User talk:Guy Macon/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Wikipedia:List of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" is fake

Dear Sir,

This was but a joke and I was going to {{db-author}} it soon. Unfortunately it lingered long enough for you to edit. I would gladly delete it, but if you see any worth in it, would you mind merging the two? Mine certainly looks silly (as the original intention was.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I will do the merge some time tomorrow. BTW, I found the joke to be quite funny while making a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
In complete seriousness (err, relative seriousness) I will absolutely make Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/List of reasons why the list of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake is fake is itself "fake". if this is going to stick around on its own page. It'll probably just say:
  1. Because it's a joke!
  2. Because it's a joke!
  3. Because the term "fake news" has such an unclear meaning with numerous competing, equally valid definitions having been proposed.
It is difficult to defend such a list against criticisms, as the definition of "fake news" may change from entry to entry, and different definitions used by the list's defenders and the list's critics. This allows nominally valid criticisms of one entry to be invalid with respect to another, causing defenders to contradict themselves by selectively using a different meaning of the term in response to individuals criticisms. This leads to all defenses and criticisms taking on a level of subjectivity that renders both the original list and any criticisms of it -as well as more tangential discussions stemming from those- useless.
  1. Because it's a joke!
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Part of me says to do what Staszek Lem requested, and part of me wants ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants to create Wikipedia:List of reasons why the list of reasons why the list of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" is fake is itself "fake". (Note that I recently moved all of the "fake" pages from the identifying reliable sources noticeboard with nobody objecting).
As much as I hate politics, how about creating Trumps' fake news list? As far as I can see, Trump and Zimdars both have the same qualifications as experts on what is and is not fake news -- which is to say "none" -- and it would be fun to watch those misguided individuals who insisted that Zimdars' list be retained because reliable sources have covered it try to reject Trump's list despite his claims getting a lot of coverage.
What would be best for the encyclopedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
What would be best for the encyclopedia? An army of jackbooted admin thugs who promptly topic ban from politics any editor who makes a POV pushing edit without a damn good justification. And an even larger army of actually administrative admins to deal with the fallout. And also adding about 6 more levels of such pages, rather than stopping at four. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
What would be best for the encyclopedia? -- Rewrite it in E-prime. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
...using Unifon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Free doggy biscuits. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. I didn't know that our good friend Doggy Biscuits was in jail. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am now registered as Spirit of James

Please do unblock. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spirit of James (talkcontribs) 00:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!Spirit of James (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your concern about the future of the WMF's finances and the courage to wade into potentially turbulent waters by publicly discussing them. Unchecked expenses is a trajectory that dooms many non-profits. It's just plain smart to worry about such things. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have time

Hi Guy Macon. If you have a few minutes, I was hoping you might be willing to take a look at a few places where I have made COI requests/questions:

  • Broken links question[1]
  • BLP issuesdiscussion (I've done some digging on this since. These edits are likely motivated by a political thing with him and Hillary a while back.
  • A second draft after incorporating some feedbackdraft A couple editors have commented previously and may or may not also jump in.

Of course, you may be pre-occupied on Wikipedia elsewhere, but thanks in advance if you do spend the time to review. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?"

Click on this link first: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Click on this link second: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMDtibc13fc

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

That first link reminds me quite a bit of an editor I encountered soon after I registered here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Thanks for posting that timeline on Jimbo talk.

There is something else that is not mentioned in it, that happened between these two events:

  • January 29, 2016 Lila Tretikov with the statement that the grant paperwork could not be released due to “donor privacy”
  • February 11, 2016: Juliet Barbara, Senior Communications Manager, publishes the PDF of the September 18 Knowledge Engine grant approval document publicly on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki.

It's that the Signpost inquired with the Knight Foundation whether the Knight Foundation would have any objection to the WMF's grant application being published, along with the Knight Foundation's letter confirming the grant. (That inquiry is briefly mentioned in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/Special_report.)

The Knight Foundation responded that their default is openness and that they generally leave the decision whether and how to release the grant paperwork entirely to the grantee – although the parties would of course need to check with each other before releasing joint documents, just out of courtesy.

The Knight Foundation told us they communicated with the WMF on Feb. 11, and that the WMF then responded by publishing the document immediately.

Hope that helps.

Cheers, --Andreas JN466 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I just updated the timeline. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Also note this edit, which includes the statement that publishing the paperwork without advance agreement from the donor "breaks donor privacy". As an editor and commenter on that page, he could hardly have been unaware of that being the official reason given by the WMF Executive Director for not publishing the grant paperwork. But this doesn't fit with the Knight Foundation's assertions that there was no objection to publication on their part, that their default is openness, and that the decision whether or not to publish is generally left to the grantee.
If the Knight Foundation really didn't have any objection to publication at any time, one is left wondering why this robust response wasn't followed by publication of the grant agreement a month earlier, and why instead he appeared to approve of, rather than challenge, the Executive Director's "donor privacy" explanation.
Clearly, something (or someone) prevented publication of the paperwork before February 11. It's never been explained who or what that was. I can only think of two possibilities. One is that the Knight Foundation, contrary to their assertion to the Signpost in February, did object to publication at that earlier time. The other is that the ED and the board desperately wanted to avoid publishing the paperwork, and put out the donor privacy statement as a smokescreen. The fact that the Knight Foundation had openly publicised the grant as starting on September 1, while the WMF kept it under wraps until the January announcement, would seem to make the latter more likely. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 21:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Over the years I gotten very conservative over handing out barnstars. This this is the second one today in the wake of the recent turmoil over New Page Patrol and it's for your User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer essay. Enjoy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

In reference to a RFC....

When you wrote at WP:AN asking the closers to explicitly write out --....a thoughtful joint statement regarding whether Wikipedia or the WMF controls Wikipedia content; I had reservations on whether it would be an over-reach for the closers!
But proceedings like this resulting in execution of something in direct contraventions of an RFC---has compelled me to believe the utter necessity of your sought opinion on the matter!(Apparently these guys aside from coding, have vested upon themselves the magic wand that has a mandatory necessity of zero experience on en-wiki to do all these f***ing businesses.)And there are always some guys in support of them! Winged Blades Godric 11:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The cancer is in remission!

Hi Guy. You'll be happy to hear that the projected Total Annual Operating Expenses for the WMF for FY 2016-17 are $63,000,000,[2] which is almost $3,000,000 less than the Total Annual Operating Expenses for 2015-16.[3] Of course we won't know the actual final numbers for another month or so, but hopefully they will be somewhere in that ballpark. Kaldari (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Great news! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposing projects for Community Tech

DannyH (WMF), I have something that I would like you to think about when you get a bit of time.

How about a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone on the Community Tech team spend, say, five minutes evaluating it and putting it on a page where such proposals are to be discussed?

The reason I bring this up is because I was feeling very discouraged when I saw the call soliciting proposals for a community wishlist, put a fair amount of effort drafting up a proposal (see meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive#Start a project -- a real project with measurable goals and a schedule -- to reduce page weight), submitted it in the place where the instructions said to submit such things, and then didn't see it on the list of proposals that we were supposed to vote on. I don't expect the WMF to automatically accept and implement my suggestions, but you could have offered a bit of help. You could have said that you are putting a developer on it, total effort not to exceed four hours, to make a couple of test pages with and without my suggested changes and measure the page weight. Or at the very least you could have told me that it was now on list X and that there are Y suggestions from other Wikipedia editors that are in line that need to be evaluated first.

BTW, I made a tactical error when I made that proposal. I assumed that the reason why it was being ignored was because it was too expensive, and so I stupidly pared it down to one small change that could be evaluated using no more than an hour or so of the developer's time so we could see if my idea was good or bad. That small change was rejected as well. I should have stuck with my original proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'm sorry we didn't do a better job of explaining why that proposal was rejected. The reason is because your request was explicitly outside of the scope of the Community Tech team. As it says at meta:Community Tech#Scope: "Tasks that are not in scope include... improving site performance." The WMF has a dedicated Performance team that works on site performance and actually did a lot of work on reducing page weight and page load times last year, in part due to community requests such as yours. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon, is it okay if we move this to another page -- either on Meta or one of our user talk pages? I'm glad you asked the question, and I'm happy to talk to you about it, but it's not relevant to the other NPP conversations.
But, actual response: our team made some mistakes in our first year, while we were trying to figure out how Community Tech would actually work. We first set up a Community Tech/Project ideas page, which was originally just supposed to be a brainstorming list for the team, but people started posting ideas and having discussions, and we thought, okay, let's see what happens. A few months in, we learned about the German Wikimedia chapter's Technical Wishes Survey, and that was a much clearer and fairer way to propose ideas, and measure community enthusiasm for each idea. So we ran the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey, modeled on the Wikimedia DE's survey, and people participated, and we built stuff.
But -- we didn't know how to transition from the "Project ideas" page, which was sort of happening on its own, and the Community Wishlist Survey. We didn't really know how the interaction between our team and the community was going to feel, and we did what I now recognize as an unbelievably clumsy thing -- we just posted a notice at the top of the Project ideas page that it was being deprecated, and encouraged people to submit their ideas to the Survey page instead. Then we moved all the content from Project ideas to an archive page.
Now that we've done this a couple times, it's obvious that wasn't the right way to handle it. We should have talked to each person that posted on Project ideas, and helped them transfer their ideas into the Wishlist Survey format. When we ran the 2016 Survey last November, we were much more clear about how to submit proposals, and when there was a proposal that didn't fit the rules that we'd set, we worked with each person to either improve their proposal, or explain why we were archiving it. We figured that out in 2016 because we learned from the mess we made in 2015.
So -- I'm sorry we screwed that up. It's totally disappointing and frustrating to have a whole discussion on that Project ideas page, and just have it archived with no explanation. That wasted your time. On the up side, if you've got an idea that you want to propose for the 2017 Survey in November, we've gotten a lot better at this. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
DannyH (WMF), the Community Wish list was a good idea and contrary to what some might have believed, I never inferred it wasn't. My harsh criticism over it was that blatantly obvious, serious issues concerning essential software were being given low (or no) priority and relegated to the wish list as non-urgent / non-essential gadgets. The type of crowdsourcing facilitated by this kind of wish list is an important way not only of obtaining ideas that the devs and WMF might not have thought of, but also in making the community feel it is part of the development process - approaching the German industrial model I mentioned earlier. But I think we're getting off-topic now for this talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)`

─────────────────────────

DannyH (WMF), I have no problem with the move to my talk page.

I still think we need a central help page so that engineers such as myself who are not paid WMF staff can make suggestions, offer to help, etc. As I said, it is really discouraging when you put in a fair amount of effort making a proposal and the reaction is indistinguishable from being ignored. All the worse if you find out years later that someone at the WMF is working on the issue you raised, but nobody told you or gave you a link to a place where you can see what progress has been made.

So, to avoid the exact thing happening with the suggestion I just made, please indicate with an [X] one of the following answers:

[ ] The WMF has decided not to create the help page you describe.

[ ] I am the wrong person to ask about the help page. The correct person is staffer X, who has been informed of this conversation.

[ ] The WMF has decided not create the help page you describe. It has been assigned to staffer X, and you will get an update here when it is done.

[ ] Is existing help page X what you were looking for? Can it be modified to be more suitable?

[ ] We have the following questions about your suggestion; [List of questions].

[ ] Other: ______________________________________

Any answer, even a simple "fuck you, go away", would be vastly preferable to making a suggestion and getting no response. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's very frustrating when you've worked on something, and you just get ignored or brushed off -- after all, you're trying to help.
Phabricator is the closest thing that I know of to what you're asking for -- it's not a wiki page, but it's where developers working on WMF-related software communicate and do their work. You can create tickets to file bugs, or to propose suggestions. If you tag your suggestion with a particular team's workboard or a project workboard, people will (hopefully) respond.
I read the ticket that was created for your page weight suggestion -- phab:T105136 -- and I see that you did finally get an answer from Krinkle last month. That's quite a long time since you first posed the question, but it looks to me like GWicke and Whatamidoing also tried to help you with your questions, and Quiddity created a page on mediawiki.org about Browser load and JavaScript research. Were you able to reach out to him?
Sorry if I'm sort of bumbling around in this answer; I'm trying to figure out if that's the situation you want to talk about, or if I'm missing something. Can you tell me more about what you're looking for? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I am looking for a help page where editors like myself can go to find a step-by-step explanation about how best to make a technical proposal and have someone at the WMF spend, say, five minutes evaluating it. I want instructions so that the suggestion eventually gets evaluated by someone in the WMF management chain who has the authority to make a decision and assign resources to get it done (or to reject the idea -- some suggestions need to be rejected - and tell that to the proposer.)
If Phabricator is the only way for a suggestion to reach the WMF and be decided on, then the help page should explicitly say that. If there is same magic method for reaching the managers who make the decisions using Phabricator, that method needs to be detailed on the help page. Right now it really looks like putting something on Phabricator reaches the developers.
Wikipedia:Phabricator redirects to Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests and the link to submit a task is labled "How to report a bug".
I have been involved in software and hardware development for many years, and I know the difference between reporting a bug to the developers and submitting a suggestion for a project to management so that, if approved, developers and a budget are assigned to it. I want to see a help page explaining how to do the later.
I suspect that part of the problem is that the Wikimedia foundation simply does not have a method for an engineer who isn't a paid staff member to submit a suggestion for a project to WMF management so that, if approved, developers and a budget are assigned to it. This may be a problem that someone at the WMF needs to solve before they can fulfill my request for a help page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've also been involved in software development for many years, and I don't believe that I've ever seen a system like the one that you're describing. Management doesn't usually have an open suggestion box that comes with an SLA; that's usually the responsibility of people lower in the organizational structure. The Foundation creates an annual plan each year, which determines which projects get funding and staff. Those are important decisions that don't change overnight.
That's not to say it's impossible for you to reach out to anyone in the organization that you want to talk to -- you can find the user names for most staff members on the staff page, and leave messages on their user talk pages, or just send an email. I'll ping Quiddity from the Technical Collaboration team; maybe he has better information or suggestions thatn I do. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thus the word "eventually". I expect lower-level employees to prescreen such suggestions, especially if you get a lot of them.
If there is no method where editors like myself can make a technical proposal so that the suggestion eventually gets evaluated by someone in WMF management who has the authority to make a decision. May we please have a help page saying that? I keep asking about a help page, but I never get a "yes", "No", "Maybe later, we are thinking about it" or anything similar.
Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to assume that the answer is "No. Nobody who works for me is going to create such a help page. You will have to ask elsewhere". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. Nobody on my team will create that help page. I think the appropriate department is Technical Collaboration, and User:Quiddity (WMF) is a good person to talk to. I've pinged him here, or you can reach out directly. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Guy, You're on the right path, sorry it hasn't been very clear.
Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests is the right place to start. Engineers and everyone else are welcomed to submit bugs and feature requests through Phabricator tasks. The best way to get it in front of folks it twofold. One, follow the best practices linked from that page on how to report a bug.
Two, while Phabricator tasks are reviewed by staff, volunteers, along with our bug wrangler, tagging a task helps to get it in front of the right team (and thereby decision makers). MediaWiki.org has a little more on what tags exist. Department/team pages on MediaWiki.org also often have the appropriate tag listed. For example, see Discovery's page for their tag (#discovery)
For an example of what happens next, I regularly work with Deb, the Product Manager for Discovery. Once every week the team has a short meeting where we go through newly added tasks to the Discovery tag. If we have clarifying questions a team member will add them to the task. Phabricator will send notifications to folks subscribe to the task as updates are made.
As you may know work is prioritized around annual plans and then tracked in quarterly goals. Related specifically to your concerns around performance you can see the team's goals for the coming fiscal year.
You can imagine the diversity of tasks extend from the simple, "a few hours to fix/implement" to "It is going to take a substantial amount of work, we need to plan for this.".
Talking to Quiddity we noticed that the Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests page leaned very heavily on the "bug" side of things. He just took a quick pass to make it more clear that this process is for bugs and feature request equally. He also made it a little more clear the importance of tags and setting priorities on tasks.
I hope that helps point out the process. Happy to help clarify. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not collecting stamps again

Hi Guy Macon. Given some of your recent comments at the Village Pump, I wonder if you'd like to take a look at the lead sentence of Islam in Europe. If you're busy or otherwise disinclined, I'll get to it eventually. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Harassment

Have you considered that the the NSA or FBI may have done some sort of homeopathic attenuation on the electronic signals? Is it possible that the 12X (that is, 10^12) attenuation makes the signal have one-trillionth (short scale) of the detectable strength, but one trillion (short scale) the harassing power of the original signal? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a single-atom-thick tinfoil is the proper homeopathic defense then. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Best dismissal ever

Thumbs-up-icon.svg this will probably never be topped. I wish I'd thought of it. Nthep (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician

Hi, Guy. In deference to AT alleged Logician's expressed wishes, I won't use his talk page, but FWIW, I support a Troubles topic ban discussion being started at AN once his current ban expires. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Before people completely destroy the good work

You will be very interested in this and may wish to comment there about the upcoming trial.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)