Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-04-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-04/Arbitration report

Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation? (14,690 bytes · 💬)

We are not a playground for software writers anymore. Many people have internet access nowadays, and so many childish and immature people have access to it as well, now. We are not a collection of stubs anymore, too; our writing needs to be quite skillful. It needs education to write about science, to understand the article's rationale. Sports & Entertainment might need it too, but I'm not an expert on that. Wikiproject Geology (Rocks and minerals, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes) has only around a dozen active editors. Wikipedia is a small world and the vandalism is violent. Its backlog is a time sink, it is boring, and it bites on your patience. It is not fair that the quality work of a professor gets spoiled by a kid. We have many trends here; one, through the economic crisis we have less viewers (potential editors); two, the internet got popular, and the viewers are less educated on average; three, Wikipedia has a higher quality now, editors need to be more skillful; and four, vandalism get us BITEy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the economic crisis has made a particular impact on viewing figures, which continue to grow (unless you know something I don't?) and it's a bit more complicated than the-popularity-means-viewers-are-less-educated; I'd go for "the popularity means the demographics of the community have significantly altered". I wrote a couple of blog posts on this which seek to identify the ideological shift (and, if you come to Wikimania, you get to see me perform live! :P). Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, the economic crisis was important and will be important again, later on (but traffic and number of active visitors, can be different things). Before the Eternal September (Sept. 1993) internet was really, really elitist. I won't go to Wikimania 2011, Israel, I'm afraid ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Well, yes, but your argument was "the economic crisis has caused a reduction in traffic...and a resulting reduction in the number of potential users". Is there any evidence that traffic has been reduced? The blog posts I did on ideological changes in the community may interest you; that's partly where my interest in this area comes from. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
    - I had the period 2009/2010 in mind, if people need two jobs to make the ends meet than you lose potential users. People don't pay hourly their internet connection anymore, this compensates it on the traffic side. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
      - But again, can you demonstrate any actual evidence? Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        Must search for it, sorry. Nothing ready at hand, Sir... ;p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia's alexa rankings keep going up and up and up. We're reaching more potential contributors; the problem is turning them into actual contributors. Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        I remember that we get more visits, but are they different visitors (with english as mother language, of course)? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        More individual visitors, yes, not just more views from the same group. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        We must not forget that we get more vandalism since the 2005-2007 period. We ourselves generate traffic fighting this vandalism. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        ...sorry, you think any increase in website traffic can be attributed to us turning up more to kill vandals? Exactly how many vandal-fighters do you think we have? Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
        It must be somehow significant, science articles get 40+ more visits on the day after a change. We got vandals and their reverted edits, we got visitors from non english speaking countries and we got ourselves checking recent changes. Your "any increase in website traffic", there is a difference between different visitors and visits, my interest is different visitors and potential new editors. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
        As said, the statistics we've got are "more individual editors, yes, not just more views from the same group". Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
        Ok, our own visits can be significant, though. c. 10% of the edits per minute are being reverted, and articles with changes get c. 40 visits more the next day. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1) edits, reverted or no, are statistically minute in terms of page views and 2) yes. Articles with changes, likely to be articles people are interested in, get more hits. Result; we know that people look at things they're interested in. Ironholds (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Something is wrong here, you can't have the worst economic crisis, a paper money devalorization and a FAO Grain Price Index going up and more different persons visiting Wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia is just under tigher observation. Maybe I'll find some reference, but I wanted to just look for minerals, their localities and the Pacific Fire Rim :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Or maybe this is not the worst economic crisis, devaluation is a nation-specific thing and internet access is a small thing for those in western nations. Consider the possibility that if the facts don't agree with you, it isn't the facts that are incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ironholds, I just finished reading your blogs explaining your theory of the history of Wikipedia. I was here for most of that time, & your history doesn't really explain what happened. Although it is better than some accounts I've read. -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's meant to be a broad-strokes approach, rather than pointing out any specific incidents; a full history of Wikipedia would take months to accurately produce. Note that I've been here for rather a while too - since 06-ish, anyhoo. Are there any particular bits you felt I got wrong, or was it more things I should've included but didn't? Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I read it too, thx Ironholds. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  - Well, Ironholds, how detailed do you want me to be? The short version is that it appeared you were telling the history as you thought it should have been, rather than how it was; for example, there were surprisingly few "tech-heads" at the beginning. (FWIW, I've been here since October 2002.) Perhaps I should write out my response elsewhere, such as on your Talk page or here. -- llywrch (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
    - As mentioned, the "tech-heads" were only one segment of gen pop, as it were; feel free to write it up somewhere, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This article illustrates exactly why Wikipedia fails to attract new blood: Most people nowadays are busy - they don't have the time to read long, elaborate articles with tons of links to other articles. How about providing a summary, for those of us who can't spend all day engaging in Wikipedia politics? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, ideally, it wouldn't be a matter of politics: it's a matter of practicality. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Without an accompanying analysis of how many of these accounts are helpful users versus pure vandals, we get the wrong impression. If 99% of new accounts are "MY beSt friend is..." writers, than losing only 94% of them is bad. If the question is how many serious writers we are losing we need a different metric than total edits. Rmhermen (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This shows the necessity to make a good first impression. Yes, most n00b creations are not useful and do not belong to Wikipedia. However, there are nice and ugly ways to deal with this problem. Template messages are part of the problem, not only part of the solution. -- Luk ^talk 14:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; I wrote a report for the WMF on this a while back (which I think James may have shoved somewhere - not sure where) and identified templating as one of the issues with perceived bitiness. I think more of a hands-on effort is probably the answer, not less. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: Is there any breakdown on the number of new articles by new users that are garbage/deleted soon after? Forex, is Wikipedia seeing fewer new articles by new users, but more of those are "real" than a year ago? JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re to Ottawahitech and Chris urs. People don't disappear in a recession, but many of them have less money to spend, and while some people are busier than ever millions are unemployed or underemployed in part time jobs. Recessions are a great time for products and services that people trade down to, where I come from vegetable seed sales have recently overtaken the sales of flower seeds for the first time in a generation. A free online encyclopaedia is a fairly cheap hobby for those of us who are currently underemployed, it certainly comes cheaper than an evening in the pub. I for one am not surprised that our viewing figures continue to rise in line wit the growth of the Internet, though I do worry that we are not recruiting editors as rapidly as we lose them. For people studying another language editing in it must be great way to get experience and feedback on that skill; They are just one group of potential editors who I would be hoping to see more of in a recession. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily causal

With regard to: "...almost a third of new users who edited (about 21,000 accounts at the time of the data snapshot) choose to create new pages immediately rather than edit existing ones, and only 0.6 percent of those whose articles are met with deletion stayed editing, compared to 4.4 percent of the users whose articles remained." Note that the deletion is not necessarily the causal factor in the non-continuation of the affected editors. It stands to reason that frivolous jokesters creating intentionally dumb material which is deleted would not be expected to stick around even if that material were retained. Moreover, those that are serious about editing at Wikipedia over the long haul, having an interest coming in, would be less apt to have their articles deleted in the first place. So the BITEyness and fast trigger to delete at New Pages may OR MAY NOT have an impact upon retention. The only way one could tell for sure is by "exit polling" those with an article deleted about whether the deletion changed their intentions. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The other way to do it is to compare the retention rates by looking at the reasons for deletion: if your hypothesis is correct, those people would probably be reported under G3, G5 and G10: vandalism, hoaxes, banned/blocked users and attack pages. That's basically your vandalism CSD pages. Do those people just do a drive-by article creation? We probably don't really care that the "MY FRIEND IS GAY!" people don't come back. But what about good-faith editors who put up stuff that gets deleted under A7 or G2? What about people who make a page, go away, come back to find it's been PRODded or AfDed in their absence and give up. The vandals and "frivolous jokesters" can be analysed apart from the ordinary editors by looking at retention for deleted articles excluding G3/G5/G10, and by excluding blocked users. Impossible exit polls are not the only way to find this out. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is that errors are made both at newpage patrol and at speedy deletion. If something is correctly tagged and deleted per the speedy deletion criteria then we haven't lost a worthwhile article and while the new editor may not like having their contribution rejected, at some point they may be back determined to do better. The problem is when an article is incorrectly tagged and even deleted for "poor formatting", "should probaby fail AFd" or any of the other misuses of the speedy deletion process. I think the debate over new articles by new editors needs some stats on the proportion of incorrect speedy deletions. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

Just how is one supposed to use that list? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (985 bytes · 💬)

There were more FS then FP this week. wow --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 01:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Gymnopilus maritimus (nom), a newly describe species of mushroom. (J Milburn)"; should be "described", not "describe". Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Has been fixed (by someone else). I note that this is the sort of error that anyone is welcome to correct upon sight, without coordinating with anyone else. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In the news: Academic contributions; Jimmy Wales weighs in on murder trial controversy; brief news (8,884 bytes · 💬)

The full quotation from Wales on the checkuser point is "I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time." so it was maybe a bit unfair to quote only the first bit? Tom B (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Every time Jimbo Wales opens his mouth, something bad happens or something that's already bad gets worse. On top of that, he's a polarizing figure on Wikipedia, with some people of the strong opinion he should stay active and others (full disclaimer, I am one of these) that believe he needs to retire from any active participation at this site. These articles about Jimbo getting involved in things just pisses me off, (although it's not the articles' or writers' fault there.) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question to ask, and I did consider including the full quote. But I don't think the current wording misrepresents what he said: That he was "merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions" is summarized appropriately in "Questioned". In any case, the diff for the full statement is linked. Note: As I understand the four users who reacted to this (see also), they were not defending the block itself, merely pointing out that the Checkuser evidence quoted by Wales as the basis for his "concern" about the block was meaningless (for the blocked account, it most likely consisted of a blank page). Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it disturbing that he'd made such a mistake in the "forensic evidence". I'm not sure what to derive from that, but it seemed very ironic. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia wants more contributions from academics" -- Is that an April Fool's joke? The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of us would like to see that. Unfortunately they either start their edits in the areas where their would-be supporters don't watch, or there is some failure in communicating with them. The failure is not always on the Wikipedia side. -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

llywrch, speaking as a bona-fide expert in certain topics, Wikipedia doesn't want to grapple with the absurd expectation that experts should congenially debate endlessly with cranks and status-gamers. It's not worth it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians don't want to debate endlessly with cranks & status-gamers either; but I don't see how your comment relates to my point. My point is that in this case, there is enough blame to go around. Some experts come to Wikipedia with the expectation that their titles & CV should be sufficient to carry any argument, but problems with confirming both credentials & identity inevitably result in disappointment -- sometimes to the dismay & shock of all involved. Or are you saying that there are no arrogant academics in the world? -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's deflecting from an analysis of Wikipedia's institutional dysfunction vis-a-vis academics by trying to shift the focus onto the other side's supposed failings - roughly the "so-fix-it" defense writ large. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly there are two sides to the issue. What bothers me is the commonly held presumption that people with expertise will show the behavior that Llywrch describes. Yes, it happens sometimes. I think the more serious problem is the radical egalitarianism that sees expertise as fundamentally incompatible with "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In praise of… academic Wikipedians, Editorial The Grauniad, Wednesday 6 April 2011.

Floydian Slip? The Wikimedia SURVEY: Expert barriers to Wikipedia reminds me of the extraordinary expertise shown by some politically committed non-experts in erecting barriers, indeed barricades, against any well informed input. Perhaps the survey was intended to invite comment on barriers deterring experts from contributing to Wikipedia, but that ain't what the title says. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Grauniad article is interesting, and the comments especially so: Wikipedia's dirty little secrets appear finally to be getting out. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I came across this whole discussion by looking for the editorial concerned as it's referred to in a letter in today's Graun by academics involved in the History & Policy website who tried adding to Wikipedia articles relevent references to articles on their site, and having found a significant increase in visitors to their site from Wikipedia, intend to continue. The signatories are Virginia Berridge, Alastair Reid and Simon Szreter, so hope their expert input is welcomed. . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

SBHB (if he doesn't interpret my avoiding his nom de jour as outing him) understands my point -- although I've never met Randy in Boise, & were I to, I'd find it difficult not to use my Admin bit to uninvite him from Wikipedia. (But I wonder if critics like Seth Finkelstein would then criticize my use of those privileges.) Some experts come to Wikipedia as if it were one thing, when they might have amazing success were they to present themselves as one individual addressing several: make their arguments without appealing to authority & just let the facts & sources speak for themselves.

The problem I have with many criticisms of Wikipedia is that they envision it as one thing, which does not match the reality. On the other hand Wikipedia's advocates routinely oversell its virtues -- entranced that a group of strangers could possibly collaborate on a single goal -- when it does have a number of serious flaws. Meanwhile people like me -- & I assume SBHB & Dave souza, too -- are frustrated that we cannot find anyone to take our criticisms seriously, which are based on experience.

I believe I can say that Wikipedia is at least as good as Encyclopaedia Britannica without it sounding like empty bluster -- but saying that is not the high bar people might think. From my research, I would say that EB is not as reliable or accurate as people might think, & for the better part of a century it has rested on its laurels. So Wikipedia could be better than EB -- yet still not be as useful as an ideal encyclopedia would be. Now I believe that Wikipedia could achieve a level of quality closer to that ideal encyclopedia than other encyclopedias in the last 100 years, but it would require better leadership than what I've seen so far. Then again, these folks probably aren't any worse than the average university president or museum head. -- llywrch (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "In the news..." did people catch the April 5, 2011 episode of "The Good Wife" on CBS where two lawyers are discussing the meaning of life upon the death of their partner and they conclude that after you die all that is left is your Wikipedia biography? Racepacket (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news (1,157 bytes · 💬)

Regarding "the proposal to have Wikipedia listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site", this is a terrible idea. Being designated as a historical site means that one is subject to oppressive regulation by irresponsible higher "authorities", and would probably make it virtually impossible to make necessary changes. I hope that this is just a April fools joke. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The blog entry says "the point is not necessarily to be awarded this honour but to engage the world in a conversation about what “cultural heritage” means in the digital era and to contest the idea that it must be something old, that it must belong to one country, and that society cannot be actively involved in it". It's a pity that this tidbit – which really sums up what the whole thing is and isn't about – was left out in the Signpost. :P -- Schneelocke (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (930 bytes · 💬)

"Administrators will now have to confirm that they actually intended to block themselves" is definitely not live yet. --Rs chen 7754 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the smell of beans in the morning... — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why there's a notice above the list of fixes that says "Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks." ;) --Catrope (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System (267 bytes · 💬)

Out of this world! jorgenev (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2011