Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VPM)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Vulgate[edit]

Forgive and please advise if this is the wrong place to bring this up. Wikisource has only the first few chapters of the vulgate. This seems like a serious oversight that could be easily mended. Couldn’t any of many copies be uploaded? I regret if I’m being naive about the factors involved. Temerarius (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging several of the Wikisource admins: It sounds like Temerarius would like to help with Wikisource. Can someone point the correct direction? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The place to ask would be s:Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, and it would be helpful to identify a public domain version of the vulgate suitable for uploading. bd2412 T 20:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Consider the Clementine Vulgate Project as a source for the text. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is this a desire to have a Latin text of the Vulgate put online, or an English translation of the Vulgate? This makes a big difference, since it involves different Wikisources (Latin versus English). Wikisource is divided into different language projects just as Wikipedia is. So the first question to be answered is: Which language are we discussing here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks all. Not a translation, just a Latin text. Temerarius (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Resolved

billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Media_by_uploader and how to confirm uploads are in fact own work?[edit]

Per the comments on the closure of a TfD here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_23#Template:Media_by_uploader it was suggested that a VP discussion be had. I've marked this template as deprecated as an amended wording was implemented in {{Img-unclaimed}} and {{img-claimed}}, but given the wording of those templates is related to the one at the closed TFD, this discussion also concerns them.

The problem is essentially that before Wikipedia developed the upload policies it currently now has and to some extent the structure imposed by the {{information}} template, some media was uploaded under a set of assumptions that whilst in good faith at the time, aren't necessarily the same assumptions that would be made when evaluating media that would be uploaded under the current policies. One of these assumptions being that where the uploader said something like "I made this" on the file description page, the file was implicitly considered own work, (One of the current recommend approach is for the uploader to use Own work as the Source: field and to use a license like {{Self}} or {{Self2}} at the time of upload.

Why does this matter? Currently a query at WMF Quarry (https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/29651) lists at least 27,000 uploads (an expanded query listed at least 50,000) for which a source couldn't be recognised. The actual number of uploads that don't have a source is certainly going to be considerably smaller. In many instances the source for older images will be a statement to the effect "I made this" or " Photo taken by username", but NOT as it didn't exist the time an explicitly included {{own}}tag or {{information}} block. Some contributors in the past have added these in good faith, but I was advised against off-wiki (more than once) about automatically adding own work (or {{own}} without some kind of confirmation (either from the original uploader or by other means). Whilst assumption of good faith is a key Wikipedia trait, taking it on trust that something is own work based on limited meta-data is not necessarily a long-term approach.

{{media by uploader}}, {{img-unclaimed}},{{img-claimed}} were intended as part of a pragmatic approach, as by asking uploader to more actively confirm 'own' work status, without needing to take media through the FFD or PROD process which would be inappropriate given that many of the affected uploads are sourced, and are (implied or not) indeed own work by their uploaders.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

After a good chat with SF00 off-wiki, the issue seems to be as follows. There are three classes of images:
1. Images which are identified as own works, but without the exact {{Own}} template.
2. Images which are tagged with a licence but no clear source (and are presumed own works for some reason)
3. Images without any source or licence (if presumed own, then they are automatically licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA)
SF00 has been previously instructed that tagging case 1 as {{Own}} is not appropriate which has lead them to attempt to create a new process of clarification. I'd like to invite the community to either allow SF00 to get on fixing the tags, or to put some proper thought into how we want to handle this. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there are several good cases where it is perfectly safe to just put the {{own}} template in the image without further interaction from the uploader or putting any warning templates anywhere: (1) the uploader clearly says "my own work" or "I took this photo on my trip to Africa" or some such thing, (2) the uploader attributes the photo to "Bob Smith" and either the user's Wikipedia user name is BobSmith123 or the user says on their user page that their name is Bob Smith, (3) the user uses the {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}} template. All three of these cases are obviously with the proviso that the claim is credible - that the image hasn't been published outside of Wikipedia, doesn't have EXIF data that contradicts what the user says, etc. On the other hand, if there is no claim of authorship at all or the photo is attributed to a person that we don't reasonably believe to be the uploader, then {{npd}} or {{nsd}} is the correct template. If the uploader is still an active user, then we can/should attempt to discuss the issue with the user rather than just tagging the image - that is more likely to get a positive response than just tagging 10 images and leaving 10 identical templates on the talk page. (Obviously, there is little we can do if the uploader hasn't editing in 10 years - we have no choice but to tag and delete the image.) --B (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Who are our fellow Wikipedians?[edit]

OP blocked until he can convince another admin that he can edit without attacking other editors again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have done over 200,000 edits to Wikipedia articles while logged in, and a similar number (but I don't know what it is) while not logged in. And as in all cases, there are some aspects of Wikipedia that I am familiar with and others that I am not.

Before Wikipedia existed, I was aware of the International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, an annual conference at which persons, most of whom are professors in physical sciences, assemble to present their research findings to others in attendance. I attended this particular conference in 1991. Those who attend this conference take an unconventional view, outside the mainstream, of the role of probability theory in the sciences. There are many conferences at which professors in many fields, who are interested in a particular topic that attracts a small number of their colleagues, annually assemble to present to each other their latest findings or creations. Some of these are gathering of those who take some non-mainstream view, and many are not, but either way, it is not considered grounds for suspicion about one's competence or honesty that one participates in such a thing, and I never expected that anyone would think it is until I encountered a dozen-or-so Wikipedian who told me I was stupid or dishonest or otherwise deeply flawed because I couldn't see that such a conference is a scam.

It was asserted on a Wikipedia page about professors in health-related fields, one of them a surgeon in the medical school at Johns Hopkins University and one a professor of psychology at UCLA, and various others, that their reason for using the standard terminology of their fields was only to create a false impression of legitimacy (this is absurd and clearly dishonest), that they don't publish, or at least not on the topic of their common interest, outside of a journal that their group had founded (this is false, as may be quickly verified), and that they do not collaborate in research with others outside their group (this is false, as may be quickly verified).

I objected to those assertions as clearly libelous and I was told that I was wrong without any attempt of six persons asserting this to tell me why I was wrong or to argue or discuss this with me. There is supposed to be collegiality among Wikipedians, and merely issuing a definitive ruling on a matter about which one disagrees with a fellow Wikipedian while refusing to discuss or argue, is inconsistent with that.

One person wrote that professors in health fields were "using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support". Note that:

  • professors were using the language of their own academic fields;
  • "unquestionably commercially lucrative". What? Since when is organizing conferences like this commercially lucrative? I don't know the details of finances of such things, but this is implausible. Can anyone tell me about this?
  • "which does not appear to have significant academic support." How so? That professors organize conferences is academic support. Just how much support constitutes being "significant" will bear examination. Generally disagreeing with prevailing views in one's field and organizing conferences of those who agree with one's own views is not considered justification for accusations of dishonesty; it just means one disagrees with a prevailing view.

And now to the point: I want to know who these people are (not their names, and not individually). Their refusal to argue or discuss the issues with fellow Wikipedians is an occasion for suspicion. I have heard it asserted that a lot of mudslinging happens on Wikipedia on politically charged issues or other controversial things, but only asserted; I have not seen that sort of thing, probably because my stomping grounds within Wikipedia have not included certain areas very much. The person who made the assertion about the "unquestionably" lucrative nature of organizing conferences among professors declined to answer my request for the specifics about that. His assertions about the amount of academic support not being "significant" is also something about which he declined to be specific after being asked.

A Wikipedian and his followers (apparently there actually are such things as followers; I don't know how that happens) who gather to simultaneously oppose the position taken by one Wikipedian should assume good faith and should be willing either to argue or discuss or instruct their interlocutor, rather than just giving orders. But it is not so. Is there something that should be done about this? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Really? --Izno (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass GMGtalk 17:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
If you are frustrated because editors will not respond to your points, I welcome you to Wikipedia (which seems odd considering you have many times my Wikipedia experience) and refer you to WP:SATISFY. There is no objective mechanism by which stronger arguments prevail, except in the rare case of a clear policy connection, and the rest of us learn to live with that or leave. I and others are dealing with exactly such a situation today, losing a debate to a majority with lame arguments in a discussion with no clear policy connection. If the trend continues to the close, we will review WP:How to lose, say our respective personal versions of the Serenity Prayer, and move on. We won't come to the Village Pump and complain about it.
Suggest speedy close as wrong venue and/or forum shop. ―Mandruss  17:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss: You misunderstand. My question was meant literally. I was seeking information. I have not encountered anything like this situation before. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Michael, for your own sake please let this go. Allowing things to keep gnawing away at you like this cannot be good for your soul. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: As I said, I am seeking information. I do not understand the behavior of some people around here, and I didn't know people of that sort existed. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You have been told why your "claims" are not actionable on numerous occasions by a number of different editors, but you simply did not accept "no" as an answer, nor would you accept all of these explanations as valid because it's not the explanation you are looking for, so you continue to seek for new venues to re-litigate. Your not the first person to be in a similar situation; it seems like plain texts cannot get through to you, so perhaps you need to meet an experienced editor in person to explain to you. I am sure you personally know a few of them; the best ones are probably your fellow mathematicians that are proficient in the communication style of Wikipedia. Alex Shih (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: (1) "Actionable" is not the point. They may be BLP violations without being actionable. We're not concerned with actionability here because of the "no legal threats" policy.
(2) I'm not trying to "re-litigate" anything; I am seeking information. I never said I'm the first person in this situation; I said I've never seen it before.
(3) If I've been told _why_ it's not a BLP violation, it was based only on falsehoods. There have been numerous factually incorrect statements by people who I think are gaslighting me because I've gone against their agenda. Nobody has addressed this question while attempting to be factually correct. For example, the claim that organizing these kinds of conferences among professors is commercially lucrative.
(4) Give me the diffs. Under the circumstances and in view of your past behavior, what you're doing looks like gaslighting. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Let's be clear: I've been told that my observations lack merit, by people who were contemptuous of any discussion or argument with me, and who appear to have motives unrelated to the merits or demerits of what I said. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
More casting of WP:ASPERSIONs without a shred of evidence. Will this ever stop? Without a block that is. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Coverage of Roundup Cancer Case[edit]

If interested, please comment here. petrarchan47คุ 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Legally Blondes 2[edit]

This redirect "Legally Blondes 2" is unnecessary, it needs to be deleted...."Legally Blonde 2" is correct --SrpskiAnonimac (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@SrpskiAnonimac: This is not the place. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. ―Mandruss  15:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
For which I nominated it shortly after the note. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Legally Blondes 2. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

fold3[edit]

Is there anyone out there who can guide me through a few simple questions regarding my efforts to open a fold3 account, with Wikipedia permissions? -Broichmore (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Broichmore, have you applied for access to WP:Fold3 yet? User:Samwalton9 (WMF) could probably help you get started with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Broichmore: I see you were approved for a Fold3 account - are you having issues accessing or using your account? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Yes, no access; it's apparently been resolved now, I'll know for sure in a couple of weeks. Broichmore (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The GFDL license on Commons[edit]

18:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)