Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-04-26

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-04-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct (317 bytes · 💬)

Arbcom vote to take the Clean Wehrmacht case advanced after the publication cutoff; now 6/0/0. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia (1,764 bytes · 💬)

• Very happy that only 10% of people read en=WP to make a "personal decision" - in other words, to buy something. The WMF should trumpet that loudly, so that marketers who think WP is a vital platform understand that such efforts are relevant to such a small fraction of readers. This is not a place people come to make consumer decisions. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, although I'd reckon that personal decisions are beyond just purchases. As the question itself noted, readers might be looking up travel destinations, and I'd imagine another prime examples would be researching medical issues. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, 10% of 500 million page views a month (not including Knowledge Graph or mirrors) is a sizeable advertising pool. It's past the point of no return wrt dissuasion when that many eyeballs are potentially for sale. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if Wikipedia is a popular search result in search engines that are popular in other countries? I also wonder if cultural factors influence Wikipedia use--maybe in other countries, TV shows aren't as popular or don't have Wikipedia pages, so there isn't as much of a "media tie-in" reason to look at Wikipedia. Interesting research! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias (30,724 bytes · 💬)

• Thank you for your thoughtful article. You made me think. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Your article is very interesting. It's not only that gaps are many, it's also how we deal with them. There is a lot to do. B25es (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Africa, a continent dominated by languages other than English, doesn't attract attention from our mostly-male, mostly-Western, mostly-white editor demographic. That's because editors don't write about topics that have some perceived merit for coverage. Editors write what they want to read and have others read. That's why we experience systemic bias, edit warring, and CoI editing; Wikipedia is a platform for self-indulgence, not knowledge. It is the Africans that have to care about writing articles about Africa. And while we're on the subject, from what source material shall our editors draw? How well-documented are the people, places, and events of Africa? How much of that is written in English, found online, and from a reliable source? Perhaps Africa suffers because their intelligentsia (the journalists and academics) haven't penetrated the Western world. The comparison to WiR is apt. I would caution you that if you start a sentence with "While Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place to right great wrongs...", you're already headed in the wrong direction. Encouraging a subset of editors to write with a bias simply to balance out other bias is not praiseworthy. "Maybe it's sacrificing principle for expediency..." Yes, it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: "Wikipedia is a platform for self-indulgence, not knowledge". There's more truth to that statement than we would like to admit.

I don't intend to encourage editors to "write with a bias simply to balance out other bias" [emphasis added]. As one can see with the Art + Feminism editathons, many women and other participants participate with an inspiration of advocacy. This doesn't mean their end products are all full of promotionalism and pro-female/anti-male bias. WiR has produced many articles that meet NPOV, even the responsible editors felt they were enacting some form of social justice in the process. As this South African writes in his op-ed, Infiltrating Wikipedia, Black Panther Style, "At the end of the day, it’s partly our fault as Africans. Where we can have a voice, we aren’t taking our opportunity. I don’t mean to say we should flood Wikipedia with biased articles about how amazing and beautiful our country is. In fact, if we remain unbiased and factual, we will see a great deal more fruit." Clearly he's talking about a form of advocacy while still adhering to NPOV. So in summary I'm saying the advocacy mindset can still be used to encourage the creation of content while not further harming Wikipedia with prejudiced material.

Also, I can affirm that reliable sources absolutely do exist. Decolonization resulted in a wealth of material about newly independent states in English. Of course, much of that material was propagandist garbage and/or is currently out of print, but a significant portion of that literature, mostly what was published by university presses or research institutions, remains. I have six such books lying right next to me at this moment. The BBC World Service, Associated Press, and Reuters also regularly cover the affairs of the non-Western World. Jeune Afrique and the Agence France-Presse provide great material for Africa (in French, though). Things are well documented in the larger countries if one is simply willing to look. I've found plenty through Google books. Is it as comprehensive as coverage of Western topics? No, but we can still do a whole lot more with what we have. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Speaking of "systemic bias", it would be a good idea to move all these lists of TV episodes to somewhere on Wikia or another MediaWiki-based wikifarm, and delete all articles about individual episodes. I think there are too many episode-related articles on enwiki, and not enough articles about other stuff. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 02:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Earth's City Lights, 1994-1995

• Interesting how neatly the map of geotags matches the map of outdoor lighting. Published geography, including Wikpedia geography, leaves dark the same places that electricity does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 23:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: I assume that has much to do with the penetration of the internet overall, or at least population concentration. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Money makes political power and electric light. Money makes geography and other knowledge. Money makes Internet. Places without people, or people without money, are in the dark.

• Not sure how surprising it is that there are no Andorra or Liechtenstein featured articles... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Indy beetle: Excellent piece. I've been saying many of the same things myself in various formats over the years. Beyond the things already mentioned, I'm curious if you have other ideas about ways in which the knowledge gap can be targeted and shrunk. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Well, at least there's two of us. Frankly I haven't got many more ideas. Contests and award incentives, I suppose? I advocated for a restructuring of WikiProject Africa (the "appeal to discuss the project's direction in February" which "garnered responses from only three users") but it fell flat. I'm most certain that a highly organized working group would go far in making improvements, but that requires a bare minimum level of interest that I believe we haven't yet acquired. If you've got anything better I'm all ears. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Contests will help, I think, if they're properly presented. I've also mulled over a couple of outreach ideas I'd like to see implemented, though they're currently in the embryonic stage. For one thing, I think we might be able to open discussions with embassies and embassy staff - I'm sure there are people there who would have access to sources and knowledge that many of us wouldn't be able to find. I also think it might be interesting to try and work with immigrant populations to develop editing practices. A lot of the libraries in my county in Virginia, for instance, list on their website the languages their volunteers speak. I'd love to see about developing some kind of editing workshop using that information, targeting local populations with classes on editing provided at the local library or community center. I don't know what kind of fruit it might bear, but it's worth trying.

I also think that bad publicity helps drive editing: Women in Red didn't really take off until the problem of Wikipedia's gender gap became fodder for the mainstream press. That ultimately inspired people to take a hard look at the issue and begin working to correct it. That might end up being the case here, as well.

What about building a library of free sources to work with? I know of a couple that could be useful for Central Asian topics, for instance. Bolivia, too - I think there's a greater dearth of representation of South American topics than people realize. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think until WMF reviews how it identifies and handles harassment + bullying behavior (like other tech platforms and industries are moving to do), recruitment and retention in these areas will remain a challenge. Hmlarson (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: Bullying based on gender is well documented on the internet and and there many anecdotes about it occurring on Wikipedia. I wonder if there's any reliable data on racist behavior or activity that otherwise targets non-native English speakers or persons of certain nationalities on the encyclopedia, and whether that forms part of a larger "culture". -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No brainwashing consciousness-raising exercise will make everyone the same. Art LaPella (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• As you seem to be comparing progress on Women in Red with the lack of interest in covering Africa, I should perhaps mention that last November's Women in Red World Contest inspired editors to write a considerable number of new articles on women in all the countries of Africa. Perhaps you should call on the WMF to support Dr. Blofeld in organizing future contests on the people and countries of Africa.--Ipigott (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: Not going to happen when that editor retired over allegations of copyvio dating back to years before and the same editor shows a lack of basic geography awareness (e.g. thinking American Samoa and Guam are in North America while Mexico and Caribbean countries were left out.) So I don't expect much support from this editor. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  Dr. Blofeld retired for personal reasons that have not been discussed on-wiki, and I know that he would be more than willing to act as a contest coordinator (though would require financial support to do so, which so far has not been forthcoming). And no need to be a jerk about something that likely was an accident/oversight-- Dr. Blofeld was historically one of en.wiki's best geography editors, and has plenty of geography knowledge. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to repeat myself about one problem with systemic bias that needs repeating: our coverage of some subjects suck because it is difficult to get the needed materials to improve them. For years I wrote articles about Ethiopia, but ended up getting burned out because it was hard to get the information I needed. Specifically, I could not create biographies of any of the Ministers or most of the Regional presidents of Ethiopia because the information is not to be found. (Maybe if I had access to a research library that specialized on Ethiopian topics that would not be the case, but I happen to live in a large US city without a large African-American population.) Right now I'm working on articles about ancient Rome, & I'm unable to write articles on many of the women because they are absent from the primary sources: ancient misogyny is a hard barrier to overcome. And even when there are women worth writing articles about, our own notability standards may block us. Specifically, I have a list of 28 women from the reign of Domitian for whom we have some information, but it is frustratingly limited to "X is the daughter of Y (an important Roman official) who married Z (an important Roman official) & had A, B & C as children (all important Roman officials)". If I write articles on any of those women, I fully expect to see them obliterated at AfD. Speaking from the coal face, it's very frustrating to try to deal with these issues, especially when there is so little support to address these short-comings. -- llywrch (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

llwyrch You're not wrong...though I think the sourcing issue has improved considerably over the past couple of decades. (Years, even - I've found amazing, wonderful online sources in the past year that I'm convinced would have been inaccessible to me in years past.) Talking of outreach...I have some thoughts, actually (see my comments above) that might be worth pursuing. I live just outside of DC, which has the largest Ethiopian community in the US; I'm sure there are numerous community organizations here that would be interested in helping. Shoot me an e-mail sometime, and we can brainstorm. :-)

As for AFD, I take your point, but I think things are slowly moving in a more inclusive direction there. I wouldn't let fear of deletion hold you back - if you think the articles are worth creating, then by all means do so. I'll back you, and I'm sure there are others that will, too. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Agreed. Sourcing has gotten quite a bit better, and online translators have made things much easier. Most countries have at least one online newsite or paper of reasonable quality that covers national topics (Digital Congo or Le Phare for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or lefaso.net for Burkina Faso, for example). Building a library or bibliography of these sources is a great idea and would be of great help to our users, the one for WikiProject Africa is not very useful in its current form. Perhaps we should discuss this further. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I'm game. Shall we take it off-wiki, or at least off-comment-thread? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're willing, I'd love a ping wherever you land, Ser Amantio di Nicolao; would be very interested in this project. (For my two cents, I would love for it to be on wiki in hopes we may organically gather momentum!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, for your kind offer. However, I moved away from working on Ethiopian topics several years ago, so if I were to return to writing & improving articles, it would take me close to 6 months to ramp up again. I mentioned Ethiopia as an example, not as what I'm working on right now. Although I did get a pleasantly surprised response not too long ago when I encountered two different women from Ethiopia, & proved to each that, yes, I had heard of the town they came from.

Think of the issue with sourcing this way: imagine a Wikipedian living in Kansas who wants to write articles on women artists of the 19th century. Said Wikipedia struggles with what resources they can find online (which is always hit-or-miss; as Indy beetle suggests, we need to create a shared collection of online resources so one Wikipedian isn't searching for resources another is familiar with), at the local public library (which may be out of date -- depressingly likely, if you know the situation with public services in that state), & from what books they can buy (I've found Amazon does not always have a given book, & if they do it may have a price tag well over $100). Then this Wikipedian discovers that there is a rich collection of the materials needed -- at a research library in Massachusetts. Or, even more frustrating but just as likely, in France. The Foundation currently offers no easy way for our imaginary Kansas Wikipedian to access that hypothetical collection. As I write this, it occurs to me that one important task the GLAM people could take on is to hold a series of workshops for Wikipedians explaining how to approach these research libraries & institutions & convince them to provide access. (Fun fact: in order to be able to use the collection at the British Library, one needs a letter of introduction from someone like a professor or a minister. I wonder how many Wikipedians would even be aware that many research libraries have requirements like that. And how many, when they learn of these requirements, might be discouraged because they don't know someone who would vouch for them.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I hear ya. Even this close to DC there are a lot of things I can't get easily in libraries. (On Ethiopia: I take your point. For myself, all I can say is that the hot dog vendor in front of my old office was Oromo, and I think I blew her away when I asked her to teach me "thank you" in Oromo. It remains one of two words I know in the language. :-) )

• Ah the decade-old story of bias: A 2013 study estimated that women only accounted for 16.1 percent of Wikipedia’s total editor base. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales believes that number has not changed much since then, despite several organized efforts. So despite energy being put into fixing this, not much is there to show up. And everybody is still pointing fingers. I wonder how much more featured content could have been gotten instead of naively throwing so much at this problem and hoping something sticks. The guilt expressed above by so many editors shows how much a disservice this whole shaming process has been for the entire Wikipedia project. Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you so much for this commentary Indy beetle.

In addition to appealing to editors' geographic backgrounds (as a way to attract not only interest but additionally, I would add, expertise), I would like to appeal to the segment of the editoriat that sometimes says all the truly "encyclopedic" topics already have entries and all that's left is to improve them. The enormity of the geographic content gap offers a vertiginous number of opportunities for indisputably encyclopedic new entries. For instance, in trying to read about the recent events in Nicaragua, I was stunned to find how many of the country's basic government agencies and major, long-standing civic groups have no English Wikipedia entry. Not a poor entry: no entry. I am now the creator of a very wanting stub on Nicaragua's social security agency (please, please help me!); the United States' Social Security Administration has had a page since 2003. Even if one is strictly anglophone, many if not most public libraries and certainly every university library will have at least a couple English-language books called Modern History of [Country/Region Underdescribed on English Wikipedia] (pre-modern, I'll have to leave to someone else's expertise). Just getting a basic sketch of the significant bodies of governance in the world's 195 countries would be a huge improvement to the encyclopedia. Beginning entries, even if stubs, on clearly notable topics also allows subject-matter experts who may not be experienced Wikipedia contributors to come along and add details much more easily than if they had to learn how to create a new entry themselves. There is so much here for Wikipedians of a broad array of motivations for participation, language backgrounds and reference access to contribute. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Excellent article!

One likely cause of the low participation in editing by women and people from underrepresented parts of the world is that the Wikipedia subculture -- especially the conduct of some experienced editors -- can be intimidating. Not everyone is deterred -- some people have thick skins and enjoy the lively debates on talk pages (I do), even when some of the comments are condescending and arrogant. Most women I know would not enjoy this. They might decide, "Look, I often enough have to deal with jerk behavior by men in my daily life, I don't need to add to it." Or someone from Africa, Asia, or Latin America might decide, "Dealing with arrogant Americans who are ignorant of my part of the world is a stressful challenge, and I don't need more of that in my life." More generally, Wikipedia has a high attrition rate -- new editors who drop out, whose accounts becomes inactive. I should say that in my own experience, some veteran editors have been extremely helpful and supportive. But others, not so much -- they immediately revert an edit or dismiss without response some concern I expressed on a talk page, citing an alphabet-soup of WP acronyms which, if you go to those articles, seem to have little relevance. Shortly after I started editing, an administrator falsely informed me (citing WP:MEDRS) that I should not use sources that are more than 10 years old. When an editor does something like that and you go to his (my guess is that it's usually "his," not "her") user page, you find it festooned with barnstars and ribbons like a general's chest. In most cases that's probably not intended to intimidate the newcomer, but that's what it does.

There might be some simple measures that Wikipedia could take -- in addition to the numerous policies, guidelines, and admonitions to editors not to behave badly that already exist -- to reduce the attrition among newcomers and especially among women, underrepresented minorities, and people from underrepresented geographical regions. For example, whenever an experienced editor (more than 1000 edits) is responding to a newcomer (fewer than 100 edits) a template could come up reminding the experienced editor of the key points of such policies as WP:BITE and WP:BRD-NOT. It might also be possible to tag a new article about a person (or institution, place, etc.) from Asia/Africa/Latin America or about a woman (or women's group, women's rights campaign, etc.) and impose certain restrictions (similar to discretionary sanctions or to the restrictions on BLP-editing). Another possibility would be to empower newcomers to give opinions on the helpfulness or unhelpfulness of individual experienced editors (in the first week after opening my account I didn't even realize how easy it is to thank someone for their edit). This would require special effort, since most newcomers don't feel very empowered.NightHeron (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Let me offer a suggestion for regular contributors who (though they may be from Western nations) are interested in expansion of articles about the developing world. Go to your public library and seek out one non-fiction book, one documentary, and one album from a certain part of the world (let's say Africa, which of course has a vast array of places, people, subjects, and so on about which to study and write). Pick a deadline for yourself (let's say Dec. 31, 2018) and commit to watching the documentary, listening to the album, and reading the book. Then, with book in hand, go to the WP articles covered in the book, and see if there are enhancements to content, citations, linking, etc. that you can make based on your reading. Do the same with the material from your documentary, and review the pages for the musicians and/or genre from your album. This will of course not solve all of our problems of gaps in content, but it is a doable set of tasks that will take WP a few steps closer to good coverage on subject matter related to the developing world. Please let me know your thoughts. KConWiki (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Some good ideas from KConWiki and others. Encouraging to hear that online sources for Africa are improving. Some years back I was working on Swaziland and got discouraged by the lack of information from reliable sources. Language and unfamiliar names of people and places don't help either. ––Derek Andrews (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• I really appreciate this article, since I think it is important for the Wikipedia community to begin developing greater awareness of the scope and depth of systemic bias. "Systemic bias" is not just coded language for "gender gap" or other demographic disparities, even though such instances are what most seem to discuss; systemic bias is an artifact of how social systems, structures, and orders prefer and privilege. However, that preferencing and privileging does not simply describe those systems, structures, and orders; it defines, conditions, and supports them as well.
  For example, this systemic bias in geographic coverage is not simply about how individual editors prefer and privilege certain coverage based on their interests, but also about how those actions and interests socially determine what qualifies as legitimate and worthwhile to cover and, consequently, what is given priority. This in turn strengthens the hegemony of the perspectives which inform those actions and interests and—thus—of the systems, structures, and orders they support. The latter proceed to condition a new generation of individual editors to repeat the process, which sustains the bias.
  Systemic bias extends beyond gender and geography, though, and inevitably affects all domains. Moreover, this bias is not just total in scope, but also total in depth: the very politics and philosophy upon which Wikipedia is based, and those of its every participant, informs this bias and has since the project was first jimmied out of its shell. This can be seen in the coverage within politics and philosophy in particular, but also in Wikipedia content more generally, where mainstream views are mainstreamed and heterodox views are marginalized. In fact, it is from those perspectives that we developed the very foundations upon which rests neutrality, notability, noteworthiness, reliability, and so many of the other principles that constitute the pillars of this project. From this perspective, what we consider fringe has less to do with its relationship to the mainstream and more with our relationship to both. This is not a favoring of the fringe, nor a vindication of some vanguard, but it is a recognition of the inevitable biases that inform our every action and interest and their relations to the systemic biases that pervade the Wikipedia project.
  With that said, to talk about how to "address" or "alleviate" the "problem of systemic bias" seems to assume that it is a problem whose solution is defined by its absence and not its difference, as if we could free our subjectivity from its subjectivity and bring objectivism to our objectives. It is from that assumption that I believe the notion of "sacrificing principle for expediency" here even makes sense. If our principles are themselves biased, and necessarily so, then what exactly are we sacrificing when we encourage editors interested in that which our biases have marginalized to contribute in ways that are biased in favor of covering that which is marginalized? The principles themselves or the present biases therein? If the latter, then is that a sacrifice at all? Or is it just a difference of opinion? And if it is the former, then on what basis should a system with such basic flaws not be replaced? If we indeed must sacrifice principle for expediency, and that which we are expediting is believed to be the greater good that furthers the goals our principles are intended to serve, then it sounds to me that the problem is with the principles themselves and, thus, the system itself. Such a conclusion is perhaps a more damning indictment of Wikipedia's failure, and in a much more profound sense, than even the denial of its neutrality and the project's capacity to achieve it.
  Thanks for the article, Indy beetle. I agree with the sentiments you expressed in it and value your efforts at combatting some of the systemic biases found in this project. One of the most important steps in the pursuit of neutrality, even as a useful fiction, is cognizance of not just one's own biases but also those of the systems in which one operates. Whether that pursuit logically concludes in its annihilation, however, is beyond the scope and depth of this biased account. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion report: The future of portals (1,573 bytes · 💬)

• Is this "Signpost poll" thing new? I don't recall seeing it around before. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The poll script has been around for a long time. Just not used very often. A very effective tool (sometimes) in electronic newspapers and blogs for basically measuring reader opinion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• The poll does seem misplaced here. What weight could anyone put on its yes/no figures, especially as the RfC: Ending the system of portals remains open and providing more nuanced opinions? AllyD (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• The poll was just a thing to get readers more engaged. Someone mentioned it when the article was being edited, so I put it in. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• For everyone's information, some generous souls have compiled a very thourough and informative write-up of the discussion. Zarasophos (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

From the editors: The Signpost's presses are rolling again... (2,538 bytes · 💬)

• Thank you all who are volunteering to help out The Signpost, always enjoy reading it on my talk page. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• A great edition - hopefully it will pick up some more volunteers with interesting things to say. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks I enjoy reading. – Craig Davison (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I wish I had time to edit copy, such as the "issue issue" headline for this piece. Perhaps when I retire.~TPW 02:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your service guys! Signpost is very important even in far places like Brazil! José Luiz ^talk 02:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all for the excellent issue.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am thrilled to see the Signpost up and running again, and I apologize to Kudpung for failing to respond to your email. I am too busy in real life at the moment to take on any kind of role with the publication or the encyclopedia, for that matter, but I am happy to provide any insight I can from my tenure working on the editorial team of the Signpost if there's anything helpful I can offer. Go Phightins! 22:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Great to see the Signpost up and running again! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thank You for keeping it alive.-Nizil (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you Lee∴V 18:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints (555 bytes · 💬)

• Call me visual-oriented, but the gallery is one of my favorite works of The Signpost. Great pics! Please keep 'em coming!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Humour: Essays may not be policies but at least you get to whine about things (4,645 bytes · 💬)

• What? No mention about my WP:1AM essay? I thought I made it clear that it's all about me. I think I need to write an essay about the unfairness of it all... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and add it to the above list. I like your essay. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to edit my description (and be sure to follow the ^{[Citation Needed]} link... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Good for you. The Signpost Humour article is an article anyone can edit boldly. You made it better. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, WP:1AM is misleading, I'd expect it to be about editing pages at 1 in the morning (as a quote I found somewhere read "At three in the morning I looked at my clock and thought, "What on earth have I been doing for four hours?!" I looked at my screen. ' Plot summaries of Power Rangers episodes ' next to a tab named 'Japanese history textbook controversies'. Dang Wikipedia!"). But good to see someone finding some funny essays - the only one that came to my mind was Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. igordebraga ≠ 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow - It was hard to stop laughing after I read this even though it was 2:54am. Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It also has the best redirect: Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.] --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Still laughing. Barbara ✐  ✉

And I was reading this page at 1:03am, wondering why the page name is time-synced with my computer. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

See Paranoia. Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• You'll have to forgive my tardiness; I've been mostly off-Wiki recently providing palliative care for an old friend, and haven't really recovered yet. Thanks for including my hierarchy of editor subservience, Barbara, and for the kind words. I also started writing an essay not so long ago in order to vent some of my internal pressure, which other editors have since added to: Wikipedia:Butterfly effect. If you or anyone else would like to help expand it, please do. I could do with a good chuckle. Regards, nagualdesign 00:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration is a beautiful thing. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS): Thank you for providing this public service. WP:SOLUTIONS is a lifesaver on AfC patrol.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In focus: Admin reports board under criticism (16,516 bytes · 💬)

So, first off. Does the Signpost undergo any proofreading? I suppose I'll do it myself, but this whole thing is full of inappropriate capitalization. As an example: "The improvement to AN/I advocated by most Editors was the introduction of Moderators to keep discussions relevant to the discussed issue. These Moderators would not have to be Admins, as they would not be responsible for the final verdicts; instead, they would keep order so that Admins could proceed with their investigations. " "Moderators", "admins", and "editors" should not be capitalized, and that's five wrong in less than a paragraph. That aside, if we introduced "moderators" in addition to "admins", people would just bitch about both of them. By the time a matter comes to ANI, it's usually at a point where you already will be making someone mad no matter what you do (or even if you do nothing at all). So it's not surprising that tough issues leave someone pissed off. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, and now I've also looked at the huge image with the scary red outlines over "attacks and accusations". And there's nothing to it. Even a comment consisting of nothing more than "Please elaborate" is marked in red, which means "Accusations/attacks". There is absolutely no way a request for someone to elaborate on what they said can be construed by any reasonable person as an accusation or an attack. There are many similar comments highlighted as "accusations/attacks" that are not in the slightest anything like them. On the other hand, an accusation of "long-term edit warring" is highlighted in green, despite that being a clear accusation of wrongdoing. So whoever did that analysis didn't do it very well. Also, rather than or in addition to an image with usernames redacted, there should be a link to the archive of the discussion itself. It's not like we hide this stuff from public view and so there's a need to use screenshots instead of the real thing. Every last word gets archived. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't be too hard on the editorial team. You're lucky there was another issue of the Signpost. The March issue was almost certainly going to be the last one. This article was the only one I didn't copy edit myself. Our ad hoc efforts to get this thing out was like passengers being asked if they can fly a plane because the pilots have had heart attacks - neither of the users who worked to get it it published had any prior experience with it. I saw those capitalisations but I honestly thought the author would have addressed anything as blatant as that themselves. We don't mind you volunteering to do 30 hours of copyediting for the next issue - we can then be sure that it is perfect. We need all the help we can get. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your constructive feedback. The capitalized titles were, in fact, part of a new Manual of Style; however, they don't seem to be taking on. As for the screenshot of the AN/I thread, this was done to prevent anyone from stumbling in there from here, maybe leaving another unconstructive comment adding nothing to the discussion. If you want better copy-editing, Be Bold! We can use every helping hand. Zarasophos (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, I didn't know you were in that type of a situation. I would hate to see the Signpost go away, and if you'll let me know what I can do, I would certainly be happy to help, whether that's copyediting or anything else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I did the copyediting and decided to leave the caps as-is. It turns away contributors if the c/e is overly prescriptive. In my judgement, building and revitalizing The Signpost outweighs what comes down to a trivial difference in style. I note that caps for positional/occupational titles is common in some communities. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• A bias that I see in the study is that it does not acknowledge Wikipedia's very strange moderation system. Since Wikipedia is almost entirely community based, until a few years ago there was hardly any reporting system for extreme violence, like death threats or suicide talk. Even more recently the most awful kinds of social problems which no other website would tolerate, including problems which are traumatic to even encounter as a third party like sexual abuse, were issues that fell to random community volunteers because of a Wikimedia Foundation practice that there would never be paid staff intervention in any Wikimedia community occurrence. The Wikimedia community still has not established any lasting norms and I think that everything is in transition, and mostly crazy. I do not look at the current state of things and imagine that anyone is lacking for ideas on reforming it if the funding were available and if it were socially appropriate to use the funding to address the madness.

The Administrator noticeboard exists to settle conflicts related to Wikipedia editing. I do not think that there is anyone on the Administrator board that ever wants to address harassment, stalking, violence, sex danger, criminal derangement, or people who are incapable of socializing. If anyone wants to fix the Admin board, it is possible to divide the pool of issues into "what any sane person would say that crowdsourced volunteers should manage" versus "what any sane person would say requires special training to manage, and probably paid staff". We are at an impasse because the Wikimedia Foundation will not hire paid staff to address social misconduct on Wikimedia projects, nor is there any Wikimedia community organization which has ever requested Wikimedia community funding to address harassment directly. I see no fault in the WMF because there is consensus that the WMF not have paid staff engage too much with the Wikimedia community.

I really feel sorry for the admin board and the personal risk that administrators assume in making themselves available. The WP:AfD process is intense, but community evaluation process demonstrates that the community expects that admins resolve wiki conflicts, and not that they need to perform exorcisms. I think the research shared here has diminished value for not acknowledging a community insight that we already had: the admin board is a last resort and being used as a catch all because there is no place to kick other problems. This research project begins with the presumption that all problems have to go to the admin board, when actually, the Wikipedia community has always behaved as if the admin board is the place for problems with a wiki nature and that the Wikimedia community's funding pool, either through the WMF or otherwise, will be the part of the process for generating ethical judgements of suspected deviancy beyond the context of the software interface. There should be another place, not the admin board, where the problems which would emotionally damage a normal person to hear should go. I think that the criticism that this research surfaces is too much confused over issues which the admin board does not even want to address. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO one of the problems with ANI is that it's been allowed to become run by the comments of too many uninvolved and/or inexperienced users and wannabe admins (what we casually refer to as the peanut gallery). Due to our open access nature, many people think it's cool to be a 'forum moderator'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Those "peanut gallery" editors cannot run AN/I because they cannot decide & block. Kudpung, good to read how you think about those non-admins. Then, when you handle a case, the reporter and the accused editors (involved by definition) suddenly have become experienced in AN/I business and you do take them serious? How can you ever make a decision when you are this biased re non-admins? - DePiep (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, your comments are really insightful and have made me re-think what ANI is all about. It's still swirling around in my brain but I think your idea that the admins aren't to blame for not engaging in discussions that are harmful to them is something I'd never considered. It's always been a kind of "what jerks they are for not dealing with this stuff" Zeitgeist. Ideas like this are hard for the community to swallow, though: that the community has limits on its ability to self-regulate or self-resource and may need help from outside. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bri: We already send certain legal complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team. Lately the Wikimedia Foundation Support and Safety team has started taking serious violent threats. These are the precedents we have for sending some issues to paid external support services. There are some Wikimedia chapters who use their paid staff to resolve some social problems, like addressing people in conflict at events in the role of security officers. The most stressful issues at the admin board are intense harassment happening in the wiki space but unrelated to wiki, and which include suggestion of violence, suggestion of sex negativity, and suggestion of personal threat. Wiki volunteers are happy to moderate wiki disputes but when something is creepy, but not creepy enough to trigger a Wikimedia Foundation response, then there is a service failure. On the creepy danger scale, the ANI board can take anything that ranks 1-2 (2 is slightly concerning) and the WMF will take anything that ranks 8-10 (8 being evidence of threat). 3 is "somewhat concerning" and 7 is "really scary but ambiguous". Volunteers do not come to Wikipedia because they want to deal with problems ranking 3+ on this scale, and yet these kinds of problems fall to ANI and ArbCOM. Way too often, administrators and arbitrators who have elite skills to resolve wiki issues get their time and emotional labor wasted on legal, violent, and harassment issues which require a non-wiki skill set to address. I would not prohibit willing wiki volunteers from taking these issues sometimes, but considering that the role specification for admins and arbs is wiki expertise and not social work, it is not a natural fit to expect expertise with domestic violence, mental health, online stalking, and social deviancy from the people who get appointed based on wiki proficiency. I think that there should be trained staff on these issues. Organizations which have volunteers or staff who regularly expose themselves to trauma need to offer their agents regular access to counseling to debrief and process and get regular reality checks on their personal safety, because by responding they actually get involved in the dangerous situation.

Another big problem with all of this is the lack of visibility. The WMF just went through an entire research project in this and I would say that they have a conflict of interest in this research. It is unfortunate, but historically the WMF has been structured in a way that if they acknowledge that harassment exists then for whatever reason the organization interprets that as a failing of their operations. Of course this is not true and there is no shame in admitting that one is the victim of harassment, because the victim is not to blame. While any and all individuals in the WMF acknowledge problems, collectively the organization has an aversion to identifying them. A premise in this study is that the reports which go to ANI are supposed to go to ANI. This has never been the case - ANI is not a police force and lots of things happen on wiki / online which, if they happened on the street, would result in bystanders calling the police. When an issue is 4+ on the scale of 1-10 for danger, a person would call the police if they witnessed that social transgression in-person in an urban crowd. The on-wiki tolerance for social transgression goes far beyond what is tolerable in person and this is not natural.

I advocate for either Wikimedia chapters who hire special staff or non-wiki nonprofit organizations with expertise in social work to handle these issues. I expect that these issues number in the 1000s/year on wiki globally. If we actually had a reporting system rather than pushing them inappropriately to ANI I think that many would be easier to identify and sort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• After reading the report twice, I still felt missing something. It is this: questions like "Are you an admin?" and "Did you close any AN/I report last year?". Most survey results are more understandable and logical when assuming (ouch) that most respondants are AN/I-active admins. For example this could clarify why so many respondants want to forbid non-admins to engage, and why so little self-criticism is visible (more below). Also missing is the angle "What do you think about the quality of closures?" (e.g., i.e., does the closure reflect the discussion?). My experience is that admins have an enormous leeway in making individual (personal) decisions, covered from criticism by the no-wheelbarring rule and the ~complete absence of any way to appeal. Then 53% is "fearing [a report] would not be handled appropriately", but 'not .. appropriately' is not fleshed out any further.

Telling, the call is for "More guidelines" (Harvard says this too), but no hint is made for more reasonable guidelines. Introducing unfair or unbalanced guidelines will not improve the "community health", it will only let careless admins off the hook (an indicator is the many boomerang references). Survey outcome does not point to this in any way. (And one guideline less could be implemented today: "Personal attacks are allowed at AN/I").

All in all I get the sense that unevenly more respondants are admins, and crucial questions are missing, hence the survey is evading the issue of admin conduct at AN/I. - DePiep (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Bluerasberry:, @Bri:, @DePiep:, @Kudpung:, thank you all for reading the AN/I report and leaving really insightful comments. The AN/I research is part of a larger project by the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (CHI) to identify problems with reporting and managing harassment cases and then work with the wikimedia communities to come up with solutions. Right now, we (WMF Anti-Harassment tools team and Support and Safety team) are opening up discussions on English Wikipedia and Meta to talk about the results of these studies, hear other thoughts and ideas exactly like the ones that you all have expressed here. I would like to copy this thread over to the place where we are opening the discussion about improving harassment reporting systems and workflows so that others interested in the topic can see your thoughts. On the other page, I'll respond with my thoughts on substances of your comments and how it fits in with some the CHI's tentative work projects for the next calendar year that begins in July. SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In the media: Internet companies use Wikipedia to police truth; Citogenesis proven yet again; early birthday greetings; and trains (5,192 bytes · 💬)

• This post-publication piece may interest readers 200,000 volunteers have become the fact checkers of the internet. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Let's not give ourselves too much slobbery self-congratulation. FAC is a dysfunctional mess that merely appears to function because it passes non-controversial articles, usually on tiny subjects like a road, a town, a coin, a defunct magazine, or a species of bird or fern. It is not even vaguely competent enough to evaluate meaningful articles like Bengal famine of 1943, which is the locus of a large amount of disinformation. The FAC reviewer did not even bother to read the FAC. If FAC has no validity, then neither does Wikipedia as a whole.Axylus.arisbe (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely no incentivization for reviewers at any featured-review process to give any meaningful feedback. Any feedback beyond "fix grammar" is completely ignored by the nominator and other reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Isn't one of the Internet's main problem that many individual contributors remain anonymous? Even on Wikipedia, users normally employ aliases, although they are encouraged to validate an associated e-mail address they own (which itself may be an alias). Perhaps Wikipedia should take the lead by verifying the true identity of users, using a type of authority control on user pages to enhance the unique ID that already exists for each user. This could be linked to other standard information such as the user's passport number or photograph. Clearly users would have to opt in to the system: I'm not suggesting (yet!) that anonymous contributions be prohibited. However, users who did take part could then be awarded an enhanced status. Incidentally, I note that currently there is not even any system in place to prevent users having multiple log-in credentials on Wikipedia, although I accept that there may be valid reasons for allowing this. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's one of the theories, a more nuanced one is that when people build up a reputation in a particular community they care about that reputation - whether their identity in that community is pseudonymous or the same as the real world. We cover a lot of businesses and we have a lot of articles on controversial people, pseudonymity is our best defence for our editors on such subjects. If we agree to the Public Relations industry's request that we insist on real name editing we say goodbye to neutral point of view on large swathes of the Wikipedia and hand them to the spammers, PR flaks and anyone who wants to employ lawyers to enforce their version of events. As for abusive sockpuppetry, we don't just have systems in place to detect it, we have a long long history of sockpuppets detected and banned. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • 1) “We cover a lot of businesses and we have a lot of articles on controversial people” True. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and one of its tenets is that every statement is backed up by a verifiable external source, preferably a secondary or tertiary source. If I, as a named individual contributor, quote a source that said something controversial but do so in a neutral tone, pointing out that there are other views (and referencing those also), what would be the problem? I don’t see the need to be anonymous.
    • 2) “[if] we insist on real name editing we say goodbye to neutral point of view.” Why? Neutrality just means presenting the evidence without adding personal bias: a contributor can do that whether anonymous or not.
    • 3) “And hand them to the spammers, PR flaks and anyone who wants to employ lawyers to enforce their version of events.” In my (idealistic, I agree) world, there would be no spam because everyone could see who the contributor was and could detect if that contributor tried to express the same view over and over again. Wikipedia can already deal with most edit wars and it would be even easier to do so if each contributor could only make contributions from one account. I don’t think that “lawyers and PR flaks” would be in a stronger position than anyone else to enforce a specific version of events, since the references would be there in the article for all to see.
    • Can you give me some specific examples that would support your view? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias. (958 bytes · 💬)

For some reason the top photo reminds me of the lyrics to "Come together" [link not allowed] Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• You might clarify the gender gap stats relate to biography articles, not editors, which was my first thought. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 Also a citation on that? - geraki ^(talk) 12:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • geraki, the external link serves as a citation. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia (16,153 bytes · 💬)

• Huh. I am minded to agree that enWikipedia has some issues with its coverage of the Wehrmacht. Our articles often seem to emphasize military performance and deemphasize war crimes when compared to deWikipedia pages, with adulatory adjectives "outstanding performance" or the like being common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Are there armies, commanders, campaigns, weapons etc which ENWP describes in detail and unfavorably? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed. But it isn't easy. As K.e.coffman points out, you need to know more than just the history; you need an understanding of the historiography in order to avoid the pitfalls of various national myths and narratives. For anyone interested in this sort of thing, my recommendation is a book called Frogs, Snails and Feminist Tales (1989, 2003), in which the author examined children's books written by well-meaning feminist authors, but their messages hilariously fail when they encounter the entrenched gender notions of children. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman, having worked with you on Kurowski, and in view of my close association with the Bundeswehr in the early 70s, I turned my German WWII research towards a deeper interest in German WWII 'historical fiction'. I thought I would do a translation for en.Wiki for de:Bertold K. Jochimhttp another author for the Pabel pulp. As the German Wikipedia is not so concerned about references as we are, searching for sources I came across this October 1959 issue of Der Spiegel , a much earlier source than the ones being used in our en.Wiki articles, and even more critical of the hero-drivel. Worth reading. I didn't know that Der Landser sold up to 3mio copies of each issue. That was a sizable percentage of the post war population. I shared offices for years with supposedly denazified Wehrmacht NCOs and officers but I never saw one of those rags lying about. Perhaps they read them on the loo in the lunch break. OMG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: yes, thank you for your translations of Kurowski and Clean Wehrmacht. I found it surprising that an article on the myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht did not exist on en.Wiki in 2016, while - at the same time - Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was described as a "humanitarian". And I would find it odd for any general, whose job is to wage war, to be described as such, irrespective of whether they were Allied or German. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• For those who haven't heard of it, the "clean Waffen-SS" myth says that it was the Allgemeine SS which committed the atrocities and not the Waffen-SS (or presumably the SS-Totenkopfverbände or Sicherheitspolizei). But of course all the branches were involved in, well, everything. This myth came to wider public attention due to the Bitburg controversy in 1985. The "clean Wehrmacht" myth is similar; it says that the atrocities were committed by the SS, and not the Wehrmacht. In the article on Albert Kesselring, I purposefully highlighted one war crime each by the SS, Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe to avoid giving oxygen to the myth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• An ideal of even-handedness, especially considering the article reached FA status here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you! I wrote about my trials and tribulation in writing it here in this MILHIST 2011 Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think we all have a lot to learn from that honest and forthright account of the difficulties of presenting a historical account of terrible times. (I have fixed and expanded the link because I think it is important.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the Bugle' essay on the same topic. You wrote: Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use, presumably referring to primary sources as was clear from your follow-up: [1].

I responded with a request for a clarificationn and pointed to a MILHIST A-Class article, which, IMO, uses "poor" and "outdated" sources; see: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins. I would appreciate hearing from a professional military historian on whether you believe the article should retain its A-Class / GA status. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an opinion I give as a military historian, because it is not the subject area where I am the world expert. But our policy on Wikipedia is clear: reliable sources may be non-neutral. It's not enough to drive-by template the article based on your own opinion; you have to detail specific factual errors. On that basis, there is no issue with the German or English versions, and any passing editor is entitled to remove the template unless details are forthcoming on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I agree with your comment that "reliable sources may be non-neutral". This is discussed in WP:BIASED. It also mentions the bright line that needs to be passed for reliability first, i.e. "normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking".

With that in mind, I am curious as to how you made the determination that the source being used in the Wick article, Ringlstetter, Herbert (2005). Helmut Wick, An Illustrated Biography of the Luftwaffe Ace and Commander of Jagdgeschwader 2 During the Battle of Britain. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-2217-4., is a reliable source. Please help me understand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The publisher is a reputable publishing house, so that does not apply. If you find some factual errors, material can be removed under WP:FALSE, but you'll need a better source. More interesting is the German version, which is based on 1943 material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The RSN discussion being linked is about The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s. Schiffer may reputable for hobbyist topics, such as Transformer collecting, but not for WW2 biography, for which it was actually criticised (see linked article). The source itself - written by an amateur military writer and based on what appears to be Luftwaffe propaganda and a non-existing diary - is highly questionable. I've already linked to that material, but I'll do it again: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins. But well, okay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been through this before too. I say: "That source has been questioned". Admin says: "Questioned? By whom?" I say: "Would 'Wikipedians on the talk pages' be an acceptable answer?" and admin says: "No, it would not." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: are you saying that editors should not be evaluating sources, i.e. as described in WP:IRS? If we go by your logic, then your opinion that the Ringlstetter source is reliable carries no weight either, since you are just one of the (...Wikipedians on the talk pages...). For context, could you link to the discussion with SandyGeorgia? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The evaluation of sources under WP:IRS is rather different than what you're thinking of. Many Wikipedians would regard it as WP:OR to the criticise sources that a secondary source is based on. The publisher is reliable, and the challenge is just from a Wikipedian who has no sources to back their assertions up under WP:FALSE, so the source passes WP:IRS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I've linked to Schiffer Publishing which contains a reliably-sourced criticism of the publisher when it comes to WW2 biography. I'll repeat it here: "...Schiffer provides a platform for authors who present an uncritical and ahistorical portrayal of the German war effort during the Soviet-German war of 1941–1945." You've so far presented your opinion that the publisher is reliable, backed only by an unrelated discussion at RSN, about The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s.

In any case, re The evaluation of sources under WP:IRS is different (...) Many Wikipedians would regard it as WP:OR to the criticise sources that a secondary source is based on, I don't think that's quite right. Evaluation of sources is not WP:OR. I created a short essay on the topic: Wikipedia:When OR is OK. This was prompted by the discussions I had with a couple of editors, as discussed here: Evaluation of sources as OR?. The policy was modified accordingly: [2].

Also, could you link to the discussion with SandyGeorgia? They have pinged me on my Talk page about this. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• People interested in this Op-ed may like to know that there's a related Request for arbitration here, filed by K.e.coffman, which currently looks like it'll be accepted by the Arbitration committee. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC).

• Anyone considering expressing dissident opinions should think again. "most respected and experienced arbitrators" are ready for you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting piece - military history tends to be a bit of a closed garden, in which people are either interested, or not. But could not similar criticisms be made of most of our milhist coverage? Articles on say the Napoleonic Wars, Hundred Years War etc rarely dwell much on the mass rapes, pillage and extortion inflicted on the civilian populations of the "theatre". It's perhaps only become a major element of coverage since WW2, for obvious reasons. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, our articles on military history where they collide with social and political history ought to represent the other sub-disciplines as well. To assist this under "comprehensiveness" and "authoritative sourcing" type criteria I've started querying FA / MILHIST-A proposers regarding their observation of historiography, social history big three (class / gender / race), and whether "unpleasant" things are weightily treated. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• This issue also seems to occur in other forms of media. See here for example, where the co-founder of the studio says that members of the Wehrmacht were "doing their duty." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mr Ernie: Yes. Our article on the Clean Wehrmacht goes into it a bit, but in the West this myth is common because a rearmed West Germany was needed by the Western Allies during the Cold War, so they promoted the myth. The academic consensus is that it is indeed a myth, but popular histories are often either outdated or out of the mainstream consensus, which makes the problem difficult to deal with on a project like Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• In the Helmut Wick good article, we can read "Wick received orders in the late afternoon of 6 October to report to Reichsmarschall Göring in Berlin by 3 p.m. the following day. Due to bad weather, he chose to drive from Normandy to Berlin by car. Together with his wingman and friend, Rudolf Pflanz, Wick travelled all night and arrived at the Reich Air Ministry right on time to meet with Göring, Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Erhard Milch, Generaloberst (Colonel General) Ernst Udet, General der Flieger (General of the Flyers) Kurt Student and General der Flieger Karl Bodenschatz. After the meeting in Berlin, Wick and Göring drove to Berchtesgaden in the Reichsmarschall's personal train, where they arrived at 5 p.m. on 8 October for the official Oak Leaves presentation". The question is not if this § is sourced to "reliable sources" (RS) or to "shit resources" (SR). The very question is: what the fuck ? Successfully conducting a car over the distance from Los Angeles to El Paso, what an extraordinary achievement ! Pldx1 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hah. I don't mind an article about Nazi heroes to be stupid and boring. 16:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• To be fair to our efforts, it was here on Wikipedia that I first learned—and read in detail—of the clean Wehrmacht myth. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised (2,185 bytes · 💬)

• I repeatedly get surprised when there is a community consensus to revise some well-established policy which thousands of users have read and practiced for years. Often one person is the origin of change, but the especially thoughtful proposal from Renata3 is particularly striking as is the immediate and well organized community response to it. In a bold edit Renata burst out with new ideas and new ways of tapping the Wikipedia community consciousness to articulate what everyone wants. The talk page of the policy is amazing for the iterations and refinements. There is intense discussion for a month, a thorough general request for comments with some very insightful opposition and feedback, and an outpour of pointed deliberation by people with strong opinions and deep understanding. This policy governs Wikipedia's relationship to commercial organizations and is likely to be the directional guidance for investment of tens of millions of dollars in institutional investment in public relations management with regard to Wikipedia. Assuming that Wikipedia survives for 20 years, I imagine that certain individuals' careers will go one way and not another because of the reform path of this guideline. This guideline and its development could be a thesis for any number of research projects related to online community operations and their effects on the broader world. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, Bluerasberry, that's a very nice and thoughtful comment. Thank you. Renata (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is an excellent change. I especially like the aspect where the quality of sources needed to establish notability needs to be higher than that used to verify facts. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost (8,453 bytes · 💬)

• Speaking personally, I'd be glad to help with the arbitration report. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• There’s a few things I have to say after publishing my first article for the Signpost in this issue. First off, thanks to the other people who spent their free time writing, copyediting, content editing, publishing, or getting someone else to do any of the above.

Secondly: The Signpost is now a monthly publication. That’s a good thing; with publishing being the real bottleneck, it seems logical to make it only necessary once a month instead of once a week. The content isn’t going anywhere, which can hopefully be seen in this pretty rich issue. However, Wikipedia as a platform often moves a little faster – especially discussions dealing with topics that need to be resolved quickly. Other discussions, sometimes on extremely important and far-reaching topics, get far too big far too quickly for anyone to stay informed by themselves; but with a monthly publication, the Signpost can fulfil its duty as informant for exactly these discussions only partially, dependent on when they come up and how long they last.

Therefore, I’d like to propose that Discussion Reports should include rolling coverage of Discussions deemed noteworthy and big enough. This could be organized either by initial publication of a Signpost article, which gets expanded as the Discussion continues, or by a Signpost writer posting a thread in the relevant discussion itself, which can be updated and later included in the next issue. This rolling coverage could include polls, short Op-Eds in favour / against a proposal, or even a moderated discussion. There’s obviously also Social Media.

The next issue is the direction of the Signpost itself. The problem, I think, is what Kudpung described so eloquently in the comments of last issue’s Editorial; “Trying to find out what was wrong, I stumbled through its offices and felt as if I were wandering nostalgically through a disused factory, hearing in my mind's eye the bustle of activity and the noise of machinery of yesteryear“. The Signpost page space is well developed and written ((kudos to Evad37) – but it’s just way too much, both for the current skeleton crew to handle and to introduce any newbie to. For example, I only found out after writing my article and asking myself several style-related questions that there is, in fact, an extremely long page on style – but that page actually deals with Wiki formatting instead of being an actual Manual of Style. There’s also the extremely confusing transclusions, about half a dozen spaces to actually discuss an article draft or the next issue itself, a table of editors and contributors where half the positions are still not filled… the list goes on.

I’d therefore like to do a full review of the Signpost page space and make article writing, editing, discussion and publishing possible with as few clicks as possible without losing anything. I’d also like to include a full Manual of Style (No abbreviations in titles, capitalizations in titles, how to spell Wiki terms etc.), while keeping the current page as Formatting. A review of the duties and roles of the Signpost would probably also make clearer what role new people could actually take on. In my eyes, this – keeping the Signpost rolling, and getting some more wheels on – should be the main concern right now. While thoughts of 2.0 are cool’n’all, I don’t think they help too much, and maybe are even dangerous, as long as we can’t even guarantee regular publication.

While on the topic, I’d also like to talk about ideas that have been thrown around last month about making the Signpost more of a collection of normal articles, without any of the pesky publication, editing or other things; in other words, to make the Signpost more like the rest of Wikipedia. In my eyes, this goes contradictory to what the Signpost is, which is exactly not the rest of Wikipedia. It’s in the name; the paper (magazine?) consists of signed publications, reviewed by copy-editors, okayed by an editorial board. Journalistic quality cannot be guaranteed if we throw this out of the window. The current system with submissions by irregular contributors and suggestions for an (apparently?) existing regular team of writers coexisting in the page space, both being used, seems to contribute to this confusion; but especially currently, when we have something of a team together for the next issue, the Signpost should keep its identity while going into the future. Zarasophos (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost is naturally, a clever literary device to remind us to sign our posts, and the name should never be changed. I concur that it should be very different from the rest of Wikipedia mainspace; the 'pesky publication, editing or other things' are what set it apart and make it a newspaper. They are a necessary part of its production, but the mass (mess?) of tables and transclusions that goes on must be significantly rationalised and everything given a proper workflow overview so that not only the editorial team's work is somewhat better organised (especially when done by a skeleton crew trying to cover all functions), but also easier for non editorial users to submit their articles. Having stood in on this issue as temporary E-in-C, seeing all the work to be done, it beats me how it used to be produced to a weekly deadline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very intrigued by the idea of creating a "Signpost Show." In many ways, it sounds similar to what WP:WEEKLY did, when it was an active podcast. For anyone interested in pursuing this, it might be worth considering integrating the two approaches. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• One very basic thing that Signpost really needs to do is to get a watchlist notice up for a few days when there is a new issue. Now it will be monthly any possible opposition to this should be very muted, though I doubt there will be much anyway. There are other easy on-wiki places to announce a new issue too. I'm sure Signpost's problem have been as much about lack of readers as lack of writers, & more readers will generate more writers. Johnbod (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I Tried that, Johnbod. They did it for me for the March issue, but they insist it should be the subject of an RfC. Aren't we just getting perhaps tired of RfCs just now? One way would be to get 5 - 10 people to head over here and get a quick consensus for it in spite of the snark that was delivered last time. Lourdes might also still be in favour of it, and probably Zarasophos too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, done that. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I 100% support simplifying the publication model. We've painted ourselves into a corner with this complicated publication set-up. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed on that Kaldari, but precisely what we don't have are people that have the time (or energy) to rethink it all. It would be too much on top of their other Signpost tasks for the current skeleton team to go about it. For one thing, it needs an interactive editable spreadsheet to track the publication work - somehting that Wikipedia markup doesn't permit. Wikitables are a challenge at the best of times. Perhaps this is a hint for MediaWiki devs to take a look at tables. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide (1,959 bytes · 💬)

• Correction: Looking at Kudpung's special report on ACREQ, the quote attributed to Espresso Addict in the body was actually written by Insertcleverphrasehere, in response to a comment by Espresso Addict in the discussion thread. (Insertcleverphrasehere favored ACREQ; Espresso Addict opposed it.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for this - and to Espresso Addict, and to Insertcleverphrasehere who was one of the driving forces on the new effort to get ACTRIAL rolled out. It was a very long and complex RfC. I also got involved in the preparation of the Signpost which was a lot of work - more than some people do in the office in a week, and if I hadn't there probably wouldn't have been a new issue. We'll publish a correction in the next issue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. A chunk of text somehow got removed (ironically probably during formatting), I will publish a correction in the next issue for the benefit of anyone else who saw it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung, and to Compassionate727 for spotting the error. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just for anyone reading: this has now been implemented by the WMF, and is active on en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation (648 bytes · 💬)

When is the book-to-PDF coming? UserboxMaker35 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PediaPress are investigating and will hopefully be able to answer that question soon. We honestly don't know right now. This is plan B, after all – we had hoped to already have it working, but the solution we used for individual articles ended up not working for books. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History (5,356 bytes · 💬)

• Over at WP:Video Games, we're having a discussion about this interview, especially the repeated assertion that the MILHIST project and wikipedia overall is in decline. I pulled up assessment data (as I had it handy) for the last 12 years for WP:VG, and while 2017 wasn't our best year ever the trend overall doesn't match "in decline for the last few years". One of the conclusions we're tentatively reaching is that this feeling of malaise may be a result of all the low-hanging fruit being written, with what's left being on average more difficult to write/research; this problem would be more prominent at MILHIST than VG as VG gets new, exciting and easily-sourcable subject released every year, while MILHIST doesn't. WP:OMT, for example, seems to have stalled out a few years ago (at the start of the "decline") pretty much exactly when it would be expected to- when the battleship articles that people were most interested in writing got pushed to GA+, and all that was left was the ones that felt more like work. This doesn't mean that the "decline" isn't a problem- lack of low-hanging fruit makes it difficult to replace old editors with inexperienced editors that need something to work on as they build skill- but it does frame it as more of a natural life-cycle shift than a death knell for the project. --PresN 17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  There's no shortage of MILHIST writing assignments. The project is still struggling to get 15 per cent of the articles up to B class or better. Only 1,609 are FA and A class; another 16,994 are GA and B. A staggering 98,686 are C and start class. The manpower to tackle this problem no longer exists, so they will probably wind up being deleted. But what is "low hanging fruit"? An article for which sources exist to lift it to A class? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed - in most content areas the "low-hanging fruit" is no longer subjects with no article, but subjects with rather poor articles but high views. These can be tackled by inexperienced editors with the right attitude & access to good sources, and indeed are the best thing for them to them to work on. Unfortunately the idea has persisted for far too long that content addition is mainly about adding new articles. But C and start class won't and shouldn't be deleted, & many are not bad at all. But we already know that even those that are pretty terrible will just sit there neglected ad infinitum, as many have now done for over 10 years. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  I've been decrying "number of articles" as the unit of analysis for some time. Editor passion certainly runs along the lines where a desire to establish a narrative connects to needed content. At some point, the low-hanging fruit of commonly desired narratives have been fulfilled and what remains are the undesirable clean-up tasks requiring hard work. I have to believe that it was easier to host more editors when it was the wild west here and there were fewer rules and less stringent sourcing requirements for those editors with unspent passion sans discipline and education. I prefer to see Wikipedia's "decline" as a lack of the right sort of editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• We have side by side a tribune saying "this outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war" and a WikiProject report that says something like "business as usual". More cross-comments would be welcome ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: A little late, but I agree with Working on a series of articles in a particular topic area allows you to re-use the sources that you have assembled. wholeheartedly. This is why I focus on good topics; I can reuse the same sources across multiple articles. For the 2016 Guamanian Olympians, I slowly wrote the others articles while I worked on a specific one, giving it a good base for expansion when I got to it. Even now, working on articles like Michael Collins, I could cite or add content to Edwards Air Force Base, his father's article, Gemini 4, Buzz Aldrin, and I am sure many more as I work my way through the book, making it easier to promote all of those articles later. Kees08 (Talk) 07:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)