Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-02-06

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-02-06. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure (2,445 bytes · 💬)

Orf with their heads!

• The Betacommand case as it stands is a sorry advertisement for internal governance. If the ban passes (as looks likely) the result will be:
  • Arbcom is asked for clarification of a previous injunction. Instead of clarifying, Arbcom declares the community sanctions (which they were not asked about) void, and bans the user.

Who, subsequent to that, is likely to ask ArbCom for clarification?

Rich Farmbrough, 17:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

I'd propose that Arbcom have a general tendency to interpret narrow requests as an invitation to make an attempt at solving the issue in question, in a spirit of "the community is asking us to take ownership of this". Whether the reluctance of the community to submit all matters appropriate to Arbcom intervention, the inadequacy of the petitions when we do, or overenthusiasm on the Committee's part is the proximate cause I couldn't say. Skomorokh 18:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly, Rich, if you're afraid of what ArbCom might do you shouldn't ask them to weigh in. Community sanctions are often just mob rule anyway, it's better that an official body be allowed to review any and all of all, regardless of the wording of any request. When you go to create a case it warns you that the actions of all editors involved (instead of just ones named by the initial complaining parties) will be examined, so it should not be a surprise that they will look deeper into issues in other ways as well. Complaining about a clarification that gets additional attention seems to be rather misplaced. Either we have an ArbCom or we don't. Eventually I suspect Wikipedia will need multiple levels of such committees, with a Supreme ArbCom at the top to review lower decisions. Community sanctions have always struck me as too chaotic for any serious organization to use. Voting someone off the island might be great for reality television, but it's not what grown ups do in real life. DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts (19,051 bytes · 💬)

• Fresh allegations of ArbCom impropriety have been tendered by users Raul654 and SandyGeorgia. Excuse me ???? Ah, business as usual in here, I see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Remember, the Signpost caters to Arbcom and Wikimedia. That's how it's always been. And if they run into a situation where they have to cover something negative about either, they make sure to subtly word it as not being as bad. This is all nothing new. Silverseren^C 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm well aware they cater to WMF, but in the past, they bashed ArbCom right along with the rest of us, so I'm not sure why you say they cater to them. Don't know when that changed, but have they no scruples? The editor of The Signpost can't be troubled, [1] but apparently asking questions is now synomous with "allegations of impropriety". If this were the first such instance of same with The Signpost, it wouldn't be so alarming. But it's a long pattern of same, since Ragesoss left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know when it changed, I just know it did. Though, now that you mention it, I do think it started right around that time. Silverseren^C 00:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Can you stop bickering about the newspaper so the rest of us can get back to reading our weekly post? Thank you. ResMar 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Did you really say newspaper? Oh, don't mind us; I, for one, wouldn't want to interfere with the high journalistic standards at The Signpost. God forbid a nincompoop like me-- who actually wrote those words to the arbs-- should point out that I wasn't alleging impropriety. And certainly not about Rlevse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well then tell me how poor old Surturz should have worded it to avoid your condensations. ResMar 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Condensations? Is there not an editor of The Signpost. Does this person care have any oversight, or care about accuracy at all? Haven't seen that since Ragesoss left, but then, that could also be an artefact of the increasing number of WMF employees and the desire to sing their tune instead of ... you know ... those people doing the actual editing of this "encyclopedia anyone can edit". "Poor old" bologna; if The Signpost has no editorial oversight and can't get anything right lately, they shouldn't be in business. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be (or think you are) the sole voice of reason in these leaden halls. I think HaeB and Sko have, in their turns, done a brilliant job buggering over this weekly lump of work. ResMar 03:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• ...although I am nervous about how people who work here seem to tend to be...absorbed into the Foundation. ResMar 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, this is a newspaper ain't it? One of them fancy digital ones. ResMar 03:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just think you guys should try to be true neutral in your writing and not insult any of the sides. Silverseren^C 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but "allegations of ArbCom impropriety" sounds so sexy! Isn't that what sells newspapers? Impropriety, indeed-- I wanted to know "what did they know, and when did they know it" (on the parts that didn't add up, largely because we were getting conflicting stories out of various authoritative parties-- which doesn't mean "impropriety"). My questions went beyond the issue of Rlevse, but apparently in The New and Improved Wikipedia, questions=allegations. We see it at ANI, at DYK discussions, and now in ... tada ... The Signpost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Author response Hi. This is my first (half-) article for Signpost. Thanks for the feedback. There was very little editorial manipulation of my original text as can be seen in this diff. So there is no "they", there is only "me". I stand by the article. I based the sentence

"Fresh allegations of ArbCom impropriety have been tendered by users Raul654 and SandyGeorgia."

on the following:

"Specifically, it's beginning to look like you all knew that Rlevse was the arb-leaker, and were trying to keep a lid on the damage he could do. Understandable, but FAC has been out here swinging in the breeze, with no help at all from the arbs."(SandyGeorgia)

and

"[...]is the arbitration committee aware of any other heretofore undisclosed facts regarding Rlevse's behavior that would materially affect a ban discussion involving him?" (Raul654)

In my opinion SG and R654 were pretty strongly asserting there and elsewhere that ArbCom had improperly concealed information. Funnily enough, though obviously I was aiming for NPOV text, I was worried that it was a bit too critical of ArbCom :-) --Surturz (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's all you can come up with? That in spite of lengthy discussion, you based the premise of this "report" on one sentence and one question out of the total discussion? So, you ignored the rest, and overlooked all context. Thank you: I rest my case.

For the record, I think most of the arbs do a fine job under severe circumstances. That someone may have goofed along the way here, or that not everything was out on the table and understood (probably still isn't) is not the same as "alleging impropriety", and if you wrote an article like that here, your entry would be reverted as original research. Why can't the folks writing here adhere to the same principles that the Project adheres to. Oh, I forgot ... some version of leadership here has made editorializing the new trend. They call it journalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, Sandy, you know I respect you, but reading through the discussion, the SP's summary here seems rather accurate. You may have meant the remarks differently, but they certainly came across as accusing Arbcom of complicity – the remarks above being the most strongly-worded. Also, just to ensure you don't think I'm non-neutral or doing this with a motive, note that I have no real reason to support Surturz here, especially seeing as we got into a bit of a tussle over his Adminwatch page awhile back. ;-) Last, Skomorokh's post here seems relevant. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If "seems accurate" is good enough to claim someone "alleges impropriety" (a serious charge), then I guess those are the standards in here. And I hope folks aren't writing Wikipedia articles by summarizing from sources with those standards-- particularly not BLPs! (If I had to choose, I'd tend towards Hanlon's razor as a more likely explanation for the crossup in communication that occurred there.) Why would I suspect motive? The ed17, surely you've followed me long enough to know that I don't repay folks with the same failure to AGF that is so often aimed at me. And finally, thanks for the link from the Signpost editor, which I already linked at the top of this page; it's clear Sk doesn't see a problem, but that's not the first time that has happened. Hence the problem; as we were saying, this seems a trend since Ragesoss left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on what you said there, it's certainly logical to conclude that you were accusing Arbcom of knowing something about Rlevse's return – even for one of your friends (me). If that isn't true, perhaps you should strike and rephrase? Also, I know that, but you can never be too careful on this site, as typing doesn't convey emotions well! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• From my position on the receiving end, it certainly felt like allegations of impropriety were made - to wit that Rlevse was the mailing list leaker, a previous sock (BarkingMoon) had been covered up by Arbcom or at their request, that Arbcom had been aware that the PumpkinSky account was Rlevse, that Arbcom supported the PumpkinSky account, and that Arbcom generally failed to investigate returning editors. What I don't understand is why Sandy thinks that saying "Sandy and Raul made allegations of impropriety" is somehow either insulting to Sandy and Raul, or supportive of Arbcom. I would have thought that the senior editors in the FAC process suggesting that there was something hinky would carry some weight, and would suggest that this was something the community ought to take an interest in.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, from where I'm sitting, that one piece of the conversation was taken without context for the whole, and it (the reporting) looked like more of the typical ArbCom bashing that began here after Ragesoss left (attempts to brand ArbCom). I don't think there was any impropriety, if that wasn't clear it's because I didn't make it clear, but I do think there was-- and remains-- much confusion, most likely due to too many accounts coming from different arbs. And if the writer of this report had read that whole page, s/he would have seen exactly that. One arb says one thing, confusion ensues, another says something else, more confusion, a third clarifies. Of course, I don't see any posts to that page from John Vandenberg answering the questions about what he knew about editors disrupting FAC, so again, impropriety is not the same as Hanlon's razor and confusion when questions aren't answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, your entire stance since the Rlevse/PumpkinSky story broke has been that there are hinky things going on behind your back that are being covered up and the truth is not coming out. It is OK to start from that position - with asking questions because you think there's something suspicious going on. Trying to make out that you were doing something else is plain silly. However, what you might like to see added is whether or not you were satisfied by the answers you were given, because if you were, and you now think that nothing suspicious was going on, then that should ould alter the tone of the report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Your statements above are just wrong, but if it makes you happy to allege that I allege impropriety-- fine, we'll go with it. The story is out, and like many things associated with The Signpost, the editor-in-charge stands by it, so I'm not about to go about fixing it for 'em. I do, however, want to remind you of something we've discussed before about the complaince officer tone you tend to adopt in communication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's also my perception from reading through all this. Ten minutes before raising the questions at the Arbitration Commitee Noticeboard, SandyGeorgia wrote on the Adminstrator's Noticeboard:

"ANd might we also mention that the arb descriptions (of contradictory technical evidence) beggars belief, since they knew of evidence of inappropriate editing with his wife's account, and they knew that Rlevse as a former arb knew how CU worked. We've been duped."

I'm not sure in what universe that assertion could not be reasonably summarised as "alleging impropriety". But what's the "serious charge" that Sandy takes objection to? Is it that she has been "charged" with alleging impropriety. Or that the Arbitration Commitee been "charged" with acting improperly? Either way, invoking Hanlon's razor is irrelevant. The impropriety of an act is not determined by its motivation. My three year old granddaughter commits glaring improprieties every day, but only rarely with malice. ;-). Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Raul654 also took issue with Wiki bureaucrat Matthew Bisanz, implying that he was part of the conspiracy.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy's memory is exceptional and her recall is extraordinary. Others may have much greater difficulty finding patterns and drawing inferences than Sandy. What is obvious to her need not have been obvious to even the most diligent members of ArbCom.

It is always a useful exercise to imagine a news account from each of the viewpoints of the main participants, and try to right the truth in a NPOV fashion. I should wish that the article would be fair and judged accurate by both Sandy and Elen.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I'm used to having to put up with what the journalist says :) I do think if Sandy is particularly worried by the phrasing, she should suggest an alternative. If she feels that for example "Serious questions about Arbcom conduct were asked by SandyGeorgia..." is les POV. I'm not sure I've understood her concern, so that exact text may be no more helpful, but in my experience it is always better to come with an alternative text, than to just object to the one that's on the table. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight I should have asked/informed Sandy before publication, sorry about that. I've done this with those mentioned in next issue's report (though that seems to have backfired on me a bit). I've read this thread several times and refrained from commenting until I was sure I've understood it correctly, but by my reading of Sandy's multiple invocations of Hanlon's razor she is saying "I was not accusing ArbCom of impropriety, I was accusing them of stupidity". Is there any other interpretation? --Surturz (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is. I'm much relieved to know that you will henceforth notify people before putting words into their mouths; I would have appreciated the courtesy (and no, I'm not going to go strike things when you went to print with the story as is.) No, not stupidity-- have you read through the entire page there? Do you realize that we got (can't remember, but probably ... ) three different versions? And the person who put out the first confusing version still hasn't clarified? The right hand wasn't talking to the left is how I prefer to think of it, not as impropriety-- and very likely because they're overworked or because they assigned specific people to specific tasks and not everyone could speak comprehensively to the entire issue. Read the whole discussion. The best I can get from Elen's continued literal insistence that I'm alleging impropriety is that she doesn't understand how many of the arbs I go waaaay back with and respect; the worse interpretation would be that she's baiting me or just plainly calling me a liar. I've specifically said I wasn't alleging impropriety I most certainly was frustrated at the conflicting stories. But I'm glad you learned something about NPOV writing in this, Surturz, because I have certainly chuckled at seeing notifications going out to people you are writing about this week, when I wasn't given that courtesy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hopefully this sort of news will appear more in the future. It's a much more realistic look at what editors are doing and considering important. Perhaps it serves as a bit of Social Column as well. Brad (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned (11,132 bytes · 💬)

• "... he cites the professionally-written Encyclopaedia Britannica as superior at least in respect of its "traditional excellence in scholarly nuance and quality of writing ...." Time for a WP/EB project: Review EB from page 1 to the end and make sure WP has an article on every subject covered by EB. While that wouldn't guarantee the same quality of writing, it would be something to build on. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • An effort on these lines has existed for about seven years, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles (formerly Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics). We have to be cautious about a formally systematic effort to do so, as the list of Britannica's articles is itself a copyrighted item. In any event we're years past playing catchup with Britannica, and a great deal more mileage is to be had comparing our coverage against non English-language and non-Western encyclopedias (and other reference works) to ameliorate the under-representation of subjects to do with particularly asia, africa, and south america. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • He's probably right about Wikipedia lacking, "long, complicated interpretations exploring subtly interacting historical causes in carefully contextualized analyses or beautifully flowing narratives." But how often is this needed for describing bus stations, Pokemon characters or football matches? Where Britannica remains ahead is in the consistency of their quality. Wikipedia has some brilliant material, plenty of decent quality articles, and truck loads of absolute rubbish. Will we ever approach the consistency of a commercial encyclopedia? Is it even possible with a "crowd-sourced" work? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• "That said, the crowdsourced encyclopaedia is for Cronon..." Could you avoid using this insulting word "crowdsourced"? This adjective implies that the subject it modifies is created by exploiting an agglomeration of strangers, to whom no responsibility or affiliation is acknowledged. Unless that is the official position of the WMF, that it has no interest in the well-being or interests in the contributors to its projects. -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I was surprised to read this comment and a consultation of the dictionary definitions at hand ([2], [3], [4]) confirms why – the word has no such negative connotations in its general use. The implication of exploitation seems idiosyncratic; only in your mind does the fire burn. Skomorokh 21:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid your dictionaries are in error on this point. (All reference works have errors in them, just as all software has bugs. This does not mean either is unreliable, but that the best anyone can do is to minimize mistakes in one's work as much as possible; some people are able to make notably fewer mistakes than others -- which is why they are considered experts. And why experts can be wrong.) My assertion of the pejorative connotation of "crowdsourcing" comes from this comment by Evan Prodromou at SXSW, as recorded by Angela Beasley a few years back. Unfortunately, Angela has taken down her blog, forcing me to rely on its mirror at archive.org, which may indicate an even larger problem a work. What was once a pejorative term for exploiting the good will of others has now come to be an accepted business practice: the offloading of work a company is being paid for upon online volunteers who will do it for negligible or no cost. The ideal of online communities has thus been overrun by the drive to maximize short-term profits over long-term benefits. No wonder it is getting difficult for non-profit or charitable groups to attract online volunteer help! -- llywrch (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• There's certainly interesting arguments to be made about the ethics of adopting a model whereby volunteers do the work previously done by paid professionals, and there are certainly cases where the word used to describe such models are irrevocably tinged with negative connotations – big society comes to mind – but I don't accept the charge that crowdsourcing is toxified.

• It's all well and good to assert that the dictionaries are wrong, but usually such assertions are successful only when supported by appeals to etymology or popular use. Neither "crowd" nor "source" are value-laden, at least to me, and the terms' rise to popularity on the basis of the Surowieckian notion of the positive uses of aggregation does not seem at all critical. I took a look at the Google News Archives results for "Wikipedia" and "crowdsourcing"/"crowdsourced" to see if the dictionaries were simply at odds with how the term has come to be used and found only innocuous employment (emphases mine) – "The term “crowdsourcing” – solving problems or completing tasks using an open call to a community – likely evokes Wikipedia and other benevolent ventures more so than it does corporate innovation. But crowdsourcing, or open innovation, is also beginning to be used by traditional organizations to solve problems and generate new ideas.", "Newt Gingrich's team appears to be working overtime to tweak the candidate's Wikipedia page to paint a more positive picture of his past—and the editors of the crowdsourced online encyclopedia have taken notice", "Indeed, the six-week-long experiment may push the scientific envelope, adding a public health coup to the many examples of successful crowdsourcing projects (for a list, see Wikipedia, the crowdsourced encyclopedia).", "From elections in Brazil to mapping power in Chile to a stand-in for Wikipedia in the United States, journalists throughout the Americas are using crowdsourcing to cover the news. The Americas Society/Council of the Americas (AS/COA) noted that crowdsourcing, or turning to a large group of citizens to perform a task that normally would be done by an individual, has "become a popular method for citizen participation" that allows "users to report crimes anonymously...due in part to violence against witnesses and journalists.""

• These are just the first few relevant stories from the past fortnight, but all of them seem either neutral or complimentary of crowdsourcing as a model. You're going to need to do better than one six year old speech to convince me that this is one of those rare cases where the dictionaries are all wrong and the truth has only been revealed to online newspaper article commenters... Skomorokh 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Prompted by llywrch's comment: "What is beyond the abilities of the amateur encyclopaedians, he confidently declared, are '[l]ong, complicated interpretations'"... Could you avoid the sardonic use of this word "confidently"? Earlier, you wrote "Cronon declared it to be a gateway to knowledge for millions"... are you saying Professor Cronon was less confident when he complimented our efforts at Wikipedia? :-) 67.101.5.216 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neither assumption is warranted, I am afraid, though I am flattered by the keen interest in the minutiae of phrasing. Skomorokh 19:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think Cronon is unique among academics in endorsing (with qualifications of course) the use of Wikipedia. Haven't you had stories on others in the Signpost? Perhaps we need an article List of academics endorsing the use of Wikipedia? Smallbones (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason to believe he is unique in that respect; a search of the archives should turn up prior stories for your perusal. Skomorokh 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing

• "Despite the editing community's consistent rejection of efforts to prohibit paid editing (cf. Wikipedia:Paid editing)" ...?!? I think the writer got lost in the double negatives there, because the link actually shows consistent support of prohibitting paid editing. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further parsing of the sentence suggests that the line wasn't just poorly written but is claiming something as factual that the link provided shows to be false. DreamGuy (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I also thought that this sentence was rather strange, but I did think the writer's intention was to state that paid editing per se has not been prohibited. It's a strange view IMHO because the community has consistently limited the type of things that paid editors do, e.g. spam, POV and COI editing. The only reasonable argument that I've heard against limiting paid editing, is that all the types of obnoxious behavior that we associate with it are already limited or prohibited. At the same time, I've never heard anybody who was not in PR say that we should actually encourage paid editing. While I might have the reputation here of being a hard ass against paid editing - I actually would like rules that distinguish what types of PE we'll accept and how other paid editors might be able to submit their work here. But the PR folks are not that subtle in their view - they just seem to want "(almost) all paid editing is acceptable." That's a view I simply don't accept, and I don't think the community does either. Smallbones (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors (3,072 bytes · 💬)

"Awareness was lowest in Russia (64 percent), Brazil (56 percent) and the United States (56 percent), and highest in India (61 percent) and Egypt (70 percent)". Err, what? NW (Talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the writer meant to use the percent unaware for the first set and the percent aware of the fact for the second set. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I probably should have clarified that. ResMar 02:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• How is it that the NPP work the WMF claims is a "top priority" (and could have easily been resolved through more effective means) has sat dormant since September due to a "shoestring budget", yet they can spend half a million dollars on the IEP and go to Tunisia? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree; they have a seriously deep reserve of cash right now, wouldn't hurt to use it. ResMar 02:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we are developing the tool; Blade, I sent you an email weeks ago explaining what was going on. I should have the engagement strategy and survey out by the end of this coming week :). In future, if people have questions about how development is going, it might be an idea to ask ;). I'm happy to talk to anyone and answer any questions if you just let me know you have them. In relation to "Inactive since September"; We ran the survey in October/November (and I know you're aware of that, because you replied to it) and have been holding interviews with patrollers in December and January. I appreciate this may seem slow; it took 3 weeks for legal to approve our permissions forms, because they kept getting distracted by other stuff. Nevertheless, we have started development. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The Marathi Wikisource has been made too, with Lezghian Wikipedia with a bug submitted (bugzilla:34223) ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more (566 bytes · 💬)

• When I saw Interwiki links in the title, I thought that it was about the error that made bots mass-revove interwikis at the incubator:. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)