Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
WP:POST/TIPS
Suggestions


Archives: September–December 2014, May–August 2014, October 2013 – April 2014, May–September 2013, January–April 2013, July–December 2012, May–June 2012, March–April 2012, January–February 2012, November–December 2011, September–October 2011, June–August 2011, May 2011, March–April 2011, August 2010–February 2011, March–July 2010, November 2009–February 2010, July–November 2009, January–June 2009, October–December 2008, older: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please see our feedback page.

Contents

The Lives They Lived: Wadewitz[edit]

On the last sunday of each year the magazine section of the New York Times has profiles of significant individuals who died. Adrienne Wadewitz gets a very well-written write-up by Virginia Heffernan. (I can't find an anchor to the specific section, so here's the entire magazine): http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/25/magazine/2014-the-lives-they-lived.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0 kosboot (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll add this to the next ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to get the full text of one of the books about which she wrote an FA finished over at wikisource, File:Original stories from real life 1796.pdf ready as a form of tribute for her. I probably won't be able to start it until late in the current week though. John Carter (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The journalist that wrote the article is notable in her own right, as well. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WMF is shutting down grantmaking for good projects for 3 months[edit]

Hi! Maybe this subject is interesting for next edition: e-mail. Romaine (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But as you were asked on the mailing list—where is the source of this claim? Tony (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Read: this mail for that. Romaine (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. My personal view is that this is not flashing-red-light stuff. We've had two emergencies, unchecked for years: editor retention and gender gap. Other considerations are not priorities, if you ask me, given the depth of those problems, and anything that concentrates our efforts and resources on developing the means to ease them is good.

I am, however, surprised not to see a top–down and bottom–up strategy explained by grantmaking for this three-month period. I expect that will be forthcoming, although Alex is on a well-deserved break until at least 11 January.

I'm sorry that the Signpost's news coverage is now patchy, too. Tony (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Signpost coverage should be decided on Tony's personal view! A more firmly sourced story on this would be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
On what basis are you accusing me of writing with COI? It's a serious accusation. Tony (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't, obviously. What conflict? Johnbod/ Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
While I think this is a unjustified swipe at Tony, I wanted to note that the diversity of Signpost's coverage is limited by the diversity of Signpost volunteers. If you think there is a problem with Tony's coverage or mine or anyone else's, then the way to solve that would be to volunteer for the Signpost yourself or to encourage others to do so. There have been times when there were stories I felt incapable of handling properly for a number of reasons, that I didn't have the necessary background or that I was tangentially involved on-Wiki in some way. I would have loved to hand them off to someone else, and I'm sure Tony wouldn't mind some assistance now and then as well. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You were indeed suggesting that I would write with a COI. It's that kind of nastiness that discouraged me from regular contributions, @Johnbod:. People seem to think they can bully and insult as they wish—if you do too much of that, the well dries up. Tony (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You are so pathetic. If you do actually have a COI in this matter, I can assure you I was unaware of that. You just gave, in typical fashion, your "personal view" as though that settled the matter, which I found irritating, perhaps rather unreasonably. I'm on much firmer ground finding your outraged reaction irritating. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
This is precisely the behaviour that turns people off writing Signpost coverage—not thanks, but insults. You need to sod off and spread your toxins elsewhere. Tony (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
er, right! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiWash[edit]

A new tool is created by a news agency to track Wikipedia edits in real time (arguably better than WikiScanner). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Indonesia AirAsia plane crash: insufficient prominence in articles?[edit]

This article in The Independent suggests there's too little information about the crash in the AirAsia and Indonesia AirAsia articles, with the airline's success having greater prominence.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted, as The Independent does, that we have an individual article on the crash Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. Nevertheless, it seems quite odd that the crash can't be mentioned in our article on the airline company. I've asked one of the editors involved on the obvious implication, that the company is paying to clean up its article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This will be in the next ITN, though I don't think nor will I suggest anyone is doing any PR work here. It appears to be just a myopic interpretation of some topic-specific style guideline. Gamaliel (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Marine Mammal WikiSprint - edit-a-thon[edit]

Hi,

I am the Education Committee Chair of the Society for Marine Mammalogy (SMM) and we will be hosting a "WikiSprint" (a short edit-a-thon) with a focus on marine mammals, their habitat, and their conservation issues between Jan. 19 - 25. As the premier international society for understanding marine mammals and their interactions with their environment and humans, the SMM is committed to providing the most up to date information about these species to the public. Experts, along with enthusiasts, from around the world will begin a week-long “sprint” to edit, update, correct, and reference Wikipedia’s pages relating to marine mammals. The goal is to increase public access to accurate information about marine mammal species; while linking this first access point to the deeper literature. We are building a community of passionate experts who believe that everyone should have access to up-to-date, and accurate, information about the amazing species with which we work.

This the the first of several WikiSprints planned by the SMM and is being run through an WikiEducation Course Page called Marine Mammal WikiSprint

Thanks for your consideration for including this in the signpost. ShaneGero (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The 49 most entertaining articles according to HuffPost[edit]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html

This will be mentioned in the next ITM. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, Gamaliel, HuffPo also has 13 Super-Specific Tactics To Get The Most Out Of Wikipedia, also in honor of the birthday. Powers T 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That'll be in there too. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Community is the 2015 winner of the Erasmus Prize[edit]

Max Sparreboom and Jimmy Wales shake hands after Max Sparreboom announced that the yearly Erasmus prize will be awarded to Wikipedia in 2015.

The Wikipedia Community is the 2015 winner of the Erasmus Prize. This is announced the past evening in Amsterdam during the symposium Wikipedia as a research tool were also Jimmy Wales spoke. After the symposium Dutch Wikipedians had organized a wikimeet together with Jimmy. And after that Jimmy Wales was a guest in a Dutch talkshow what usually is seen by millions. Romaine (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Romaine: Thank you so much for the picture! I was going to use one of the 1992 winner instead. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! More pictures of the symposium and announcement are here: c:Category:Symposium Wikipedia as a research tool, 15 January 2015. Romaine (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Romaine: do you recall the name of the talk show? Maybe this? Gamaliel (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The talk show is called RTL Late Night. Some photos made yesterday are here: c:Category:RTL Late Night.
Later today I will also make photos of the ceremony in Maastricht. Romaine (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Worth a mention, I suppose, but all a bit embarrassing. Like knighthoods. Tony (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
And here's a link to the talk show. Trijnsteltalk 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
After I was already named time person of the year and won the Nobel peace prize this was more or less expected. Still, I gratefully accept, and trust they will soon call me as to where to wire the money. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I watched it today and was entertained, even if I had to have Google translate open in another window the whole time Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Signpost fix needed[edit]

The bot is sending the weekly Signpost newsletter across various Wikipedias and other projects. I am not sure who to write to, but the whole past year (and still) the Signpost had a bug in the code of the wikisyntax. This causes in certain browser style errors. This is caused by that there are 4 div opening tags and 3 div tags are closed, which results in that all the text (including of other messages) after the Signpost message is included in the Signpost newsletter. So if the newsletter is sent with 4 div tags opening, you also need 4 div tags to close. It is simple to solve: like this. Can anyone solve this or can you point me to the person I should ask for this? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've sent Jarry1250 an email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In the media suggestion[edit]

[1] Apparently a UK civil servant is a wiki gnome ;) Avono (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel -- did you see this? Go Phightins! 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought it was the same story, so I ignored this new one, but maybe I should take a closer look. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Avono: @Go Phightins!: @Pine: I was wrong, I've added this to the next ITM. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another 'In the media' suggestion[edit]

Working Knowledge, the blog of the Harvard Business School, has an entry, Is Wikipedia More Biased Than Encyclopædia Britannica?. It's a summary of a working paper originally published Oct. 10, 2014, Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopædia Britannica and Wikipedia. The technique used was to search for key phrases associated with right- or left-leaning convictions. Based on an analysis of that search, they find Wikipedia leans somewhat toward the left. They then qualify that conclusion in two ways: 1) If they take in account that WP is much bigger than Britannica, then the bias is almost the same; and 2) the more edits an article has (they say it has to have at least 2,000), the more likely it will be balanced. (In the comments section I replied why I think the study is faulty.) kosboot (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going back and forth if I should include this in ITM or in Recent Research. We'll see what happens. Thanks for the heads up. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Since I remembered a previous comparison, I did a WP search--and whoa, over the years this has been a frequent topic. There are really enough comparison studies between Britannica and WP for there to be a separate article discussing all of them. Perhaps you can suggest that. :) kosboot (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Honorary degree for Wikipedia[edit]

Jimmy Wales received on Friday 16 January 2015 a honorary doctorate from Maastricht University. A honorary doctorate can only be received by an individual, but symbolical the whole Wikipedia community is honoured by the doctorate said the rector of the university. See the photos at: c:Category:39th Dies Natalis of Maastricht University. Romaine (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Article in The Guardian[edit]

The Guardian has taken an interest in arbcom it seems. [2] -- Calidum 23:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost does Arbcom analysis regularly. They should issue a response to this Guardian article explaining what Arbcom actually does and why these remedies were issued.
It wouldn't even have to be controversial or step into the debate. This is a messy case but in the end it is similar to past contentious cases like Scientology. A bunch of editors with predetermined POVs jumped into the article as soon as it was created and yelled at each other for several weeks; Arbcom's way of resolving this is to get those editors out of the article permanently, so that others who don't have as much at stake can take a shot at improving the article.
While this appears "judiciary," in fact no position is taken on Gamergate per se. It doesn't matter what arbitrators think about Gamergate. Their only objective is to recognize what kind of user conduct has been unhelpful to collaboration and improve the editing environment so that collaboration will not be impeded.
A good statement about what Wikipedia does in cases like these can help inform the general public, the media, and future Arbcom decisions. Shii (tock) 05:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
PS. If the Signpost editors would like me to write such an article, they can feel free to email me -- but they certainly have competent and capable writers already! Shii (tock) 05:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
We can always use more competent and capable writers! If anyone has anything they want to contribute, they are welcome on board. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. We are aware of this article. Hopefully we will have a report about the Arbcom case this week or next week. --Pine 08:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New WikiProject - Lede Improvement Team[edit]

Over 14,000 articles need their lede (or "lead") improving. More than 2,000 have no lede at all! The lede is the most-read part of any article. It is the introductory part that tells the reader briefly what the article is about and what it contains, so that they can decide whether to read further. So, improving ledes is one of the most important improvement tasks editors can do. And anyone can do it - normally no research is needed, as the aim is to sum up the content already in the article itself.

A new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, has been launched to bring together those who want to help with this work. Simple steps:

  1. Read this guidance about how ledes are written
  2. Put yourself down as a participant on the WikiProject
  3. Pick any article from the Open task lists there and off you go!: Noyster (talk), 13:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rcsprinter123: Can you cover this in the WP Report next week? Go Phightins! 18:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly can. Will start working on it soon. Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

AltMetrics are now including Wikipedia citations[edit]

AltMetric are now including Wikipedia citations in their scoring. I'm quoted in their announcement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: ITM next week? Go Phightins! 18:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've made a correction. Altmetric (singular) is the name of the company. Alt.metrics (plural) is about deriving citations from social media. kosboot (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Coverage of edit battle in Star Tribune[edit]

The Star Tribune has an article concerning a back and forth on the history of the affluent suburb of Edina, Minnesota:

Edina's racist history is focus of Wikipedia 'edit war'

Erudy (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: ITM? Go Phightins! 02:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
What a great story, journalistically speaking. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not generally a reader of the Signpost...[edit]

...so maybe this has been done before, but it might make an interesting feature to interview one of the outgoing (or, by now, outgone) Arbs to see how they're enjoying life out of the frying pan. Not to dig for information on cases, but to see how leaving is affecting their Wikiexperience, and how serving changed it. Since they've only been out a mnonth now, this is something you might like to schedule for, say July or so. I'd suggest Newyorkbrad as a potential interviewee. BMK (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Already underway, actually. I am working on a set of interview questions and I expect that an article will appear this week or next. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies upheaval[edit]

There was recently a big ban of species:User:stho002 (the most active admin, and possibly most active user) on Wikispecies, which might be worthy of coverage. Circéus (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be the first time I've read any report about Wikispecies, at least in the last few years. I'd like to hear a dispassionate analysis of the state of the project as a whole - especially in the light of the growth of Wikidata (and wikipedia's infoboxes) which would seem to undermine the original point of Wikispecies... Wittylama 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikispecies has been a bit of a mystery for many. For one it a place where very few can really contribute meaningfully (there is a term for it - Taxonomic impediment) and for another the idea of species can be forever debated (that's got a term too - Species problem). Stephen Thorpe (User:Stho002) was the most outspoken proponents of Wikispecies on the most popular email list for taxonomists worldwide - Taxacom and it is a somewhat well-known fact that taxonomy is one of the sciences where opinion rules rather strongly and debate can be quite rancourous. Wikipedia has been routinely used as a battle ground by taxonomists before (and it's great that Wikipedia has some ICZN Commissioners as editors). The classification systems followed on en.wiki (& commons) and wikispecies have never had the opportunity to come together, and even templates like the Template:Automatic taxobox which had much to offer have never had the opportunity to mature fully. It is generally accepted that the relationships between all life forms can be represented in a tree-like structure to show relationships (unless the process of horizontal gene transfer becomes more detectable causing a more reticulate graph-like form). Whether wikis / databases would be better to maintain this information (regardless of the issue that the science of determining these facts of relationships themselves has much to be desired despite advances in molecular phylogenetics) has been something much talked about by Roderic D. M. Page and it might be nice to include some background commentary from him on his blog here and elsewhere 1 (on Wikipedia with bits on the tone of debate) 2 (some interesting predictions!) 3 4. Also see commentary on OR by synthesis - http://species-id.net/wiki/Using_Wikipedia_and_Wikispecies - Wikidata might be indeed be an advance but the real troubles with the nature of species will not go away. Whether it improves the tone and nature of the debate is moot. Shyamal (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective there are two fundamental problems with Wikispecies. The first is scope. It tries to cover both taxonomy (e.g., classification) and names (i.e., nomenclature). Covering taxonomy means Wikispecies overlaps with Wikipedia, and that immediately puts Wikispecies at a disadvantage (why would someone edit an obscure article on Wikispecies versus a richer, more visible article on Wikipedia?). Nomenclature, however, is another matter. This is the realm of factual statements (name x was published in this article on this date by this person). In some ways a dry topic, but still with enough scope for investigation (the is a surprisingly large literature on the exact date of publications of many taxonomic publications, for instance, and many taxonomists turn out to be fascinating individuals). Hence I think there is a niche for Wikispecies if it confined itself to nomenclature. Imagine, for example, that taxaboxes on Wikipedia transcluded the taxonomic name from Wikispecies, rather than relying on users typing in free text. A Wikipedia user could click on the name and see details on the publication of that name, how it relates to other names, etc. Likewise, it should be possible to automatically generate bibliographies and lists of published taxonomic names for the numerous taxonomists who have article sin Wikipedia (and have those lists appear automatically on Wikipedia). This brings be to the second issue, namely that Wikispecies is mostly unstructured text. There have been attempts to structure pages, but these seem not to be universally adopted. The lack of structure severely limits what people can do with the content. If people were serious about the future of Wikispecies, then moving to a platform such as Semantic Mediawiki would be worth thinking about. This would make it easier to structure the content, and a lot of content could be auto-generated by queries. species:User:stho002 was trying to do thing along these lines within the constraints of MediaWiki, but Semantic MediaWiki is more powerful. But the bigger question is whether there is a need for Wikispecies, or at least, sufficient need for the kind of restructuring that would be required to make it useful. The emergence of Wikidata also has implications for Wikispecies (especially if Wikispecies is reframed as being about names, not taxa). --Roderic D. M. Page (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd very much welcome a Signpost piece on how to handle taxonomy and nomenclature across Wikimedia platforms, and on the role for Wikidata in all that. There are lots of initiatives in this area right now, e.g. d:Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy, and the subject will be one of the topics to be explored in a Wikidata workshop on Monday (related Signpost piece) as well as at the Open GLAM hackathon next week in Bern. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective Daniel Mietchen it would be nice to cleanly separate names from taxa, which are often conflated (a taxon can have multiple names, each with its own nomenclatural history). For example, it is somewhat problematic to link a Wikipedia taxon to both a taxon id (e.g., GBIF) and a name id (e.g., IPNI) as these are different things. --Roderic D. M. Page (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that Roderic D. M. Page has just given an excellent argument for why Wikispecies should be folded into Wikidata... Wittylama 15:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but there's a lot of issues to tackle before going down that route, and I'm not sure the Wikispecies community would view Wikispecies in the way that I do. --Roderic D. M. Page (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Circeus, Wittylama, Shyamal, Rdmpage, Daniel Mietchen: This all sounds like the makings of a great and very interesting investigative report, but it also sounds like something too technical (and, I'm afraid, a bit too often the beaten path) for coverage by a regular (already work-harried) writer. Would any of you like to write this article, or do you know anyone that is sufficiently knowledgeable about it to report on it as a contributing writer? ResMar 18:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not been inactive on Species for a good while, so I'm not too familiar with the specifics of the case, sadly. Circéus (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Europeana report[edit]

You might be interested to make a small mention of the Europeana strategic Wikimedia Task Force report that was just published - laying out recommendations for what the organisation's relationship to Wikimedia should be over the next few years. Blogpost here. The committee on that task force included many Wikimedians (see the attached PDF report document). On Monday I'l be updating the PDF that the blogpost currently points to with one that has better embedded metadata, and then uploading that version directly to Wikimedia Commons. For your background information, I (as the Europeana GLAMwiki coordinator) am in the final draft stages of a major application to the WMF for continued GLAMwiki Toolset development (grant application draft here, on Meta). This grant application draft is currently at a stage of asking for any last feedback before I submit it formally. So, you can see how these two things (the strategic report and the grant application linterlink). Best, Wittylama 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Go Phightins! and @Gamaliel: this could be a follow-up to "Institutional media uploads to Commons get a bit easier," or shortened for Twitter as "Dear museums: uploading your content to @WikiCommons just got easier." ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Go Phightins! and @Gamaliel:, due to some changes that are going to (probably) happen soon in that grant application, it's best you not mention it in any Signpost story (if you were planning to) as it would be quickly out of date/incorrect. Wittylama 14:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Wittylama: Thanks for letting us know. Shoot me a message when that's worked out and we'll find a way to work it in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So... this happened. @The ed17:. Wittylama 22:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
SO I guess that means that our reaction in this case is inaction? ResMar 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Wittylama: So we should wait for the new tool to be completed? That would make for excellent follow-up coverage for the story I did last July. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Integrating Wikipedia in Your Courses: Tips and Tricks[edit]

There's a really nice article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Adeline Koh: Integrating Wikipedia in Your Courses: Tips and Tricks. She offers 5 steps for instructors, and then solicits feedback from readers for additional ideas on using Wikipedia. kosboot (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Added this to the next ITM. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Crowdfunding campaign for a macro lens for Jeevan Jose (User:Jkadavoor)[edit]

Is it possible to mention this week the Indiegogo campaign to fund a macro lens and other equipment for Wikipedian Jeevan Jose (User:Jkadavoor). Jee's wildlife photographs illustrate over 500 Wikipedia articles, and nearly 300 on English Wikipedia. The campaign was coordinated by a team on Commons before launching this Sunday 22nd February. Taking lessons from earlier crowdfunding campaigns that failed to meet their target (and therefore get hit with penalty fees), this campaign set a modest initial target. This was surprisingly rapidly met met by the generosity of friends on Wikipedia and Commons. That target was sufficient to purchase macro lens, but it would be great to raise more for other essential small-wildlife photography equipment such as a macro flash, camera bag and travel tripod. You can contact any of the campaign team (see Commons page) if you want more information. Jee is currently, and unexpectedly, off-wiki for a few days due to family reasons. The campaign continues till the 24th March. -- Colin°Talk 19:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Running in this week's N&N; thanks for making it easy on me by writing all the necessary text yourself! ResMar 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much Resident Mario. I had a look. Can I suggest a couple of tweaks.
  • Change "launched this week" to "launched last week".
  • Change "launching on the" to "launched on the".
  • Change "goals ... have been" to "target ... has been" -- it was singular, but now aims for more.
  • I'm not sure "surprisingly" should be in quotes. Perhaps you are quoting me, but it also looks like you are being ironic. Can we just change ""surprisingly" rapidly met" to "rapidly exceeded".
  • Change "trpod" to "tripod".
  • Since I wrote the above request, the funds have continued to grow and so can we add "and improving Jee's digital darkroom (computer/software)" to the end of the further equipment list. The "digital darkroom" is wikilinked as it is an idiom people may not know.
Thank-you once again. I'd offer to edit directly but didn't think that would be allowed. -- Colin°Talk 14:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Surprisingly is in quotes because the Signpost maintains neutral POV in N&N. I've changed the wording. And yes you may edit drafts directly! ResMar 14:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Resident Mario. I've made a couple of other tweaks. The "digital darkroom" involves more than just software as his five-year-old computer needs upgraded before he can install the appropriate software. -- Colin°Talk 14:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

e-mail from the White House promoting our editathon[edit]

I got an e-mail this morning on White House letterhead from Megan Smith, Chief Technology Officer of the United States, asking me (and likely a few million others) to join in Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM.

I was a bit surprised, probably just because I haven't before seen such a prominent organization promoting an editathon. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - the editathon starts at 5 pm.

Yes check.svg Done This is being covered as the lead story in this week's ITM. Thanks for the tip, ResMar 02:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Strategy consultation[edit]

Can we please tell readers about the consultation on the future of Wikimedia?

Per Philippe's email on 2/23 to Wikimedia-l: "The discussion is on meta, at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Strategy/Community_consultation

For more background on this consultation, check out this blog post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/02/23/strategy-consultation/"

Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done This is this week's N&N. Thanks for the tip, ResMar 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Board wants feedback on board composition[edit]

Another consultation to tell readers about is the one being run by the WMF Board, per Alice's email to Wikimedia-l of Feb 16:

"during our last meeting the WMF Board started to discuss its composition and how to ensure diversity and bringing in the necessary variety of voices and minds to serve our mission and to support the Wikimedia Foundation.

We want to listen to your thoughts and ideas about Board composition before we take the dicussion further with concrete bylaw changes. Please take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Thinking_about_the_WMF_Board_composition where you find our first thoughts and comment, amend and discuss."

I didn't see it covered last week. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Included in this week's N&N. Thanks for the tip, ResMar 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Core Contest rides again in March[edit]

Casliber says: .... is being run again in March - see Wikipedia:The Core Contest for details. Cas Liber 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A mention please - ideally a story, which I could help with. This is an important initiative which isn't as well known as it should be. This is the 6th contest, a year after the last. Amazon voucher prizes by Wikimedia UK, as in recent years. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber, Johnbod: I have included this as a brief item in this week's News and notes. The surest way to generate traffic for your cause is to submit a full report; if you feel sure enough to do so send us a line at the newsroom. Thanks for the tip, ResMar 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah can do that. Gimme a day or two. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Casliber: I've created a ticket for you at the special desk (we're doing a reorganization at the moment). ResMar 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

ArtAndFeminism Writing Challenge[edit]

The first official 72-hour long international multilingual challenge for Wikipedians takes place this weekend. See Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Challenge. The goal is to improve the project awareness of people writing articles about female artists and their artworks, so points will be awarded for work on any language Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Wiki Commons. Most women artists on Wikipedia either do not have Commons categories, or their categories are sadly neglected - for example, I just added this category to Commons this morning: c:Category:Paintings by Constance Mayer in the Louvre. For most great artists, there are various unwritten conventions about how to anchor their artworks, memberships, awards etc. in Wikimedia projects, but this is apparently not happening for most female artists. I am not sure why, but hopefully this challenge will help set the record straight one artist/artwork at a time. Thanks, Jane (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jane023: Have you considered perhaps proposing an op-ed (or special report) at the Signpost on this topic (with reference to the quote in particular)? That would be one of the best ways to bring attention to this project. I think the challenge is too small to be run as an in-brief in this week's edition of News and notes; this would usually be the sort of thing we'd sidebox in the WikiProject report, but that particular section is not running this week.
As an aside, two days seems like a brutally short time-span if you want to have an impact. ResMar 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
ResMar, go ahead and include an in brief in NAN since WP Report isn't running this week ... it can just be a sentence if you like, but since, as you said, we would normally cover this in the WP report, there is no reason we can't include an NAN in brief. Go Phightins! 02:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. ResMar 02:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Brutally short yes, but it is also meant as an extra outlet for all of the Wikipedians helping out at this weekend's various "ArtandFeminism" edit-a-thons taking place around the globe this Saturday. We will be holding a continuous Google hangout (as a series since I think they max out at 8 hours) to answer questions and help people out. Last year's edit-a-thon brought in lots of articles on women artists of the 20th-century, but there were lots of women artists before that who won gold medals at the Paris Salons of the 19th-century, except they are now locked away in the cellars of the Louvre, Uffizi, the Met, and other "National Galleries" of the Western world. Yes it would be useful to do an Op-ed on this, and probably better after the weekend is over and I have analyzed the results - I expect over 80% of the contributions to be to the enwiki and hope desperately that I'm wrong. Jane (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to get a feeling for "the state of the sum of all women's art" in a "before" snapshot - some interesting factoids: There are no works by women in List of most expensive paintings, and until recently, there were no lists of works by women in Category:Lists of works of art. It doesn't help that the names that stick in people's brains often include terms like brotherhood though women contributed to such art movements. I have updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists to include their artworks and it would be good to get a few more active members. Jane (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, if you go through with it be sure to list the proposal at whichever desk you end up leaning towards. Thanks, ResMar 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OK Got it - you mean News & Notes vs. WP Projects - I'll think about that. Jane (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jane023: Semi-interesting, A+F is getting a mention again in this week's N&N. =) ResMar 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A write up in Artnet: Art + Feminism Edit-A-Thon Adds Over 300 Wikipedia Pages on Female Artists - kosboot (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Business replacing dead links with spam[edit]

FYI see: Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Replacing_dead_links_with_spam Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Botswana Wikipedia Project: A 3-phase study[edit]

I think this would be a great edition to Signpost-let me know if you have any questions! If you would like to feature it in the next edition, I can provide a more detailed article if necessary. Thanks!

In 2013, the cellular provider Orange extended mobile access to Wikipedia, an online Internet encyclopedia written and edited by volunteers around the globe, to all their customers in the Middle East and Africa by waiving data charges for users. In response to this exciting new avenue for free online information, the Botswana-UPenn Partnership (BUP) Health Informatics Program and the University of Botswana (UB) have partnered in a 3-phase study investigating Wikipedia as an mHealth tool.

Phase I was carried out during the 2013/2014 academic year by Elizabeth Park, a US medical student from Boston University SOM, UB Faculty of Medicine (UBFOM) public health specialist Dr. Tiny Masupe, UB librarian Joseph Joseph, and UBFOM medical officer intern Dr. Swetha Jammalamadugu. Thirty-one focus group discussions were conducted throughout rural Botswana to identify rural healthcare worker’s information needs and perceptions on web-based informational resources such as Wikipedia.

Afton Chavez, US medical student from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, has joined the UB team to help drive Phase II of the project. The purpose of Phase II is to evaluate the quality and content of Wikipedia articles related to HIV/AIDS topics and update those pages so that medical students, healthcare professionals, and the general public will have access to online information that is not only accurate, but also relevant to low-resource settings such as Botswana. The Wikipedia article evaluations and revisions will be conducted by volunteer medical students, residents, and healthcare professionals (MDs, PhDs, and MPHs) from Botswana during a full-day workshop on Saturday, March 28. The team is exploring offering continuing professional development (CPD) credits, the equivalent of US continuing medical education (CME) credits, for participants as well.

In addition, UB and BUP researchers have been working with UB librarians to found "Wikipedia Wednesdays," a bi-monthly occurring extracurricular organization in which volunteer Batswana librarians, faculty, and students edit and upload articles to Wikipedia. The launch date of Wikipedia Wednesdays is Wednesday, March 11 and will begin with librarian training on how to edit and upload articles to Wikipedia. Subsequent sessions will focus on training volunteers, uploading the revisions from the Wikipedia Article Evaluation Workshop, creating a Wikipedia page and links for medical terminology Setswana translations, and translating Wikipedia pages to Setswana.

Phase III will take place at a later date and will aim to provide healthcare worker training on the appropriate use of Wikipedia and other online resources and assess Wikipedia's utility Botswana healthcare facilities.

For more information on the Botswana Wikipedia Project, or if you or someone you know is interested in participating, please contact Afton Chavez (afton.chavez@gmail.com, 26774050010).

User:Abchave1 17:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Some more details here and here. ResMar 17:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
In email correspondence, on hold for now, whether we place this in N&N or ITM depends a bit on how things turn out. ResMar 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Kyra Kennedy looks up her sister's birthday on Wikipedia to try to gain illicit entry to a nightclub[edit]

Very amusing story in the New York Post in which a drunk Kyra Kennedy tells a nightclub doorman "I am a Kennedy, Google me" and then tries to use her sister's passport to get in, is unable to remember her sister's birthdate, and tries to look it up in Wikipedia on her phone.

Very amusing. Because Kennedys and bars are a smooth, smooth mixture.... - Nunh-huh 22:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. She's that age. This is unlikely to be published though—mostly tabloid material. ResMar 22:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Real-time tracking of cited DOIs[edit]

Details here. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping @Tbayer (WMF):. ResMar 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hashtags in edit summaries now picked up by Listening to Wikipedia[edit]

Details. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how to treat these two items; in the past they'd have been fodder for the tech report, but that doesn't run terrifically regularly anymore. ResMar 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know either but think it would be neat to have them covered. Perhaps under "in brief" somewhere? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
After the editathons last weekend, we have a list of the edits that used #artandfeminism (total of 343, as of last weekend). I am still looking into other instances of hashtags in edit summaries, so if you see any, let me know! Stephen (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

One for the April Edition![edit]

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Time_travel

COI declaration: I wrote a substantial part of the article. 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not April yet ;). We'll cover these things then. ResMar 03:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel skewers Wikipedia article[edit]

The "St. Louis Cuisine" Wikipedia Page is Goddamned Hilarious. -- Calidum 21:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This will be in the next ITM. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. -- Calidum 03:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure this isn't more of a provincial attack on St. Louis than a commentary on the article, even if there are a couple of surplus commas... All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

ITM: Wikipedia's medical errors and one doctor's fight to correct them[edit]

Article on the "wiki doc": "Wikipedia's medical errors and one doctor's fight to correct them" kosboot (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is in the current ITM. Gamaliel (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Rising number of female editors?[edit]

Could there be an increasing number of female editors? This information from Fuzheado, referring to a long discussion (with graphs) on Jimbo's talk page: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gender_balance - kosboot (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kosboot: Yes, there has been a measurable increase in the movement's female editor retention. This is a good idea for a special report at this point in time, I'll talk to Rich about presenting his data and implications here. ResMar 19:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's best to look at the longitudinal data to see variance over a long period of time. I'd like to see some information on how this data was collected...that should be included in any discussion of the findings. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Exactly right, at which point it jumps from N&N to a Special report lengthwise. ResMar 15:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC).
Pong ball in flight.svg Rich Farmbrough: I created a ticket for you at the special desk, feel free to use the special desk proposal domain for drafting purposes! I'm hoping to time this with closing reporting on WikiWoman's Month end-of-March. ResMar 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza[edit]

Another from User:Fuzheado. Talk about COI....apparently the NY Police Department edits Wikipedia: Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza - kosboot (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this one is going to be fun to write about. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes. Also, here are the reporter's notes on her research. Google Docs - [3]. Also, we have a session at SXSW on this exact thing of COI editing. [4] -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's in the NY Daily News and public radio today and will probably be in the NYTimes tomorrow. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quoted in this NY Daily News piece [5] - Fuzheado | Talk 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

2011 Wikimedian of the Year makes good![edit]

Okay, so maybe I'm trolling just a little — but this promotion does make the criticism of WMF's 2011 infatuation with the Kazakh WP ring a little more truly, does it not? Carrite (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We are pretty much set for this issue, but will look into this for the next one. Not sure if there's a story here or not; we shall see. Thanks. Go Phightins! 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If this received independent news coverage it could be covered in ITM. Unless there's more development or an in-wiki response this is not enough to make an N&N post. N&N and ITM are reflexive sections, not accusative or developmental ones. That would be the domain of a special report, one covering the situation from the beginning, which is a larger undertaking. ResMar 19:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Pinging User:Jayen466 since I think he has some knowledge of these events. Gamaliel (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Note this from yesterday: PR firms at the service of human rights abusers. While it mentions Kazakhstan's PR efforts in Wikipedia, it does not mention Rauan's and WikiBilim's involvement in Wikipedia, nor Rauan's Wikipedian-of-the-Year award. It does however mention the Eurasian Council on Foreign Affairs (ECFA) as one of the alleged PR arms of the Kazakh government, and that is an organisation of which Wales' 2011 Wikipedian of the Year is the founding director. See [6] from last November, which mentions Rauan's role in WikiBilim, as well as his role in running the ECFA – so there is no doubt it is the same person. Last month, yet another Labour politician – Jack Straw – was slammed by human rights activists for providing paid consultancy services to the ECFA. [7][8] That's all I am aware of at the moment. Andreas JN466 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Have I got this right? Jimmy (a friend of Tony Blair's) awarded 2011 Wikipedian of the Year to a Kazakh bureaucrat who was running a Kazakh government-funded Wikipedia "chapter". Blair at the time had (and still has) a multi-million dollar per annum contract with the Kazakh government to improve that government's international image. Jimmy banned you from his talk page for raising the issue there. That bureaucrat has been promoted to deputy governor of a Kazakh region and has established a turd-polishing operation to improve the international image of Kazakhstan and some other despotic Central Asian regimes. No one from the WMF has responded to your comments about this on wikimedia-l, but a former employee (now employee of Quora - is Jimmy involved on Quora somehow?) has accused you of trolling.
If that's what happened, I think it would be very appropriate for the Signpost to recognise the successful career trajectory of our 2011 Wikipedian of the Year with a succinct summary of the on- and off-wiki background. After all, it's not every day a Wikipedian of the Year becomes deputy governor! Would you consider writing an opinion piece, Andreas? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The off-wiki background includes more than this. In the discussions of the Belfer Center paid editing scandal [9][10][11] it transpired that the Stanton Foundation, which in October 2011 was reported to have given the Wikimedia Foundation a record-breaking $3.5 million grant, is linked to the Belfer Center by the fact that Liz Allison of the Stanton Foundation and Graham Allison, the Belfer Center's Director, are married.
Graham Allison, in turn, is a past recipient of a special medal of friendship from the President of Kazakhstan. Allison also wrote the introduction to President Nazarbayev's book, Epicenter of Peace.
In the wake of Jimmy Wales' recent $500,000 UAE award, it transpired that Wales had previously been reported on the World Economic Forum website to have contributed to a "Guide to Good Government and Trust-Building" compiled "in cooperation and with the support of the Government of the United Arab Emirates". When Wales was pointed to the UAE government's human rights violations on Twitter and asked why he had lent his name to the effort, given the UAE government's signal lack of credentials in this field, Wales replied that he had been asked to contribute by Prof. Nye of Harvard. According to the Belfer Center website, Prof. Nye, too, is a Belfer Center board member. Together with the Belfer Center paid editing scandal, this marks two occasions where Wikimedia Foundation leaders took some action at the request of Belfer Center leaders that later attracted a degree of opprobrium.
The question on my mind now is whether the reported friendship between the Belfer Center's Director and the Kazakh government, and the fact that the Belfer Center Director is married to the the Wikimedia Foundation's contact at the Stanton Foundation, a major donor, may in some way have influenced dealings between Wikimedia and Kazakh government officials involved in the Kazakh Wikipedia effort.
Jimmy Wales said at the time [12] that the Kazakh Wikipedia effort was not politicized, that there was merely "a great group of volunteer editors - just like you - who are working in a nonpolitical way with their own government to transition an older encyclopedia into Wikipedia, as well as to recruit quality volunteers". Given Rauan's stellar government career both before and after his Wikipedia work, the idea that he should be merely a Wikipedia volunteer like the rest of us, as promoted by both the Wikimedia Foundation and Harvard at the time, seems to have little plausibility. I note for example that the linked pages described Rauan as a "Wikipedian from Kazakhstan", a Harvard student inspired to participate by a "class assignment" who had "worked in civil service in Kazakhstan for several years", all of which sounds innocuous. The recent report in the Independent, on the other hand, described him as a "former Kazakh diplomat".
WikiBilim's website says they "administrate Kazakh Wikipedia", and for years featured a photograph of the Kazakh Prime Minister on every page. [13] That photograph now seems to have been removed. [14]
Jimmy Wales' announcement of the award, by the way, can be seen here, in the video of the Wikimania 2011 closing ceremony: [15]. It mentions "happy puppies and kittens".
Rauan became deputy governor of the Kyzylorda region of Kazakhstan last December. The governor of Kyzylorda Region is Krymbek Kusherbayev, who was in charge of the Mangystau_Region at the time of the Zhanaozen massacre. [16] Andreas JN466 12:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: Jimmy Wales said yesterday on Reddit, "If I had known in 2011 that someone would get a job that I disapprove of in 2014, would I refuse to give them an award in 2011? Yes, I would have refused to give that award. But, I don't actually have the ability to see the future." He had still defended the award in 2013. On the Kazakh Prime Minister's official website, the Kazakh Wikipedia has since 2011 been described as a project run "under the auspices of the Kazakh government and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov". Andreas JN466 18:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jayen466:: outreach:Education/Countries/Kazakhstan. ResMar 14:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Astonishing. Note the chirpy talk page comment by a WMF staffer. Andreas JN466 16:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WMF adopts open-access policy[edit]

I'll cover this in next week's issue. ResMar 04:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: I've read up a little bit on this issue. However, I am a little confused about this initiative. Was there anything in the past that prevented such a stance from being taken by the Wikimedia Foundation? I confess that I've always been under the impression that research projects conducted by way of Foundation funding or support have been extremely strongly encouraged to publish their findings publicly; this mandate seems like it's been long overdue to me, in fact it's verging on why-wasn't-this-done-five-years-ago territory. Could you give me a little more background on the internal discussions that went on in the lead-up for this? The requisite blog post for this was unhelpful. ResMar 14:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There has not been much internal discussion that I am aware of. The corresponding page on meta was indeed started five years ago, and a draft policy presented at Wikimania 2011. While both the Foundation and the editor community have long been in favour of a strong OA policy, researchers have pushed back on it (as many of them do when asked by anyone about OA to their own papers, even if they are supportive of OA more generally, which is not a given either). You can get a glimpse of the respective arguments by looking at the grant applications for the WikiSym/OpenSym conference, where the topic has been discussed repeatedly (2015, 2014, 2013, 2012), with some improvements over the years. In the meantime, it's not as if there were no OA-related activities on the WMF end. For some examples, see here or here or here or here. For an overview of the interaction between Wikimedia and OA, see here. There have been multiple other Wikimania sessions on OA (and the OA submissions for this year include one on the OA policy) as well as many dozens of talks (e.g. here or here) or blog posts (e.g. here or here) on the interaction between Wikimedia and open access, as well as a few Signpost stories (e.g. here or here). Happy to dig deeper on any of this. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: Thanks for the links, they've been extremely helpful. It's written now, please check the draft :). ResMar 04:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I want to do a Schultz call-out but I'm not yet sure how. I'll think about it. ResMar 04:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean with the "Schultz call-out", so don't have suggestions on that. Just went through the draft and have the following comments:
  • arxiv.org was around before the early 2000s
Yes check.svg Done ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the Budapest Open Access Initiative is not a "venue". Perhaps worth mentioning that it was signed by WMF (after WMDE and WMPL)
Yes check.svg Done -> initiative, word choice swap. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that these do fall under this umbrella. I think that you're right that we could more directly reference the what in that sentence, but an immediately obvious wording with which to do so doesn't immediately come to mind for me. ResMar 13:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the sentence on "conflicts and resistance"/ "stepping its toes" sounds way too dramatic to me. It probably just boils down to not enough people pushing for an OA policy. Keep in mind that WP:OPENACCESS has only been around since 2012 and that quite a few academic institutions do not have OA policies yet.
I find that surprising, because from appearance alone it seems that the Foundation has maintained a bullish stance on this for a long time. I've dropped the sentence, then. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd drop the "very clearly", since that distinction is actually a bit fuzzy and we're working on a better system
Done. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • the sentence on WikiSym is unintelligible; perhaps decompose to make clear who did what to whom
CE'd. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd replace "has never yet generated" with "has not yet accrued"
Green tickY. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • session proposals for this year's Wikimania can hardly go under "have been" now
So maybe link to this or this? ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think WMF is"fully aligned ... with the open access movement" now. Perhaps replace with "more closely".
Oh! What remains to be done, then. ResMar 12:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The WMF policy is unusual in several ways, which may merit inclusion into your post:
    1. It covers publications, data, software and multimedia
    2. It stresses the importance of open licensing, which facilitates and broadens the scope of reuse
    3. It is itself under an open license, so it can easily be adapted (e.g. translated).
    4. It avoids embargo periods and provides an opt-out instead (rather than in addition to embargoes, as most other policies do)
    5. The opt-outs are documented in public, which helps collect data on edge cases.
-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: I've replied. ResMar 13:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
These six points are of great interest, Daniel. I think they'll need fleshing out for readers ... in which case your assistance/suggestions off-wiki would be much appreciated. Can this be prepared in a gdrive doc? Tony (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made some further modifications, hopefully it'll flow better. ResMar 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day in NYC[edit]

Are you going to have any coverage of Wikipedia Day in New York City, being held Sunday, March 22? - kosboot (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kosboot: I mean, I'm attending, so I imagine so, yes. ResMar 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Lawsuit regarding surveillance[edit]

Jimmy Wales was on a segment of On The Media radio program, discussing, what he could, about the WMF lawsuit against government surveillance. Since it's this weekend's program, you need to go to the general program page and hit the Wikipedia icon at top to hear the segment. I assume once this week's show is archived, you can find the segment included on the list that runs down the page. In case you want to listen to the entire show (it's a great program), Wales interview occurs around 0:15 into the episode. Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the segment. Liz Read! Talk! 12:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Early draft of wikisource column[edit]

OK, having no freaking clue myself how to put together such a thing, I have started a probably laughably poor sample of what might become in the hands of others a competent set of questions for an interview of a few of the more active editors there at User:John Carter/Wikisource column. Anyone want to look it over and make it a bit less embarrassingly silly? John Carter (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Wikisource, specifically? We're unlikely to run a regular column outlining going-ons on one project, specifically. If you are interested in writing a column about sister wikimedias see the dormant discussion report instead.
If you want to instead to very specifically write an irregular feature or a series of irregular features on the Wikisource project, they would be (individually) run as a special report or an interview instead.
See further here. ResMar 21:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
First answer, I actually do something there. Second, probably would be interested in trying to get some sort of column involving the other WMF entities as well, but personally don't know much about them, so starting with the one I know. Maybe later this week I can try to figure out some basic questions for some of the other WMF entities in English, and maybe including the Simple English wikipedia, as well. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, we can always figure out the best section later. Let's start with Wikisource and see where it goes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
There was some previous discussion, I have no idea where at this point, about maybe using such a column as for the fourth week of the month of the Signpost, in roughly the same place as the technical report and education report and I forget what all else. Granted, it is probably a bit late (hah hah) for the fourth week for the current month, but I don't know how quickly I'm going to get responses anyway, so maybe allowing for some time lag for next month might not be unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that was with me (if I remember right ... but I can't find the discussion anywhere). I'm happy to get content from the other projects when possible; it reminds us all here that the English Wikipedia and Commons aren't the only two out there. John, would you be okay with us holding this when it's done for a week where we have little else to run beside it? I don't think it will be too time-sensitive. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No objections whatsoever. In fact, I think it probably makes sense, because I don't know how quickly any of the editors I might contact will respond. John Carter (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Newsweek on Wifione[edit]

Newsweek has just come out with a story on the Wifione arb com decision. It might seem a bit late, but it does cover the real-world side of the story (e.g. in India) very well and quotes a few Wikipedians.

One quote, from an Indian publisher, brings the case down to the nitty-gritty, “In my opinion, by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students’ lives,” Peri says.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll be covering this in some fashion in ITM. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Also covered here: Wikipedia bans editor for consistent bias in favour of Arindam Chaudhuri's IIPM. Andreas JN466 13:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

cover the "thanks" feature[edit]

I notice the process to "thank" another editor has just changed: the word "public" has been added, and it now reads "Send public thanks for this edit? Yes No". When the "thank" feature came out I assumed "thanks" were private messages. I've since seen one example of some report of an editors' thanks sent out. If "thanks" are going to be kept and are public, then it's best to make that clear. But what's been going on, what changes are still coming if any, where is this feature's development discussed? What quantitative info could be reported? Was there some blow-up about thanks being intended to be public all along, but some/many/most editors not understanding that? Has there been a change in this, and should the "thanks" given up till now be kept private? I suspect "editor engagement team" persons could be interviewed.

At wp:Thanks there's no mention of thanks being public or any changes pending; it includes 2013 dates of introduction and some changes, but nothing more recent. Help:Thanks redirects to that page. So I think more than just me have not understood how it was to work. I for one would be happy to read an article about it in Signpost.

Never mind if there's been coverage that I missed. Thanks! And, by the way, there were 27 instances of "thanks" on this Suggestions page when I started this edit. :) --doncram 07:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do I get the list of thank-yous? And @Quiddity:. Proper documentation is important!
I hope this doesn't become yet another !vote rationale at RfA—doesn't thank other users often enough, clearly not civil enough. ResMar 13:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it has to do with the thank information being available via API, as per these stats and this thread. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments and links. In some Signpost issue in 2013, I found just a one-sentence notice of the Thanks feature having been introduced.
The feature is still experimental, and overall I think it is great. But I think it's really not clear what information is saved and can already be accessed, and what ways may it be reported in the future. Like when I saw that report somewhere, I think it provided a way to search on who thanked any given editor, and who any specific editor thanked, and if i recall correctly also the times of those items. I'd like to know whether the saved/public data has or will include the specific edits that a person is thanked for. It could get creepy, if it's possible to browse or search and see that A thanked B for some edit mentioning C in the edit summary or D in the changed text. I rather assume the wp:Editor Engagement Team(?) is considering some of the issues that could arise, including by observation of the ongoing experiments in En.wikipedia and some other wikis. Perhaps some "thanks" given are actually harassing, or violate interaction bans, or have other negatives. And there might have to be some way for them to be redacted, say. Again overall i really think the feature is very positive, and I probably could adjust to understanding everything included in a thank is going to be saved permanently and publicly available forever. When i think about it, that's most likely. I have liked how "thanks" seemed genuine, as private messages. Public messages wouldn't be the same. Anyhow, the biggest issue I see now, is how much difference there is between what people have thought would be done with their data when they chose to send "thanks" during the experiment up to now, vs. what the actual deal is, and whether that's a problem. I suspect it's not really a problem in practice. And maybe i/we should just chill and let it go on without speculating and then manufacturing issues. Never mind.... :) --doncram 17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I found the new phrase with "public" odd too and guess we're not the only ones. So I would be in favour of having it covered in some fashion. Some more details are here. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, there has been a log for thanks notifications since they were introduced. The addition of "public" just makes people more aware of it... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If we ran tech news we could have slotted this into the briefs, otherwise it's just too minor a point, I think, to do much with. ResMar 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
When you hit Edit Count on an editor's contributions and go to the tools page (which is not operating correctly right now, unfortunately), one stat that is listed is how many thanks an editor has given out (but not how many have been received). I think part of making thanks public means including this stat in the edit count. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It was changed after discussion in phab:T90486, which was created somewhere amongst the links given above by Daniel. Nothing else has changed - some editors simply weren't aware that Special:Log/thanks exists, and requested a change of wording to the default message-strings, at all wikis.
(Personally, I agree that it is minimal change, and does not warrant coverage in The Signpost. It was just this and this.)
@Doncram: it is not publically logged, what edit or action the thank was given for, for precisely the reasons you mention (see also phab:T51087 (from July 2013) for prior discussion about that). HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A tribute from Private Eye[edit]

The latest edition of Private Eye has this in a book review. Lamenting the poor quality of editing of the book it says "The book is littered with egregious howlers that wouldn't last more than half an hour on Wikipedia." "Tragedy of Errors". Private Eye (1388). 20 March 2015. p. 29.  Nthep (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)