Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-01-09

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-01-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3 (1,283 bytes · 💬)

• Kudos to Anthony/AGK for taking the bull by the horns. I hope that his public discussion of the Muhammed Images case inspires emulation among other members of ArbCom. Here's hoping this case can be wrapped up efficiently and definitively — two adverbs not used in connection with ArbCom over the past year. I have hope. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is a little sad to see an Arb case (Betacommand 3) which arose from a request to review whether a proposed task fell under the terms of a previous ArbCom editing restriction, having such draconian suggested remedies as bans. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
  
  • Honestly, CBM's evidence looks pretty damning to me. Your "evidence" lacks diffs entirely. What were they supposed to do? --NYKevin @068, i.e. 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review (10,552 bytes · 💬)

• Maybe mention the announcement of Karanac's resignation?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• You're going to catch some flak for "respected and neutral editor". What's important is whether people are happy with him as a facilitator for this process at this time, not how great a guy he is. But I don't really want to change the wording to imply that he's temporary, because he's a really good choice IMO ... so I don't have a suggestion for rewording. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NB: Mike Christie; I also prefer a talk discussion to a formal vote. This is why I sought someone such as User:Moonriddengirl. Mike's long involved. Alarbus (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's broad agreement he open the RfC, anyway. Especially after TCO crashed and burned on his (sorry TCO).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that's how it's going to go... Seen this:

• I also know of some fine editors who have abandoned the FA process because of its perceived quirky and arbitrary nature. So, not voting for the sake of it, but voting for the sake of the perceived integrity of the project. —Malleus 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Alarbus (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I will admit Malleus's position, as expressed in that and other comments in that discussion, has evolved since 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  He may no longer hold it, but it's valid; the nut of it. Alarbus (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixin' needed

Ok, there are several problems in what's up so far.

1. The discussions at FAC did not start over, and are not mostly about directorship, succession, and leadership-- they started with the TCO and Ettrig position that only articles with high page views should be eligible to be Featured articles, and from there, the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign emerged.[1] [2] Unrelated issues are being conflated here.

2. Karanacs resigned in early December, but Raul held off accepting her resignation, possibly hoping that her situation might change, knowing that Ucucha and I could handle the workload. More conflating of unrelated events-- Karanacs resigned well before any of this, although TCO may have been a factor-- see the statement on her talk page.[3] Further, these are not Raul's words: "Raul received an email from her in December with an offer to resignation due to inactivity, but held it in the hope she would be able to return." He made a statement on FAC talk; to write this accurately, use it please.[4]

3. My resignation is also being conflated incorrectly with other issues (I made a statement, pls read it). I had intended to resign also in January, then had to stay on because of Karanacs' resignation, and then realized it would be unfair to the FA community for me to let the RFC run to endorse Raul's leadership, only to announce afterwards that I was resigning. So, I felt it responsible to resign now, but offered to stay on for 30 days so there won't be a workload crunch.

Now, those are diffable facts, yet the current version of this piece is leaving the impression that two delegates resigned because of a leadership crisis. Not the case, and the issues that are most affecting the FAC talk page are not about succession, but equally about the (proposed) notion that only high page view articles should be FAs and changes are needed to that effect. Two RFCs (one SNOW) this week have failed to endorse leadership concerns with Raul (not mentioned here?)-- a third is in planning stages. Please, let's get the facts right so that we don't create a biased and faulty impression of what's happening at FAC, which could then bias the pending RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll try to fix it now, but I ask you you come in after my edit, and check and further edit. Text that looks contentious is probably best omitted. Tony (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony1-- I don't believe I should be editing this any more than I believe the object of the "Wehwalt for FA director" campaign should, so I'll add comments here, or inlines, whichever you prefer. Deadline? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to commend The ed17 for the changes made from this draft version with the sun setting on Sandy - she is, after all, not dead and has stated plans to concentrate on medical articles and will still contribute to the FA project. Sandy notes several deficiencies in the current version and I'm sure it can be improved, but I do believe it is worth noting that it has already improved from a version that was much worse than the existing one. EdChem (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, yes, it was not the best write-up in the world. There was no intention to make her "seem dead"; it may be ENGVAR, but as far as I see it having the sun set on a career or something doesn't mean the person died. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Crisco, I didn't seek to offend you and I didn't mean to impute an intention to you. The death overtone was my genuine first impression when I saw the draft, which I accept may well be a reflection of my psychology and might be an impression that others did not form. I noticed that Tony1 liked the choice of imagery, so I know that views will vary. We all have bad days and can benefit from another editor working on our drafts at times, and I only sought to acknowledge The ed17's contribution in redrafting. EdChem (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• No hard feelings, I've seen worse responses to that draft. I'll try and steer clear of controversial topics for the next issue. As for Ed's copy... much better indeed (as I've said on his talk page). Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think this should have been a separate discussion report, but, meh. The talk page has been blocked off in the usual "cleaning the air" bullshit. ResMar 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh ffs, the US is NOT the default

Yet again, Wikipedia shows its US bias. If the FAC people are doing it, what hope is there for the project as a whole? Of the topics above, all those that are related to a particular area or region have that country/region named in the blurbs on this page, apart from the American ones. No need to say that Boeing is a US company, Bob Dylan is American or the Grammys are American awards, is there? Because we all know that, right? And if we don't we of course will assume it because the US is the default, won't we? The US is not the default setting in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wants to be taken seriosuly as an international project, it HAS to start adding US nationality or country information to its articles on US subjects.

Nationality given:

• Mathew Charles Lamb (Canadian)
• Typhoon Gay (1992) (Marshall Islands/Japan)
• Nicky Barr (New Zealand)
• Titchwell Marsh (Norfolk, England)
• German battleship Tirpitz
• HMS New Zealand (1911) (Britain and New Zealand)
• List of Afghanistan T20I cricketers
• List of monarchs of East Anglia (England)
• List of 1964 Winter Olympics medal winners (Austria)

Not given because, hey, it's not necessary because it's American

• Boeing 767 (nom)
• Blonde on Blonde
• Grammy Award for Best Country Collaboration with Vocals

That's 100% we have to give nationalities for non-US topics, and we 100% don't have to for US ones. This isn't the first time I've raised this problem on this page: apparently no-one thinks it's important enough to act on. Of course Americans won't see anything wrong with the status quo: the rest of the Anglophone world does though. 86.134.117.17 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's this hard and fast. Boeing is a transnational company. Grammy Awards are so well-known everywhere, it hardly seems necessary to clutter with (US). Tony (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm pretty sure that Dylan has a successful international career. I wouldn't go putting British for Elton John, to be sure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches (2,157 bytes · 💬)

I think we should remove the line about the spelling test. After criticising the flawed methodology of the paper it's discussing, the article actually says that the report comes to no firm conclusion. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Four hours without dissent - perhaps it wouldn't be the wrong side of bold if I just removed it. Will do. --Dweller (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiPekela.nl is another example of a wiki dedicated to a single town, Pekela in the Netherlands, though not a WMF project. It is not updated any longer because the person who did most work to maintain the site died (he was also a Dutch Wikipedian BTW). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of towns and cities which have wikis about them (sometimes more than one). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The Vatican and WP

There was a brief mention in the news of the Vatican updating some of its entries on Cardinals and putting in material copied from WP, which was subsequently replaced: is there anything more on this? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the current (13 January) issue of The Week. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo plans to black out wikipedia over sopa

• Just seconds ago I saw a talking head on CNN say that Jimbo plans to black out wikipedia (similar to what reddit did) in protest of SOPA. Dunno if the talking head got that quote right. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang (4,212 bytes · 💬)

At the risk of ruining a good story, there was no <blink> tag involved. It's a JavaScript fader that was used in the last hours of the campaign. See the source and preview here. It's also not the case that this was the first use of such a fader, in spite of geni's beliefs. It was first used in the 2010 campaign, for the same short period at the end of the campaign. [5] --Eloquence* 06:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Implementation method wasn't what was raising objections, implementation itself was. I think that the concerns raised are valid. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the false claim from the story. Please do not report jokes as facts. Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't removed that link to this discussion. After the bit about blink tags, individuals contributing to that thread raised some issues about the philosophy behind the fundraising which I believe more than a few Wikipedians would be sympathetic to, namely that it appears the annual fundraising is no longer simply about keeping the servers running & maintaining the Wikimedia software, but to fund other goals which may be a surprise to Wikipedians, & aren't mentioned in the fundraising advertisements. Maybe those additional goals are important enough to justify funding; I'm not going to opine about that. However, considering that the people who raised those concerns are long-term Wikipedians, & are usually supportive of the project, that suggests there is a lack of communication between the WMF staff & many Wikipedians. A lack of communication that may have a relationship to the editor recruitment/retention problem we all know about. -- llywrch (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sven. Of course I agree it's a valid concern. However, each of those decisions is a judgment call on the part of the fundraising team, and I think in the case of raising visibility a little bit at the year-end spike in giving is a reasonable one. Moreover, I don't think it's fair to construct or imply a narrative of "the WMF fundraiser is getting more aggressive every year", as the thread on the mailing list did. The 2011 fundraiser was in many ways materially less aggressive than the 2010 campaign (fewer fundraising days, banners disabled after donating, shorter banner period for logged in users, no use of the word "urgent" in the year-end appeal banner, fewer days where Jimmy stares at you as opposed to other messages).--Eloquence* 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also the following statement in the article isn't accurate: "Although the average donor contribution has remained steady". The average donor contribution was significantly less this year due to more contributions from outside the U.S. and Europe. See the averages tab at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe average by region remained steady? Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC).

Strange, I remember reading somewhere that the amounts stayed the same but the numbers have been ballooning... ResMar 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold (4,316 bytes · 💬)

• What happened to IPv6 deployment?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • AFAIK it didn't resurface after IPv6 day, but I'm not entirely sure. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

From the article:

"Although these are not necessarily indicative of more programming work, they do suggest that more developer hours were devoted to improving the software behind Wikimedia wikis this year than in 2010..."

Let me rephrase that for you:

"Although these are not necessarily indicative of more programming work, they are indicative of more programming work."

– Smyth\^talk 12:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was closer to:

"Although these are not necessarily indicative of more programming work, they are suggestive of it."

There was also originally a sense from the first clause that the figures cannot be used to make a value judgement with regard to 2011 vs 2010, but that didn't make the final cut. I shall adjust that now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• The staff–volunteer divide that was highlighted last year continued to be a source of tension in during 2011 Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify by example, I recall that the differences between staff-written code and user-written code was treated were raised several times in different contexts (mostly from the perspective of disgruntled volunteers); there were also questions over the whether staff had the authority to take decisions unilaterally and, if so, in what areas; and I'm sure a whole host of other things I can't quite put my finger on at the moment. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• "The Moodbar extension, deployed in July, was also a notable development in the field of new user integration; perhaps as a result of it and projects like it, the overall downward trend in the number of active editors on projects such as the English Wikipedia seemingly slowed during 2011." Giggle. Does anyone actually believe this? Ntsimp (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Projects like it seems more likely than specifically the MoodBar, but, even so, it doesn't take much to suggest that every little helps in these matters. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We have a mood bar - seriously? And that is supposed to help ... How? When psychology undergrads can't even register an account, perhaps we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
      
      • Oh the Dashboard... why is it called a mood bar? Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
        
        • The MoodBar is a producer of data for the Feedback Dashboard. The Dashboard is envisioned as being a larger and more comprehensive tool for interaction with new users. The MoodBar feedback is just the first producer of content for it. For example, there are thoughts to have feedback about the mobile beta site flow into the Feedback Dashboard, too. In the future, we could have general "help me" requests go there as well. "MoodBar" is not a user-facing term, by the way, but it accurately describes how the feature works.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)