wikipedian who took this aerial shoot of Tai Po while flying between his two homes on an Airbus A340. The picture was plagiarised and given half a page in print, and given the inherent value of an aerial shoot, the legal proceedings concerning this picture will be fun to watch. --Der yck C. 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - the deputy chief editor of Wan Li Book Co. has posted a public apology on zh.wikipedia. --Der yck C. 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFactCheck, Andrew Lih's new project

Truth-o-Meter, 2G: Andrew Lih wants to wikify fact-checking, Niemann Journalism Lab

Skomorokh 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3000 featured articles

We just hit our 3000th featured article. Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing courses

Editing courses launched. --can dle •wicke 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC trial is over, vote in progress

The Pending changes trial has concluded, and editors are encouraged to vote/comment here. Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News editing its own articles in their favour

There is an article from the Daily Kos about FOX News editing their own Wikipedia articles to make them look more favourable. It comes in light of their donation of $1million to the Republican Party. ISD (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Daily Kos is a reliable source, and in some ways this is interesting in that they seem to be lobbying for one POV in a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if Fox News is really doing what they are saying, it is a gross violation of Wikipedia rules, and media fairness (what else is new for Fox?). My only question is how Daily Kos knows that the article edits are from Fox? In short, very interesting, but needs some digging into. Smallbones (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danish museum use of our lolicon image

See:

http://www.brandts.dk/page.asp?objectid=2033&zcs=3

For context:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-08-23/danish-museum-holds-controversial-manga-exhibit

Official Languages Act (Canada)

This edit received a lot of media attention in Canada after Member of Parliament Denis Coderre (who was recently hailed as a likely replacement for Quebec Premier Jean Charest) was alerted to it on August 24th via his Twitter page. The IP was traced to a Canadian correctional facility, and Coderre requested a full investigation into the matter. Here is the news story on Canada.com. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was also included in the 25 August broadcast of The Current (loosely title Wiki Wars), about this edit, the editing classes mentioned above, and a group of edits made to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II from editors in the Department of National Defence (Canada) (previously covered here by the Signpost). The archived broadcast should be available on the CBC website soon (likely here; if not, search for today's broadcast here). Mindmatrix 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent a Letter to the Editor to the Montreal Gazette about the life expectancy of such malicious edits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a itn highlight, and another to the series of malicious high-profile article edits. Man, pending changes never felt so sweet =) ResMar 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstingly enough, an admin was coming around right after to fix up Pending changes on the article. A few of malicious edits followed. ResMar 04:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for next week

[2]. Tony (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very cool. Smallbones (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UoM really seems to be a front liner huh. ResMar 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia DYK Tweeter app

A script was developed to tweet Did you know articles about India to the DYKIndia account.This can be used by any project team to increase outreach of the wikipedia content.Gerard's blogpost on the same. Srikanth (Logic) 05:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the Zionist Editing initiative

Anyone didn't see this coming? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010

I appreciate that this is well in advance, but would it be possible for me to have article space for an article on the 2010 WikiCup, which will be concluding on October 31? If possible, I'd love a full article in the issue immediately after October 31. I'd be more than happy to write it myself. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why you wouldn't be fine writing a special story for that week, on top of the regular N&N, ITN, etc. You're not the sort of person to POV-push (don't ask me how that would work even if you were), which would be the only concern for me at least. Unless I'm missing something. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if it's neutral then that would be very interesting and I shouldn't see why anyone would have an issue with it. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Court case lost "for relying on Wikipedia as an authority"

"Solgen loses case for relying on Wikipedia as an authority" Nikko Dizon, Philippine Daily Inquirer - "MANILA, Philippines--For going to court with an argument culled from Wikipedia, the Office of the Solicitor General has lost its case in the Court of Appeals asking for the reversal of a trial court's nullification of a couple's 19-year marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

analysis of pending changes published

[3] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Riehle makes the case for a mediawiki foundation

[4] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was already covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Technology_report#In brief (thanks to the delay in the publication of last week's issue ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Wikipedia and Wikileaks

There is an article from The Guardian about confusion between Wikipedia and Wikileaks. ISD (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion isn't helped by the fact that Wikia Inc., the legally completely separate company but an (n.b. Trader Monthly said this, not me!) "effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it", owns the domain names "wikileaks.(com|net|biz|us)". It's clear if one knows the topic in great detail, that this is not on behalf of Wikileaks. But to be fair, on first glance, it is confusing. After all, there's often confusion between Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation. To have Wikia owning so many wikileaks domain names, but not connected with wikileaks.ORG, is something that might lead to understandably if mistakenly thinking there is a connection between all those wiki- places. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo made a statement about this in his interview: "People, don't send me any secret documents." See current ITN story. ResMar 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 1–

Promotion of Portal:Barack Obama makes 150 Featured Portals on Wikipedia

With the promotion of Portal:Barack Obama, this brings the total number of Featured Portals on Wikipedia to 150. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see what you think of the draft. I put it at the top of the featured sections. OMG, there are three more portal promotions. It's a waterfall. Will do the others later. Tony (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four portal promotions? Yeah, that's huge. I feel bad for Tony, he has to labor all night to put that in. Lol. Nt: Mine is one of them. ResMar 03:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to be interviewed and talk about the featured portals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete set of Iraq War revisions in a book

Produced by one James Bridle a 12 volume set of all the revisions of the Iraq War in book form:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/4931488183/in/set-72157624693833091/#/

©Geni 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

info from the person behind it here.©Geni 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audio from dConstruct talk

slides from presentation —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big time Transformers deletions

If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers, there is a deletion movement going on to remove unnecessary Transfomers articles. There are lots of them. NotARealWord (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo does interview

See this link for the interview...not much on Wikipedia in the article, which is mostly about Jimbo's opinions on the news industry and technology, but still...it is Jimbo. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I stole from Wikipedia but it's not plagiarism, says Houellebecq"

The novellist Michel Houellebecq claims that stealing from Wikipedia is not plagiarism. Source from The Independent. ISD (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

given the independent's issues with regards to reporting wikipedia of late it might be best to try a different source.©Geni 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem, since this is already all over the French press. By tomorrow it should be covered by most international newspapers. Some details: This first came up in an article on slate.fr. The author of that article (and discoverer of the plagiarism) actually has a good opinion of the book in spite of the copying. He noticed that three passages sounded remarkably like Wikipedia, compared them, and found that they were indeed copied (except for small stylistic changes). The article has detailed comparisons and links to stable versions of the French Wikipedia articles.

Apparently it was announced on Monday that Houellebecq's book will get the Prix Goncourt. Thus in a sense the French Wikipedia is about to share a literary price!

Most commentators seem to agree that the copying was legally dubious but artistically legitimate. Hans Adler 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism really is a big word here. It is more likely copyright infringement due to the lack of clear quotation and attribution. The most interesting question in my mind is wether deliberate usage of 'large' sections of wikipedia text makes his own work CC-BY-SA 3.0. I think it actually might when it is done is such a deliberate way. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TheDJ, and further, (disclaimer: IANAL) the claim of copyright infringement is dubious in that he has a reasonable argument for a transformative fair use via using the passages in a literary context. Yes, he really should have put blockquotes and an attribution. But I don't see that he was intending to deceive anyone, which I follow as the core of plagiarism. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to fr:Fair use#Équivalence en France it appears unlikely to me that the French fair use equivalent applies. It covers parodies etc. in all cases, but literal quotation only with clear attribution. Hans Adler 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV abandoned for nearly two hours, is this a symptom of the "Admin drought?"

While I was Huggling today, I noticed a backlog on AIV, which I thought to be unusual, since most of the time, AIV has either two of three requests, or is empty. Could this be a sign of the forecast "Admin drought" caused by excessively high standards in RFA, or is this a fluke? Click on the Image for a screenshot. Ronk01 talk 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Push out request for data analysis on Pending Changes

Hello,

Not sure where to ask, but I felt here was the closest thing I could find. Is it possible to put out a Signpost "call for help" in analysing some of the data we have on WP:PEND. This would be invaluable in furthering a somewhat mired discussion. User A1 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse resigns goes suddenly inactive

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flat out incorrect. Going inactive is not the same as resignation. You should strike this. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, yes, he went inactive. But that happened in the midst of the case he was working on, very abruptly, while continuing to be very active on Wikipedia. That is strange and worth a story in the "unexplained anomalous events" section. Count Iblis (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rlevse has now resigned. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes Discussion on Jimbo's talk page

For the past day or so, a discussion on Jimbo's talk page regarding the future of the PC trial. A second straw poll is being discussed. Probably something that should be in the Signpost. Ronk01 talk 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hire a Wikipedia Writer!

While reviewing a new article, another editor and I unearthed this - [5] and this - [6] While the concept of for-hire Wikipedians may not be new, an article on this somewhat subversive mini-industry would be of high interest to many Wikipedians. The Interior (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly article on policy

I think it would be nice to have a monthly or bimonthly article on a specific Wikipedia policy (NPOV, BLP, NOR, ...). In the article it would be possible to study how well people follow the policy, its impact and its drawbacks. A somewhat philosophical point of view can also be taken for some of them. This would be a nice invitation for the readers to think through our core values, and a way for the newcomers (and ignorants!) to learn about Wikipedia. Cheers, 92.134.158.93 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GLAM-WIKI:UK

Care do to a piece about the http://glamwiki.org conference? also announced on foundation-l and the WM-UK blog at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk Cheers, Witty Lama 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limbaugh falls for wacky hoax about Judge Vinson

Limbaugh falls for wacky hoax about Judge Vinson "The News Journal has never written such a story, despite a Wikipedia reference that was on the Internet on Monday and Tuesday and claimed such a story existed. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that can be changed and edited by anonymous users." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation proposes new WikiProject

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Screencast. §hep ^Talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming poll on PC

[7] - I will be running a poll from Monday->Sunday on what to do between now and November 9th. I am currently seeking feedback on the wording, but since the poll will go live on Monday, probably the best thing for the Signpost to do is cover the actual poll?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Monday is the publication date for each new issue, so it will come out too late to alert readers to the RfC. But the poll itself will surely be newsworthy enough to justify a mention. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article as a reference in Nature

The article Chaos theory is given as a reference in a Nature (466) article on high-temperature superconductivity: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466825a . Don't know if this has happened before. I think this is pretty remarkable, but my tweet about this occurrence didn't make any waves, which surprises me. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SBWA

Does this count as a project? Simply south (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does what count as a project? Kaldari (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He could be referring to WP:SBWA (Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association) in which case, no I wouldn't count that as a wikiproject or any kind of project. -- œ ^™ 21:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing that the word association game (which has absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia) has several times more participants than most WikiProjects. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that middle part especially as it is a way of learning about new things but i am not going to go into the same everlasting argument. How about doing WP:FUN which does count? Simply south (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the WP:Department of Fun does indeed count and it serves a useful purpose IMO. It's important to have a bit of fun relieve stress once in while, WP:FUN has that relaxed atmosphere and I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of project report on it in Signpost, if only to highlight some of the better recreational and humorous pages that out there. -- œ ^™ 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes straw poll on interim usage

It was probably already planned to be covered, but I suggest that in an acceptable issue this straw poll has its results reported. I'd watchlist the poll, but I don't want a bajillion entries showing up on my watchlist. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The french Wikipedia just reached one million articles

The 1 000 000th article is fr:Louis Babel. See :fr:Wikipédia:Un million d'articles en français. Dodoïste (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and society!

This appeared in Greg Laden's blog! AshLin (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation of Javier Arenas in the es:Wikipedia article is being judged

Looks like vandals will have to face consequences in "real life" for the first time in the Spanish Wikipedia. Continued vandalism on the Spanish article of Javier Arenas (Spanish politician) has led to processing the "vandals":

--Ecelan (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked Ecelan for this message. Tony (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia song

http://www.glasswerk.co.uk/features/national/10559/Ambassadors+Of+Morocco+-+Wikipedia Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Ambassadors Of Morocco don't have a Wikipedia article, they won't release their debut single (Wikipedia) until Nov. 15, and the site doesn't look like a reliable source. Other than that everything looks ok, and the tune might even catch on (I'll give it a 6 out of 10). Maybe for the Nov. 16 edition? Smallbones (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to CentralNotice extension

Blurb for Tech update section:

A new version of the CentralNotice extension has been deployed which now supports geotargeting (Bug 21295) and fixes several other outstanding bugs (23476, 24594, 25031, 25100, 25283). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and appears to have broken the entire site for a few minutes initially ;)

([8][9], [10], [11],[12])

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be my fault :( <Slaps self with trout> Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why the site crashed. Well, good job I guess; we writers never get to crash Wikipedia D: (or delete the main page, either...) =) ResMar 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 1–

How-to paper for scientists to collaborate with Wikipedia

The open access PLoS Computational Biology academic journal released a how-to guide for scientists to help them collaborate productively with Wikipedia (Disclaimer: I am one of the authors). --Cyclopia ^talk 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the paper to Commons; it looks like it will be a useful resource for Wikipedians doing various kinds of public outreach.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucher Gruppe sells 54,000 German Wikipedia article collections on Amazon

The German press reports on the print-on-demand publisher "Bucher Gruppe" (apparently the German arm of Books, LLC, using a mangled version of the German word Bücher, "books") which sells some 54,000 books on Amazon, all low-quality machine-created collections of articles from the German Wikipedia.

The books are usually just alphabetically ordered dumps of Wikipedia categories, with a machine-translated general introduction about Wikipedia and a machine-created index of poor quality, and without images.

The newspaper articles were prompted by a web page by Andreas Weigel which details Weigel's experience of buying a book from Amazon only to find that it contained six Wikipedia articles that he had written himself.

AxelBoldt (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article also reports that German, Swiss and Austrian scientific libraries have bought at least 417 books from Bucher Gruppe.

AxelBoldt (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Wikipedia vandals' strike again in Norman Wisdom obits

An error in the Wikipedia article on the recently deceased Norman Wisdom has appeared in several newspapers. See report in The Guardian.

Also in the The Register. A quote from Rodhullandemu‎ would be good. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good reminder not to trust The Register and in particular Andrew Orlowski as a source. In its current version (WebCite), the Register article reads:

The White Cliffs of Dover factoid was inserted not by a drive-by vandal, but by a Wikipedia Administrator - a high Operating Level Thetan in the Wikipedia bureaucracy. This particular admin goes by the handle "RodHullandEmu" - real names are not necessary at Wikipedia, which doesn't really do accountability - and describes himself as a computer programmer.

RodHullandEmu was making cosmetic changes to an earlier edit of his, but slipped in the bogus information without anybody noticing, on September 2nd.

(links as in the original)

In the diff link (WebCite) that he presents as proof for RodHullandEmu's guilt, Orlowski seems to have overlooked the "11 intermediate revisions not shown". In fact, the actual 15:51, 2 September 2010 edit by RodHullandEmu looks rather different - just reverting some vandal's addition.

Instead, the bogus information appears to have been added first in this edit by an anonymous editor on August 24.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Register's article has been "corrected" (WebCite archive copies of both the original and the changed version are here). The above passage now reads:

The White Cliffs of Dover factoid was inserted here on August 24th. Attempts to remove the factoid were made, but a Wikipedia Administrator - a high Operating Level Thetan in the Wikipedia bureaucracy - stepped in to preserve the bogus information. So well done to admin "RodHullandEmu" (real names are not necessary at Wikipedia, which doesn't really do accountability) who describes himself as a computer programmer.

The "stepped in to preserve the bogus information" does not seem to be true either: None of the edits by RodHullandEmu after August 24 reinserted the "White Cliffs of Dover" information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the vandalism would be inappropriate per wp:DENY, an article on the register's partial retraction of an error would be useful, and a salutary reminder of why it is best to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym rather than under your real name. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another register link - [13] -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that exam bodies may now be copying from us

One of the International Baccalaureate marking guides appears to have nabbed stuff from wikipedia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11496969

©Geni 00:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's interesting - it's not the students who are copying from us, it's the graders! Smallbones (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10k WP:GAs

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#10.2C000_GAs:_a_time_to_celebrate_and_refocus_on_our_mission.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage proposal on dutch wiki

See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Rododendron - Foxie001 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politics on icelandic wiki

Aparently candidates for iceland's new constitional comitee are listing themselves on wikipedia in lue of the state listing them on it's official site: http://blog.lackaff.net/?p=187

©Geni 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times using Commons image

The New York Times appears to be using a Commons image to illustrate their obituary of Benoît Mandelbrot. The image, which is featured on Commons, is the first in a series illustrating the Mandelbrot set, a species of fractal described by the late mathematician. The New York Times credits the image to "Wolfgang Beyer"; User:Wolfgangbeyer created and uploaded the image on Commons.Erudy (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Godwin leaves WMF

Sue Gardner's announcement. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Police probe Wikipedia for Extremism

Russian Police recieved a call saying Wikipedia contains extremist material.[14]. Spongie555 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court of India's guidelines based on Wikipedia article

Can Wikipedia be the basis of SC ruling?. utcursch | talk 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

The order of nominations at T:TDYK has been reversed following a suggestion by User:Mjroots at WT:DYK#Thoughts on DYK noms, including the declining rate, an initial 1-week trial and a further 1-week extension of the trial, and general consensus that the change is benificial. Mjroots (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - trial ends at 23:59 tonight, no rush for this week's signpost if it creates too many problems, next week's edition will be fine. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject

Introducing the newest Wikiproject, WikiProject:North America!

Created on 24 October 2010 at Articles for Creation. Please put the word out. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 05:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable

A Escondido councilwomen demend not notable, The Councilwomen said she expected it and comented more on it. A wikipedian is also talked about in the article since the wikipedian deleted the article. Here is the article, [15]. Spongie555 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta main page

I suppose this might be old news once the next edition of the Signpost comes out, but meta recently got an updated main page. The work is largely based off of a Main Page design that MZMcBride wrote for strategywiki some time ago, but there were many other users also involved in discussing and implementing the different aspects of the new main page. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 1–

Another Library of Congress correction

Aparently in responce to an email I sent them (they used the source I suggested)this image has finaly had it's description updated in line with the conclusion of this debate Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_November_2#Identifying_a_submarine.©Geni 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Report

The following is copied from User_talk:Svick# Random Break 2

Svick has created a WikiProject cleanup listing for wikiprojects at the toolserver. The program written in PHP and MYSQL will run weekly and provide list all articles that are currently tagged for cleanup/maintenance. The list which is available by wikiproject, category, by category month, by article name, article quality, and article importance is also available in CSV. The program will act as a replacement for WolterBot. The original PHP/MYSQL prototype was coded by Smallman12q who will help maintain the code. The source is available at github. To add your WikiProject, please leave a note here.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rest for the bio-wikis

An article from Nature about biologists editing Wikipedia. ISD (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Chance for Success

Greetings Wikipedians. To begin, as this is my first post, let me introduce myself. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I love God and people. My qualifications to post here? I am not an expert as recognized by society in general. I am a college student who thinks about what's going on in the world today, and (apparently) on Wiki. You may call me TKC but don't confuse that with The King's College. I am The King's creation. The aforementioned fundraiser caught my attention, and approval, to a degree. I like the idea of a community voluntarily supporting itself, but I don't like the model. I don't believe that the fundraiser will be successful if left to the discretion of individuals who have only partial information on how much is actually being donated. I daresay, even with the Signpost/promise system, the freeloading issue may be manifest-- NOT for lack of generosity but because a majority of Wikipedians might believe either (1.) Someone else will donate enough to cover the costs of running Wiki, so why should (insert self) donate? OR (2.)Nearly no one will donate and Wiki is going to become a pay-service in the near future regardless of whether (insert self) donates. Thus, I estimate that the amount given by even generous Wikipedians will fall below the maximum potential for our community, under the current model. But I don't mean to depress without offering solution. I am currently enrolled in an introductory economics course, and the authors of our text reference ("The Economic Way of Thinking") have written a bit of an explanation as to why people (who are willing to donate a fair share for say, Wiki)refrain from donating and cause the free loader issue. (Prisoner's Dilemma according to "The Economic Way of Thinking") The problem is that each individual, even if willing to donate a fair share to enjoy the benefits of Wiki, would rather enjoy Wiki AND not donate. OR they would rather not donate and then have to pay anyway... The solution I propose is that we (don't mandate donation) but mandate registration to donate. To clarify, if one decides to donate, the donation is added to a public record so people can see that their efforts aren't wasted. And we could take it one step further. We could set up a "commitment" or pledge-based system that looks something like the following: "Sign up to donate a minimum of $10 today; your card will not be charged until total donations reach $16,000,000-- GUARANTEEING that if your donation is collected, Wiki stays free." Ultimately, this still keeps the option of altruism open... Any billionaire can still feel welcome to cover the cost for all of us if he or she is so inclined, but it will be recorded so we can know how close to our goals we are. And I believe that if people see that both there are other donations and need for more, then people will be more likely to sign up to donate within the protective bounds of this if-then guarantee. Ultimately, we must face the fact that services/products which cost money and are limited resources (will likely be depleted sometime)must be payed for. This can happen via donations from those who have more to give, but it won't likely happen if all of us expect someone else to take full responsibility for it. SO, why not begin registering a goal-based commitment-- We've got about two months, no?

The Economic Way of Thinking may be researched or purchased beginning at http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Way-Thinking-12th/dp/0136039855/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen ~TheKing'sCreation

You're worrying way too much. Wiki* projects won't close if we don't reach 16 millions, and they won't close if we don't reach 10 millions either. We're not begging, just fundraising. And btw this is not the right place to comment about it. --Elitre (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK changes

I'm not certain where to post this, but as per consensus on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, starting soon article self-nom editors will be required to review DYK nominations, under the new quid pro quo criteria. This was proposed to address workload issues in the DYK proccess, which was the cause of the copyvio and notability problems in DYK ealier this month. However, editors should be notified of the new criteria through the Signpost before any of the changes are fully implemented.--res Laozi speak 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. With the page rearrangement and now this. I haven't seen the situation at DYK as particularly dire: has it gotten worse since I last popped in? ResMar 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

What about including regular updates on editing/editor statistics, eg number of active editors, [16] and number of active admins [17]? Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for compiling one off statistical analyzes stories, like Prada's Dispatch way back when, however you have to be a sophisticated coder to work the numbers efficiently, generally. ResMar 03:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeMap for the English Wikipedia

KnowledgeMap built automatically from the Wikipedia article about knowledge management

The website http://en.inforapid.org shows knowledge maps for all articles in the English Wikipedia. These knowledge maps are based on relations between the selected article and others with similar content. They are nice to get a first expression of an article and to start an investigation. The website was built as a non commercial project to show the strength of the InfoRapid KnowledgeMap server.

Interesting pictures - are they freely licensed (as the informational input and the accompanying text from Wikipedia are freely licensed)? Smallbones (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiva team for Wikipedians

I created a (unofficial) "team" for Wikipedians on the microfinance site Kiva; could this be something worthy of a mention? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Backlog Drive

Wikipedia's contributions team is launching a drive to rid the encyclopaedia of backlogs! If you'd like any more information please feel free to leave a message for me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US congressional report Plagiarized from Wikipedia According to USA Today

Its pretty incredible can't help but wonder if its the other way around .... http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times reporter understands Wikipedia notability

Thought this was amusing (and showed a bit of sophisticated knowledge of notability).

From a November 25th article in The New York Times, "In Los Angeles, Mayoral Aide Weighs Bid for Higher City Hall Perch":

"Mr. Beutner is strikingly low-key and low-profile (he does not even have his own listing in Wikipedia, though presumably that is about to change)."

"About to change" is a bit imprecise, but four days later, there is no Wikipedia article about Austin Beutner, the subject of that long NYT piece. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 1–

Taking inspiration from GLAM:WIKI London, Science 3.0 has decided that their theme for this month's blog contest should be GLAM - this extends to data archiving of all types, with a lean towards science. Blog posts new or old can be entered. To do this just head to the Science 3.0 Blog Contest and send your links via the form.

Mhahnel (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProveIt released

From the wiki research-l mailing list, the ProveIt extension, which aims to make citing references in Wikipedia easier, has been released. The tool was developed at Georgia Tech by a team of wiki researchers who describe themselves as "a group of Wikipedia editors, researchers, and fans." ProveIt is a javascript extension that can be added to your user script page; when enabled, it allows you to see the list of all references in an article easily, edit them with one click, and displays reference template fields in a visual interface. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has this news item been mentioned?

On my homeward flight yesterday, I found a copy of the December issue of Corporate Counsel, which contained the article "Citation needed: Wikipedia is vague on GC's move", which included the provocative question "So was the explosive confrontation with the FBI the reason for Godwin's departure?" (The confrontation this article alludes to was over use of the FBI logo this summer.) I'm mentioning this not because I think there is any truth to this speculation (I hadn't much thought about Godwin's departure until I read this article, & afterwards concluded that his reasons were more along the lines of burnout due to dealing with editors, readers, & a seasoning of the usual litigious jerks), but to identify one the source of one theory of why he is leaving/has left. -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obvious theory, given the publicity of the FBI logo incident. But I think that's just people seizing on what's in front of them, in order to explain an event (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Hypothetically, it's entirely possible the reason is based on information that's not public at all. I have certain speculations, but I've been keeping my own counsel (pun intended). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the FBI logo defense was probably the most popular thing Godwin ever did while working for the Foundation (both with the community and within the Foundation) I think the article is basically just grasping at straws. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New upload wizard on commons

http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikimedia-commons/ -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinks and the Supreme Court of Canada

Re: this CBC article: Canada's highest court is deciding whether defamation can occur simply by posting a link to defamatory website. Looks to be of relevance to BLP's on Wikipedia. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arbib

The Sydney Morning Herald: "Visitors to the senator's Wikipedia page this morning may have been surprised to learn his role as Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness, among other portfolios, had been usurped by some decidedly more colourful titles." Might be useful in relation to this and this and this. --can dle •wicke 16:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons blocked by government in Thailand

Thread is here: commons:Commons:Village pump#Wikimedia Commons closed down in Thailand.3F. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism as reported in Private Eye

The latest issue of Private Eye (No. 1277, 10 December-23 December 2010, "Street of Shame" Page 6), contains the following story relating to a recent incident of vandalism on Wikipedia.

On the day Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding date was announced, Times columnist Hugo Rifkind decided to conduct a journalistic experiment.
He pulled up the entry for "29 April" on user-edited website Wikipedia (yes, there is one) and created an entirely fictitious entry for what happened on that day in 1872: "Queen Victoria rushed to hospital in Inverness after breaking a toe while fly-fishing in Balmoral."
The "fact" was duly reported in the following day's Mirror and Daily Telegraph.

ISD (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature : Time to underpin Wikipedia wisdom

A recent article in Nature (08 December 2010) states : Scientists who receive public or charitable funding should therefore seize the opportunity to make sure that Wikipedia articles are understandable, scientifically accurate, well sourced and up-to-date. Many in the scientific community will admit to using Wikipedia occasionally, yet few have contributed content. For society's sake, scientists must overcome their reluctance to embrace this resource. Nature : Time to underpin Wikipedia wisdom. Interesting. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC) copied from WP:Village pump[reply]

Cuba launches online encyclopaedia similar to Wikipedia

Just posted on the BBC News website (link):

The Cuban government is launching its own online encyclopaedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the goal of presenting its view of the world and history.
The new Spanish language website will be officially launched later on Tuesday but it is already up and running with nearly 20,000 entries on ecured.cu
The site says the aim is to spread knowledge without a profit motive.
Updates will apparently be allowed with the administrators' approval but it is not clear who actually runs the site.

I wonder what Stephen Colbert will have to say about this. Waltham, The Duke of 10:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia radio documentary

The BBC World Service is broadcast a documentary entitled "Wikipedia at 10". It will broadcast on 14th January, 2011 at 12.00. Here is some more info from the BBC Press Office.

Jon Stewart explores the history and evolution of a truly global phenomenon, Wikipedia, on the eve of its 10th birthday. Now the fifth most popular website in the world, Wikipedia has over 10 million contributors and nine million views per hour. Jon investigates why it has become such an invaluable resource and what the future holds for the site. He considers whether it is a reliable source of information, or a "symptom of the spread of mediocrity and devaluation of research".

ISD (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Wikipedia backup discovered

Tim Starling discovery: http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z emijrp (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading these diff correctly, it looks like the first stub was WikiPedia and the first fleshed out article was AfghanistaN [sic] (possibly a paste from Nupedia). Also, apparently the original Wikipedia logo had an American flag in it(?). Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logo thing is not a surprise. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. - Banyan Tree 05:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like the first edit was probably "This is the new WikiPedia!" (on the HomePage) rather than "Hello World!" as widely reported. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I especially enjoyed this early edit: "This is the new WikiPedia! The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, without peer review process, etc. Some people think that this may be a hopeless endeavor, that the result will necessarily suck. We aren't so sure. So, let's get to work!" This quote by Larry Sanger is also very entertaining in retrospect: "None of this is to say that the Nupedia wiki will replace the main encyclopedia; of course it won't." Dcoetzee 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good press in Albany paper

Not sure if this happens often, but I was able to get some good press in my local paper last week (it might be local, but the TU, Albany's hometown paper, is well-known statewide since it reports on the state capital/capitol). Just a suggestion. Feel free to drop a line on my talk if there are questions. upstate NYer 04:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Congratulations! Kaldari (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kbthompson

I think his death should be noted here. Simply south (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kbthompson. Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It should be linked there. Simply south (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales interview in Independent

Quite a big interview with Wales in The Independent. ISD (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free tickets available for Jimmy Wales talk in Bristol, January

A limited number of free tickets for a talk that Jimmy will be giving in Bristol on 13 January are still available for Wikipedians (with priority given to Wikimedia UK members) - see this mailing list email for details, with a better location URL in this one. Mike Peel (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of word "Wikimania", in Wikipedia-speak versus Wikileaks-commentary

Ignatius, David (November 29, 2010). "Ignatius: One solution to WikiLeaks -- classify less". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2010-12-20. It may sound like heresy, given the new Wiki-mania, but the United States could reduce the flap over leaks of classified information by limiting what it classifies -- and working harder to put more of the information gathered by the U.S. government online as a public resource.
Nader, Ralph (December 20, 2010). "Wikimania and the First Amendment". CommonDreams.org. www.commondreams.org. Retrieved 2010-12-20. Thomas Blanton, the esteemed director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University described Washington's hyper-reaction to Wikileaks' transmission of information to some major media in various countries as "Wikimania."
Jardin, Xeni (December 16, 2010). "National Security Archive director on "Wikimania," and the dangers of demonizing WikiLeaks". Boing Boing. www.boingboing.net. Retrieved 2010-12-20.

Looks like the word "Wikimania" has now been co-opted to refer to Wikileaks-fervor, instead of a Wikipedia-annual-event. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was an obvious coinage, and the Wikipedia annual event likely has little to do with those usages. Remember, though Wikipedia is the most famous wiki, it's not the only one, nor does it have any legal or even moral claim on the word itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment, but I have never seen "Wikimania" to refer to anything else other than Wikimania, before. It is interesting and worthy of mention. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Foundation have a trademark on "Wikimania"? Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, not sure. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it has indeed gotten a trademark on "Wikimania". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes this more noteworthy, indeed. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising banners off for logged in users

Announcement from Philippe Beaudette:

A quick announcement: we are temporarily turning off the fundraising banners for logged in users. This will continue most likely through the end of the year. We did some quick checking and realized that most people who are logged in and intend to give have already given. The banners will stay off for a while, and we'll most likely not turn them on until after the first of the year for a final wrap-up push. Enjoy the respite :)

Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage on the first Kolkata ( WestBengal, India) Wikimeetup

Hindustan Times : "Making Wikipedia popular in Bengali" , 2010 Dec 15, Kolkata edition.
Wikipedia enhances its Bong connection December 16, 2010 news.oneindia.in

-- Tinu Cherian - 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, Danese & Alolitha 's India tour

Erik, Danese & Alolitha meeting Wikipedians in Mumbai (Photos) Pune (Photos) , Bangalore (Photos)

Some summaries:
- Wikipedia meetup in Bangalore, my first one : Mahesh.com
- Wikipedia Meetup in Bangalore, This time in TERI : CIS blog
Media :
Mid-Day : Loads of potential in India: Wikipedia

Danese Cooper was also the key note speaker [18] at the FOSS.IN (largest open source conference in India) , Bangalore [19] , where she presented "The Technology of Wikipedia". Eric conducted a walkthrough for developers with MediaWiki and its extensions. Wikipedia T-shirts were part of the foss.in delegate kit this year. Pin-up badges with Wikipedia logo, press publicity material, T-Shirts with Wikipedia written in many Indian languages were provided by Wikimedia Foundation.

-- Tinu Cherian - 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years

The anniversary is fast approaching; how is the Signpost going to mark it? I've been thinking that we could ask Jimbo to write an editorial—what do people think of this? What other ideas are there? wacky wace 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup

If another Signpost goes out before new year, could there please be a mention that the WikiCup will be starting in January, and people are still welcome to sign up? If you want me to write something, drop a note on my talk page, tell me how much room I have and I'll get back to you ASAP :) J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 1–

Implied reference to Wikipedia in Empire magazine

In issue 260 of Empire magazine (February 2011, on sale date 4th January - I'm a subscriber so I get it a few days early) there is a feature on the new Simon Pegg and Nick Frost film Paul - in a box-out entitled "51 'facts' you need to know about Area 51", number 5 is: "5. Although Bono is not an alien. [Citation needed]". The citation is :O'Neil, Anthony (February 2011). "Rebel Alliance". Empire magazine. No. 260. Bauer Media Group. p. 95. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-athon at the British Library

Hi all. Wikimedia UK is running an edit-athon at the British Library on the 14th and 15th January, as part of the 10th birthday celebrations. Full info is on the Wikimedia UK wiki - feel free to reuse text from that page if you wish. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraiser ends

The Wikimedia Foundation Fundraiser finished in record time, meeting its goal of 16 million. Most chapters are still fundraising until the 6th I believe, so if you're in a chapter country, you'll still see banners for a little while longer. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper creates article to celebrate 10th

A longtime wikipedian who is a newspaper reporter (that's me) created a WP article about a local park and is asking readers to improve it in time for the anniversary.: [20] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary reached 10,000,000 entries

--Yair rand (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - source? Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this might count as being original research, but... this source, which was updated at about 12:30, says 9,997,219 entries and I looked at a bunch of the Special:NewPages lists of some of the larger Wiktionaries and found more than 3000 entries that have been created since the source was updated. --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the calculation, I'll just quote you then ;)

WP:OR doesn't quite apply to the Signpost; I just meant to ask if there was a link like this (official WMF stats, unfortunately outdated) where that number could be seen at a glance, or if it was arrived at by adding {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} for each Wiktionary using some other method.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another ChHEd article, and an APA initative

Chronicle has another Wikipedia article ([21]), while APA has launched a Wikipedia imitative ([22]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The first item has already been covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-10/In the news, but it seems we missed the second one last month. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visulisation of deletion debates

This is kinda cool:

http://notabilia.net/