User talk:Sue Gardner/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Looks like you've never been welcomed! :-(

Welcome!

Hello, Sue Gardner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cbrown1023 talk 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Retention of newbies[edit]

Regarding the dramatic decrease in the rate of Newbie retention from 2005 to 2007: That is the period when Wikipedia moved from requiring sources merely to be listed at the bottom of articles, to the far more burdensome current system of in-line citations. When I joined in early 2006, I could write an article and just list the urls at the bottom under "References" - easy! Now you have to figure out how to format a footnote. That, I think, is tremendously daunting to most newbies. Plus, the edit screen is now crowded with all this code relating to footnotes, infoboxes, etc., so it is much harder to just jump in and edit. This is just an observation - obviously, in-line references are very helpful in verifying information.

I think that hooking newbies up with mentors right away is a great idea. I mentored some college students last term as an "Online Ambassador", and I was able to help/encourage 3 out of 5 students that I mentored to make very significant contributions to the encyclopedia, and to help them navigate their way through our editing/social challenges. I would be happy to serve as a mentor to a newbie or two at all times - it would be nice if there were a more formal program to encourage newbies to select experienced editors from a list. Of course, the students were "assigned" the task of working with a mentor, whereas for newbies in general it would be voluntary - but I hope we can come up with a way to pair enthusiastic new editors with mentors. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding: There is a growing tendency of dismissing unlikeable or keeping likeable articles, by the colleges who check the new articles and decide what can be kept and what not. For example: The Dutch Wikipedia is very strict. Pounding the newbies with abbreviations and all to often not open for discussion. This has resulted in many vandals on Wikipedia resulting in overstressed moderators, and many cases that have to be addressed by the bureaucrats. This leads to more irritation. The English Wikipedia is presented like a weak project with hardly any control, and we do not want that on the Dutch Wikipedia. In the same breath they talk also down to the Spanish, Portuguese and polish Wikipedia, saying, that almost everything is allowed. Obviously, I can not speak for all the colleges, but what I see is that many are getting frustrated. Newbies and experienced colleges.
As every one can say: Hey guys/girls, I want to be a moderator, helping out on Wikipedia. That's fine, but those that determine whether someone can be moderator, is the same old club. So I wonder what would be necessary to make a kind of educational course for new moderators. I say this, as I have learned that some are very experienced in what they do, but lack the ability to communicate properly, friendly which leads to words back and forth. The need for some to act like a drill sergeant is unbecoming. Ofcourse there is a lot of things that go very well. We have a high quality on the articles. But I do not believe that it is necessary that we get less happy writers and more unhappy ones that leave through the back door.
I really believe that a better guideline for moderators, and a handbook for what is appreciated and what is not would be a great help for turning this negative tendency to a positive one.
Thanks for reading this, and I hope it's usable. --Rodejong (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

a graphic for women editors[edit]

Bonjour Sue Gardner, I hope that your health is very good and that everything is well for you. I read your last communication. It is very relevant ( i don't know the name in english, pertinent in french language). I have you send a question but I had no answer of your part (Sorry for my poor english language): please read A request of precision on the women - une demande de précision sur les femmes . Sue do you have a graphic Retention vs Active Female Editors ? Thanks, pass a nice week-end , merci beaucoup de votre attention et passez un beau week-end avec votre famille, --Geneviève (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A vague idea[edit]

Hello Sue, I read your editor trends post and I tought it would be great that I give you my impression on what's happening. I don't say it's the only cause of the trend but we can see a real trend by reading talk pages from years to years. In the beginning of the project, the motto was close to "we can believe in what anonymous have to say on it". That was about pure WP:faith and, indeed, we saw how far that unreasonable[citation needed] idea lead Wikipedia. But as the time passed we saw new policies (WP:TRUTH,WP:CITE) which at that time was only a pinch of wisdom in an ocean of boldness. Sadly I'm afraid that as generations of wikipedians passes, they forgot about the real reasons behind those policies (I read for myself the initial talk pages, the motivation behind those was different at that time). Those policies became fundamentals and the real fundamentals (WP:BOLD,WP:FAITH) are treated as policies. We are becoming suspicious. More and more people challenge quotations only because they have no visible sources, and thus more and more content become "likely to be challenged" (see WP:V). Now, policies are more like throwing a pebble of boldness in a desert of wisdom and as far as I can judge it, it look far less efficient then before.

I believe that as core contributors, we need to rewrite WP:FAITH and WP:BOLD and insist on those for now . I think your vision rejoin mine in that post. Iluvalar (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sue, great to hear from you, and thanks![edit]

Sue, I've wondered if anyone would ever even notice my user page. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Someone has to know that I did a little something more than leave a bag of donation checks by my desk :) To quote the Grateful Dead, what a long strange trip it's been. I hope all is well with you - I hope we talk/meet again sometime. All best, Terry Foote (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


The next chapter of Wikimedia history[edit]

Hello,

  • First: apologies for what there is to come. Although none is needed really given that all I have to say is absolutely factual.
  • The event: I saw a banner invitation to: "write the next chapter of Wikimedia history" and I must say just I chuckled. It seemed so PR-like and distant from reality. So I thought you should get the view from one of the unpaid workers here, rather than the view from the paid consultants who showed you the Powerpoint charts.
  • The issue: I am very, very unhappy about quality in Wikipedia and I see a decline in quality on the horizon. I was hence unhappy about the stated goal of "making Wikipedia fun" again. I see the future problem not as a lack of fun, but as a lack of quality - as some of the charts in some threads below indicate. The fact is that everyone is having fun here, to the exclusion of those who can enhance content quality.
  • A thread: I tried to discuss the lack of quality in this policy thread. There was hardly any momentum to improve quality. Please see the "Quality policy & cross-article quality" I tried to start.
  • Quality policy?: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, had no page on Quality policy until I built a stub for it a few weeks ago as a result of that thread. If the encyclopedia has no page on "quality policy" that says a lot. It is one thing not to have a quality policy, it is another not to even have a "definition" for a quality policy.
  • Experts? Which experts?: As I have stated before on the policy page one can bet good money that Wikipedia has absolutely, I mean absolutely accurate information about the number of times Charlie Sheen has been to rehab. But the overall quality of a topic such as digital signal processing is rock bottom. The quality of the page search engine technology is rock bottom as of this writing and the page has zero references as of this writing. Really. On 9 January 2007 someone complained that the page has zero references and it still has zero references. Please see this discussion where I suggested that more experts are needed and I was asked "why would an expert want to edit Wikipedia?". I had to say: "Because some experts such as myself are misguided, they think they will get wire transfers". Wikipedia is sadly short of experts and current policies are hopeless, just hopeless in terms of encouraging new experts.
  • My challenge to you: As the executive director, when and how can you put together policies which will produce a set of high quality articles around digital signal processing without asking me to write them? This is an important topic which has been ignored. I will probably get to rewrite the whole series of articles on digital signal processing by 2017, but can you produce policies which will get others to do it before then, so I will not have to do it?

Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NullBook Custom Skin[edit]

I think all of my changes that I've made to my custom skin have been merged back into the original NullBook page. You can grab it there! Later! —mako 21:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Does ">=" = "≥" or ">"?[edit]

Hi, Sue. Request for clarification on a small point: in the caption of the graph here, does ">=5 edits/month" mean ≥5 (i.e., greater than or equal to 5) or just >5 (greater than 5)? I'd be bold and change it to the former, but I'm only 98% sure and I can't find documentation on what constitutes an "active editor". Rivertorch (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Active editors are editors that have made 5 or more edits per month, so >=5 or ≥5. I've changed to the page to reflect the better notation. Thanks for bringing this up! Howief (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the cupcake[edit]

Thank you! That's very special, and I'm touched and proud to be in the company of Michael, Ral and HaeB in getting these treats from you. That gadget is great, huh?--ragesoss (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Sue, you deserve many more of these than you've gotten. I increasingly think of you not just as the leader of WMF, but of the Wikimedia movement. ragesoss (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I was pleased to see that everyone in the organization treated my complaint with the seriousness and professionalism it merited. :) --ragesoss (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Of priests and nuns in our sights[edit]

I somehow get the sense that you don't think very highly of the job we do on NPP. I get that we're the most hated people around (actually, I like that essay a lot), but speculating about whether we "dehumanize people as a coping mechanism" is degrading. My experience has been that people trying to push their garage band into Wikipedia aren't misguided souls; they're usually here to promote their wares, and have no intention of actually becoming the type of constructive editors we need. By way of example, take this editor, who did nothing but waste our time and effort creating and recreating an article about a U-12 soccer team after repeated warnings when not making misguided edits to a few soccer-related articles. Or this editor, who felt the need to spam his resume 9 times. That's far more typical than the genuine "I was really trying to help Wikipedia" type; we get those, too, but if you do NPP for long enough you'll find that's the exception. The misguided impression that the reverse is true is because the 2nd type get more attention; the typical ones either go away after 1 or 2 tries or get blocked. Furthermore, I'm sure you know about some of the garbage that gets on here; I've seen things on NPP that, had I or someone else not caught them, would expose the WMF to libel suits. An unreferenced article about a priest supposedly molesting 10 kids, an article accusing a man of child rape, and an article consisting of "Let's uncover all burakus (burakumin) for what they are!!" with a link to a website with a list of them (which apart from being illegal in Japan is also a good way to ruin thousands of people's lives) for a few great examples. Wade through that for 9 months, then tell me that we're "playing it like it's an RPG". I enjoy NPP a lot, I have no intention of stopping, but I'll put it this way; I don't think you or your friends on the WMF staff would refer to vandal fighters the way you do us. I don't think you're being malicious (that would be ridiculous), but I think you should hear it from the perspective of someone who's actually been out there doing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Sorry this is so long, but I wanted to make sure I covered everything. Also, I should say that overall, I think you do an excellent job; don't think I hate you or anything like that.

I can't speak for all of us, but I've definitely been trying to reduce my false-positive rate- WP:WIHSD was actually a big part of the reason why. What I've been trying to do now is slow down a little bit and do more of what I did to Chihiro Iwasaki, but I admit it's hard to step back and watch the backlog grow sometimes. I didn't think you are/were trying to come across as not liking us personally, it's more that you haven't had as much of an experience with it. The conundrum we run into with automated tools is that, as bitey as they may seem, they prevent huge amounts of garbage from getting in. I think the WMF and regular users are always going to be a little at odds on this, because we're working towards the same goal but having to take two different paths, which I see as a good thing because it's the kind of environment that leads to innovation. And as an aside, in speaking with a few friends of mine who've tested Wikipedia, they've said that the acidity in some of the high-profile areas is what's prevented them from getting into it more than anything else. We'd do well to adopt a harder line on civil POV pushing, because not everyone has the patience to deal with talkpages like this, and most of those who do don't know the subject matter well enough to do anything about it (I'm actually a bit disheartened that I, a 20-year old history major, am one of the only people willing to wade into that morass). That's why I confine most of my content writing to Burmese and Ainu-related articles; it's much calmer there. Thanks for taking the time to respond- I will keep your words in mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sue, just wanted to point you to a response that I left on BOTNL's talk page to this thread. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

To set the record straight[edit]

This refers to the Ganges x Ganga debate you refered to in the article Wikipedia's Librarian to the World, in which you mentioned two Indian guys arguing one side, perhaps I am one of the Indian editors you refered to, I assume this as I have the greatest number edits at Ganga, 241,[1], however the next most numerous is user:Jayen466, who has 168, and is a European. This is to set the record straight, unless there is more than I can read on the matter. Regards. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner doesn't have a clue when it comes to why the Ganges is called "Ganges" on Wikipedia. The editors from the US and Europe that she's referring to are not casual editors. I have written the the lead and the first thirds (the "course" part) of the Ganges article and have added most of the pictures, including the excruciatingly detailed headwaters map. I don't know who are the "two editors from India," but whatever their output on the talk page, they haven't added diddley squat by way of content to the article. All the major contributors are on the "Ganges" side of the debate. The Ganges might be called "Ganga" in the English language media in India, but tertiary sources the world over call it by its international name, "Ganges." There are many such examples of rivers, the Yangtze, the Mekong, even the Nile, which are not called by their local names. Just because Wikipedia is losing editors by the legion in the west, and hopes to gain editors in India, in 28 different languages besides, doesn't mean that Sue Gardner, in wide-eyed wonder about her new find, should compromise on Wikipedia's core principles and pronounce judgment where she is unfit to do so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Ganga vs. Ganges debate[edit]

I saw your comments in this article and I have to say, although I admire your work for WMF, I was disappointed in your attitude to the Ganga vs. Ganges debate. Here's the quote:

"There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side. That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work."

I thought the Ganges debate went well. There was a lot of discussion, with a lot of supporting evidence. The role of WP:COMMONNAME was analyzed in depth, including usage of the names in worldwide media, and in India. It was a robust, informed debate.

I do believe that WP:systemic bias is a problem that we have to guard against. But I also think if the "tiny number of Indians" had made compelling arguments, the closing admin would have performed the move, despite their tiny number.

So what's my point? I participated in the Ganges debate, and I think your portrayal is far from AGF. I don't think any of the opposers were using strength in numbers to shout down the "correct" side, although that's how you've characterized us. Both sides made the best arguments they could, and after weighing them, the closing admin decided not to make the move. To go public saying instead one side "won" unfairly with bully tactics is a disservice to everyone who participated in that debate (or at least, everyone who opposed, and the closing admin). --JaGatalk 21:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a brief comment: I followed the debate, but other than a couple of concerns about issues with research methodologies I stayed out of it. However, my understanding of the strongest argument offered for Ganges was that there is no single common name used in India - both Ganges and Ganga is used. However, outside of India, Ganges was considered more recognisable. The situation within India was unclear, as a strong case was made for Ganga being the official name, but there was just enough ambiguity that it wasn't a simple case of a local name being overridden by editors outside of that country.
Personally, I think the conclusion could reasonably go either way, as there were solid arguments on both sides. The result was no consensus, which was interpreted as remaining with the status quo - this is unfortunate for those arguing for Ganga, as they needed a consensus to change. However, another reading would be that there was no consensus for Ganges, either. At some point in the future it is clear that the debate will be revisited, so it isn't a done deal - I'd look at it as more of an ongoing debate, which is likely to continue on and off for an extended period. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
My reply here is intended for Fowler&fowler, above, as well. So first, let me say that I acknowledge that my understanding of i) the actual issue, and ii) how the issue played out on enWP, are both imperfect. I also should probably say that I feel a little bad about how I characterized it. "A bunch of casual editors," for example, was untrue and not fair, and I apologize for saying that. But I didn't assume bad faith nor did I characterize anyone as bullying --- I didn't ascribe any blame at all. My intent was to point out what I believe is a systemic problem with our production process, in general.
On the substance of the issue: the enWP guideline on naming conventions for geographic names calls for articles to be titled using widely-accepted English names that are in current usage. Personally, I think that Ganga fits that definition: it's used by multiple governmental and academic sources (examples here here here here and here), and it's also used in this American college geography textbook, this Indian geography textbook, the textbook used by Indians in preparation for the Indian civil service exam, and this environmental education textbook used by Indian polytechnic students. Ganga is also used in the Indian version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as in this book from National Geographic. But honestly, although I do personally believe the name of the article should be Ganga, I am not actually trying to make that argument here. (And I am aware of the counter-arguments: that "Ganges" is also used inside India, that "Ganga" isn't very widely-understood outside Asia, and so forth.)
I personally don't care that much about the title of the article. I just find the whole situation really interesting. Basically: in the Wikimedia projects, we make decisions by consensus, and consensus emerges out of discussion. Discussion is what makes bugs shallow: e.g., I might notice a flaw in your argument, you might bring a source to the table that I didn't know about, somebody else has a whole different perspective that changed both our minds. That's how quality is achieved. So, I did not mean to accuse the pro-Ganges editors of arguing in bad faith. I don't believe they were doing that. But I do think that as long as Indian editors are so seriously underrepresented on Wikipedia, we will find that our discussions on topics that Indian people are particularly knowledgeable about will be lacking, and that non-Indian editors, or groups with only a few Indian editors, will sometimes reach the wrong conclusions. I'm not being dogmatic or essentialist here: I'm not saying that "only Indians can be smart about Indian topics," any more than I would say that "only women can write well about topics of interest to women." That would be silly. But what I am saying is that in general, on balance, I believe that the relatively low number of Indian editors on enWP means that our coverage of India is lower-quality than it otherwise would be. And I do believe that if there were more Indian editors here, the article would be titled "Ganga."
I think what Bilby said above is also true, and I find it interesting. In the absence of clear consensus, we default to the status quo, which has the effect of making it very difficult for editors from underrepresented groups to have appropriate influence. (Again, I am describing our situation, not blaming individuals. These are systemic issues.)
Having said all that, I do definitely want to apologize for being sloppy in how I characterized the situation, and I'm sorry I offended good editors. I really didn't intend to suggest that people were acting in bad faith: I absolutely don't believe they were. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Sue Gardner. Apology accepted, :) I'm not sure though that the presence of more Indian editors would have tipped the balance in favor of "Ganga." The reason why there are only one or two Indian editors on the side of "Ganga," is not necessarily that there are few Indian editors on Wikipedia, but more that the rabid POV-pushers who periodically revive the Ganges vs. Ganga debate are—thankfully for Wikipedia—always just a handful. The name debate has gone on for many years. In the past, when the Wikipedia India group was more active, the majority of Indian (or India-page) editors had more than once voted for "Ganges." Wikipedia has to be careful about following its principles rather than a mere vote count, otherwise, if the number of Indian editors grows again, and they are all nationalist, Wikipedia might find itself stating that Kashmir is not a disputed region, but rather an integral part of India. (That of course is the official government line as well as the myth believed by a large fraction of the Indian population.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
this is one of the instances convincing arguments can be made for both sides that the outcome is often decided by the number and how loud and persistent the supporters can get. when arguments are equally valid from both sides, the weightage (in the eye of an uninvolved reader) gets amplified by the number. in fact, seeing the number of people who supported "Ganges", i even made a comment judging the consensus to be in its favor. Sue is absolutely correct that the article would be "Ganga" today, should there be as many Indian wikipedians. Numbers, unfortunately, do matter (certainly in some cases) and systemic bias is real. sadly, reasonable Indian editors often dont take sides on issues that are not black and white, or they will be labeled "nationalists". Fowler again fails to see the larger point made by Sue, for he, like a few others, seems to be of the opinion that his DNA (unlike Indians) doesnt contain the "bias gene". --CarTick (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The difficulty with what you're saying, CarTick, is that it it refers to numbers dominating when consensus breaks down, which breaks away from fundamental values of WP. If it is the case that the result would have been different with more Indian editors, then we're just describing a situation that is broken in the other direction. What was perhaps needed was either a stronger, knock-down argument from either side, (which I suspect doesn't exist), in order to win consensus, or to have tools for situations like this when a conclusion can't be reached. The second part being tricky - an RfC is effectively an end to one line of dispute resolution, irrespective as to whether or not it was able to come to a conclusion, and once we've taken that path we can't turn to the others (3O and mediation are for smaller groups - a big RfC like this overrides both - and ArbCom doesn't really fit). So I guess the next step is to see this as an ongoing dispute which will play itself out again in a few months when it is time to try an RfC again. - Bilby (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sue and everyone else here. Just wanted to say that I think the Ganges/Ganga issue might be a kind of watershed event. Wikipedia has so many policies and guidelines about page names for places, rivers, geographic features, etc, but in this case there were a number of issues that could not be easily resolved by pointing to policy and guidelines. I tend to focus on editing river pages and have seen my share of page name debates. But this one struck me as being unlike any other I had seen, with many complicated factors that muddied the waters. That said, I care little about page names and much more about page content. Like you, Sue, in fact as you said, "I personally don't care that much about the title of the article. I just find the whole situation really interesting." Me too. I fear though that unless the various involved parties take a step back and a long break from it there will only be further unproductive, often hostile energy spent with nothing gained. Earlier I had suggested leaving it to simmer for several months. Now I think at least a year is needed if there is to be any hope of progress. Otherwise the parties involved, many of whom are deeply and emotionally involved, will just repeat themselves ten thousand more times. In short, from my perspective, this could be a watershed issue, but one which cannot be resolved quickly or easily. Really, let it simmer for a year or more, people! I just hate to see so much energy wasted in Wikipedia battles that could be so much more usefully employed in improving the many many things that need attention all over the encyclopedia. Even the text of the Ganges/Ganga article itself is desperate for attentive copyediting and improvement. Maybe it is just me, but I find a well-written article much more useful and important than page name battles. Pfly (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sue, with due respect, I think you're approaching this in a way that is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. The idea that there are 'Indian editors' and 'other editors' is dangerous for a community-built encyclopedia for several reasons. First and foremost is, of course, because per the old New Yorker cartoon 'on the internet no one knows I'm a dog' applies and we don't really know the nationalities or political points of view of any one editor. Lacking that knowledge, and again with due respect, we end up making loose statements like 'a couple of Indian editors' etc when there could easily be Indian editors on both sides of the dispute. Or we end up making judgements about nationalities based on points of view that are incorrect (as, apparently, you did with jayen466). We are but human and, lacking objective facts, will tend to see things in a way that makes the story line more interesting to us. Second, since objective facts are usually not available, we, on wikipedia, rely on reliable sources to ensure that we don't get swamped by particular points of view. if we move toward the direction of identifying editors by nationality and giving preference to, say, Chinese editors on Chinese articles, or French editors on articles about France, then it will follow that reliable sources will become less important, vote counting amongst editors of a particular nationality will become more important, and the impact that editors with a pro this or anti that viewpoint will increase. Going down the road of dividing editors into this group or that is probably the best way to kill the hard won credibility of this encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark has demonstrated again why when he speaks everyone listens. Couldn't agree more. Couldn't agree more with Pfly as well, especially with the sentiment in the last few sentences. As for improving the article, I got as far as the lead and "Course." That might seem like nothing, but it involved adding content and pictures to the articles on the six headstreams and their five confluences, all of which were redlinks a few years ago. Our redoubtable ideologues, who will now be looking to use Sue Gardner's statement as evidence of a newly won endorsement and start the debate again, have not seen fit in all these years to help add even the tiniest bit of content to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Bilby, sorry for my sloppy language, i am not a native speaker and had large part of my education in local language. i wish i could put my thoughts into words in a better way. well, my comment above is more of a scientific observation of the wikipedia consensus process than an endorsement of some sort. i will certainly be happy to see more editors from India. In fact, i believe wikipedia can become NPOV in the real sense only if reasonable and competent editors from all countries in the world participate in the process similar in numbers and vigor to English speakers. this is based on the fact that all editors are naturally biased. --CarTick (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think CarTick has a point here, at least to some degree. While I've kept my opinion on this Ganges/Ganga debate strictly neutral, I wholly admit that I instinctively prefer Ganges. This is because, I think, I've always understood the river to be named Ganges and only heard of Ganga for the first time here on Wikipedia within the last year. Furthermore, due to my personal experience with the names, "Ganges" evokes in my mind rich imagery of ancient civilizations and epic grandeur, while "Ganga", I'm afraid, evokes images of Jamaica and reggae music. Of course this is just my personal bias and I've done my best to keep it out of these discussions. But there it is nonetheless. Pfly (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler, you are the biggest contributor to the actual article by edit count [2] (with the usual caveats about edit counts not being the most objective measure and all). I thought I had done more than 2 edits, but apparently not. I did spent a little time working on some of the various Ganges tributaries, which are in most cases even in more dire need of improvement than the Ganges page. Anyway, thanks, Fowler, for your work on content--which is the kind of work I've long held is the most important around here. (PS, I see now, I really only did one edit to the Ganges page, [3], but as usual with me there was a fair bit in that one edit. I tend to do more things in fewer edits than some--still just a minor effort on a page that needs much work) Sue, sorry for using your page as a forum on this topic! Pfly (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sue's statement regarding "...casual editors" is demonstrably true and fair[edit]

In the context of the Ganga X Ganges debate, it can be demonstrated that the arguments are casual, a few examples follow, for more, see the table at Ganges archives. (1) Bilby on this page, is not stating the facts, there isn't a duality of use in India, (there are exceptions, but it has been demonstrated that they are statistically insignificant). All this has been painstakingly stated on the Ganges talk page. (2) On this page JaGa informs us that Both sides made the best arguments they could, and after weighing them, the closing admin decided not to make the move., the closing administrator has been repeatedly requested to share what made him decide against the move, he has refused to communicate, which is very unfortunate, isn't it a casual administrative effort?[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (3) On this very page, an editor has called another editor rabid, the same editor called Sue Gardner whosie whatsie[10], he earlier insulted Hindu religion[11], he has declared that he is casual about Wikipedia[[12], these are just a few examples of his editing, and are typical. So in the context of the move Sue's statement can be demonstrated as factual, that she has apologised shows her kindness.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)