Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-09-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Killed by flying debris (2,145 bytes · 💬)

Nice job, Tony. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing written about Paterson Clarence Hughes and the text for the FLs are pretty weak too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of featured content and our current pool of FC writers is about three people, so they struggle to tackle all the content in any given week. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the featured lists- they're actually quite difficult to write about. For example "List of awards won by X" where the majority are obscure industry awards. "X is a blah blah blah and has won umpteen awards, including Best Widget in an Overnight Production Capacity." zzzzzz… I assumed Pat Hughes got left out because Tony interviewed the writer- so I didn't add anything myself. I only had time to do Etty and Vonnegut. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in while travelling, as the interviewee I also figured that was the reason for no blurb on Hughes -- seemed a bit redundant. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Great interview! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it was possible for a Metallica album to not have been an FA yet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Gallery: Being Welsh (1,002 bytes · 💬)

Wonderful images, but I really wish they'd release them with a bit higher resolution: Low resolution images are eminently replaceable with high-definition ones, so a too-low-resolution release can be problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't generated more comment. This is really an excellent display that Jason.nlw has put together. I don't know what technical limitations he's working under there but perhaps getting higher quality scans is something he could address. Gamaliel (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

In the media: Add to "In the media" (7,502 bytes · 💬)

Paid editing rules misrepresented

Peteforsyth wrote a worthwhile critique of the Financial Times piece: "Wikipedia cofounder misrepresents the site’s rules on paid editing". Jimmy Wales responded on Facebook. Andreas JN 466 15:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The source says at the bottom that its a blog and that's not really reliable. Also, I think theres been enough coverage of the Orangemoody stuff. Thanks though Tortle (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting we include it in the ITM piece itself. It's useful and informed commentary though, and an interesting perspective on the spin that goes on around this topic, and the differences between public perception and reality on the ground. Andreas JN 466 14:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no decline in referrals from Google

I should note that my team's analysis group did some analysis of referrer traffic and produced this report. We found that referrals from Google have been increasing in the past few months. I'm unsure what data these news pieces on the decline of traffic from Google to Wikipedia are using, but it would appear to be incorrect. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

See http://uk.businessinsider.com/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-slams-silly-claim-of-lost-google-traffic-2015-8 for further discussion of the claims and counterclaims. Andreas JN 466 14:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

See also https://reportcard.wmflabs.org/ – according to the top chart on that page, unique visitors peaked in November 2013 at 532.7 million and had fallen to 374.8 million by June 2015 (the most recent month for which there are data at the time of writing). While this is only indirectly related to the question of Google referrals, there has been a massive drop in unique visitors according to that graph (around 30%). You have to go back to August 2010 to find a lower value. Andreas JN 466 14:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, although as that graph notes, those counters do not include mobile uniques. So it's impossible to say from that data whether this is a drop in unique visitors, or whether it's that fewer people are accessing Wikipedia through desktop computers and instead switching to mobile devices exclusively. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Dan. Andreas JN 466 14:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Cite required

"the reason why they're not embracing the recent call to action"

Having been in "the sciences world" for some time now, I'd like to posit the real reason is that scientists, generally, don't like to write. Oh sure, a peer reviewed paper written in completely dense prose is a requirement of the job, but a clear explanation of a topic is something they find little time to do for their own students, let alone anyone else. I'm certainly not the first to say this, I recall articles in Discover! complaining about this in the 1980s, but it seems there's more than enough excuses to go around and this is just the latest one.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is why we need more science communicators. Gamaliel (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As the volunteer who convened the conference, and the person to whom these opinions are attributed, I am frankly confused by this quote. What recent call to action is being referred to? I certainly have not offered an opinion on why scientsts "are not embracing the recent call to action" because I don't even know what that means. In context, I was encouraging researchers to contribute to Wikipedia and saying that Wikipedia's open & transparent way of working should be more widely adopted in science. In the course of that I mentioned misconceptions researchers have about Wikipedia. The presentation here in the Signpost looks like I'm endorsing the misconceptions. There's no attempt to describe what the Conference was. It's a very strange item. User:Gamaliel: I'm happy to report that the conference audience included science communicators and publishers as well as scientists. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

All the more interesting... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article and our contributor's summary of it, I understand what you're saying, Martin. As Gamaliel appears to be busy, I've largely rewritten it. [1] Hope this helps, and apologies. Andreas JN 466 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You have my apologies as well. Real life has been keeping me busy of late, so I did not have a chance to go over the work of our enthusiastic new contributor as well as I should have. Thanks to Jayen466 for fixing this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised by this and am happy with the Andreas' replacement summary. Thanks User:Jayen466 and User:Gamaliel. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dayramir Gonzalez

An article about Mr. Gonzalez had been in Draftspace since 30 April; it was moved to mainspace on 14 September. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Add comment /signposted, php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.122.13.199 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article (23,489 bytes · 💬)

FUD about notifications changes

Really?

The OBOD died 2 years ago. The orange indicator is still there.
There was plenty of notice, an email was sent to wikitech-ambassadors, it was in tech news, and threads were started on mediawiki.org.
Regressions are pretty much the top priority for most of the team and are being fixed and deployed rather quickly IMO.

Blah blah disclaimer that I was part of the team that worked on this. Legoktm (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure if this is the right place to type, but I found an invitation to discuss my opinions here. I preferred it better the old way, though it's occurred to me that since I was using CSS all along my "old way" might not have been the same as other people's. I am going to try to find a way in CSS to change it back to the way I liked. —Soap— 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On September 10, without notice, the notification indicators at the top of every user's interface changed – not really. There WAS notice at the tech news, which would *giggle* appear in this Signpost :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment "...wikitech-ambassadors, it was in tech news, and threads were started on mediawiki.org" - not being a WTA, not being able to understand most of tech news, and being usually too busy to be trawling through mediawiki.org on the off chance, I didn't hear about this thing. I appreciate the thought that has gone into it, but would even more appreciate a way to undo it for those of us who do not embrace change for the sake of change. I can't see the point of having two lists to click on when one will do quite well. If you've only got an incoming message, you've got one click. If only an alert, one click. If you've got both, you used to have only one click to see the lot. Now two. Is that progress? Peridon (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Honest question, if you don't follow wikitech-ambassadors or tech news, where do you expect to (or want to) be notified about changes like these? Legoktm (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of wikitech-ambassadors before this, and don't know what or who they are. There must be some way of notifying changes that affect everyone without the non-techies of us having to wade through loads of incomprehensible jargon before we reach something that is in English. I'm now unlikely to go to anything on wikimedia, having discovered that I can't work out how to make a new post in a discussion because the only things I can find are 'Edit title' which I don't want to do, and 'Edit' which applies to someone else's post. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How much jargon is there actually in m:Tech/News/2015/38? Legoktm (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Legoktm: The problem is that there's currently no easy way to announce new features that affect every editor. You listed an obscure mailing list and a tech blog that is usually filled with technical details irrelevant to most users (and therefore not watched by most users)- in no way is posting the announcement "somewhere" that <1% of editors will read sufficient as an announcement. If you're changing a feature for every editor, then you need to announce it to every editor- which I guess means one of those announcement bars on the watchlist page, since there's no other easy way to announce something to all editors. The notification widget we're discussing right now could also work, except I doubt it was created with global announcements in mind. --Pres N 20:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So the current method of communication has too much information and is overly-communicative? Legoktm (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So the current method of communication mixes together feature announcements (of interest to almost everyone) with a flood of minor technical announcements (of interest to only a small, technically-inclined minority) and then puts it in locations that have to be searched for (at least the first time) rather than the information going to the editors. --Pres N 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, how do we differentiate between things that affect all editors and those that only affect a small amount? What about changes to gadgets that will affect everyone (or a large majority of editors), but only require one editor/admin to fix? Legoktm (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To answer Legoktm's question, in my opinion, changes like this, involving a major change to every user's interface, should be in the main notification bar (where the fundraising announcements go). Less significant changes which still affect the majority of users should be at WP:CENT. For other changes, somewhere like WP:VPR has adequate visibility. Tevildo (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
— Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Quoted by Ningauble (talk) of Wikiquote 14:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find the black bell and the black balloon on their grey ground tend to draw my eyes up when there is no need. This may get better with time, but I doubt it. Please give us an 'undo'... Peridon (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are people that like this change, and people that don't. The option to opt-out and go back would easily satisfy both sides. And I feel this is just another example of "disregarding newbies"... poor new editors who dislike this new change and have never even heard of the Signpost... let alone the techie nerdy stuff on mediawiki.org and tech news. Only people that 1. Know about these resources, and 2. Bother to check them, would've known about this change. I, at least, knew about this change, but only because I subscribed to m:Global message delivery/Targets/Tech ambassadors, which delivers tech news to my talk page every week (by the way, Peridon, that might be a good way to stay updated, assuming you look at your talk page on a regular basis). There are plenty of editors here that don't even know what Meta is! How, then, are such people supposed to know about this change? If a city wanted to make an important announcement about how they planned to change the direction of traffic on their roads, it's no defense to say "We updated you!" when a single poster about the change was posted in a subway station. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to this particular update but the disappearance of shared notifications seems to have taken my popups and Twinkle headers with it - any particular reason why?--Laun chba ller 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've helped a few people debug this already, and it has no relationship with the notifications change. Most people have had really broken user common.js pages that had only previously been working due to magical miracles. Legoktm (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I find the comment made to Peridon here by Jdforrester (WMF) not only lacks cordiality (which we have come to get used to from anyone involved on the WMF software development side), but is also yet another classic example of un-asked-for Foundation top-down developments thrust upon us where better use of funds and employee time could be put to addressing some of the far more serious issues of tool performance. It's clear however, that the WMF always polarises with a 'Sorry, not my department' attitude. After 15 years, it's time that the bloated WMF personnel list realised that the content provided by volunteers is ultimately what pays their salaries. And why on earth (per Legoktm) should we be expected to follow dozens of other blogs and other sites in order to know what affects our local daily editing and admin work hee? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I must confess to being somewhat uncordial about both the change and the operating method of the talk page... Peridon (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have mis-read and mis-interpreted my comment entirely. Legoktm (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so - unless you inadvertently mis-formulated your post, in which case I would naturally stand corrected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

UW templates (Twinkle): Concurring with This, that and the other at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle, I believe this should be a 'single issue warning'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert to single notification for both messages and alerts, please. Right now, it's a wide grayed out area, and visually knocks everything else to the right of it. A grayed out area on the internet usually means something is not functional. And when the Signpost was dropped into my talk page, the grayed out junk stayed there, and nothing within that changed colors or did anything at all. But to the right of it was this big huge yellow lighted sign that said I had an alert. Apparently, the grayed out area with the bell and whatever the other thing is serves no purpose. It's too, too much, and does nothing but sit there like dead gray space. Please revert back to how it was before. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
For this kind of change, I would expect not a mere notification, but an RfC, centrally advertised as most RFCs are, say on VP Proposals, with no change made unless the change gets positive consensus. (If a comparable change had been made with so little discussion to a process page, it would have been promptly reverted and we would be discussing the length of block needed for the editor who made the change.) So far I find this merely makes extra work for me. The bell icon is at least clear, but the "talk ballon" merely looks like a rectangle -- i suspected it was intended to be a scroll. Icons at small scale are often not very useful, particularly in low contrast. Please revert. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask that actually adhere to WP:CONSENSUS and discuss changes to Wikipedia before implementing them? Its not like its that hard to advertise that you want feedback on a new thing. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
For me the actual difference between this change and those that happened several years ago, is that I missed the announcement on the technical mailing list, rather than the discussion on a wiki-page. But there is a big psychological and social difference between a community consensus that I missed being part of and an "imposed" solution from the software house.

There's no way we can fault the software engineers who do the development, they are doing their jobs. Nor do we want to fault the "ideas people". What we want is, perhaps, an account manager, who takes our requirements and establishes what they can get implemented - and by all means proposes new product, but doesn't deliver it without a signed order.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Hate to moan but the previous notification system worked fine and didn't need changing, I agree with DES there needs to be RFCs on these as most implementations so far have been a disaster (Look at VE & Flow!), At the end of the day we're not Facebook - We're a collaborative project and we all work together on this site and so we all should discuss these things before they get implemented and then reversed. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Dr. Sverker Johansson commented on Wikipedia's articles in 2014, rather than 2015 as indicated. --Roisterer (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Swedish Wikipedia hits one million articles in a rather embarrassing way...

"For example, at time of writing, there do not appear to be articles on other Wikipedias about Erysichton elaborata or Mount Iro that were not created by Lsjbot."

That may be because the combination Erysichton elaborata does not and has never existed. The Swedish Wikipedia claims that sv:Erysichton elaborata is the same as Jameela palmyra tasmanicus, and that it got its name from Thomas Pennington Lucas in 1900. In reality, Lucas described Lycaena elaborata, which is indeed the same as Jameela palmyra tasmanicus, or as Erysichton palmyra tasmanicus. It has never been known as Erysichton elaborata or Erysichton palmyra elaborata, until Wikipedia invented it. It has since been added to some "reliable" online resources, like [2] and [3]. The source for the bot seems to be something like this page, which shows that "Elaborata" was a species name in what is known as the "Erysichton" genus. Right, but never at the same time... This is made clear by the species specific page at the same site, [4]. The other source in the first version of the Swedish article, the "Catalogue of life", doesn't list the Erysichton elaborata either[5], it does have the Erysichton palmyra tasmanicus.

To get that as your millionth article is embarrassing, to still have it at that title when you have doubled in size is even worse. I complained about errors on the main page in the DYK section, but this gaffe easily beats those. Perhaps someone fluent in Swedish can contact the sv-wiki, point them to this, and suggest moving the page? And checking the other bot creations for similar inventions (good luck with that!) Fram (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I slapped a merge tag on it, but that's as far as I can go with the help of Google translate. I'm still trying to navigate these sources but it seems from this that you are correct. Gamaliel (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: @Graham Beards: @Maky: Hello! I was hoping some editors with scientific backgrounds might join the discussion and add their insight. Gamaliel (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is on Catalogue of Life (which is the source for all these bot generated organism articles), and the CoL link in the Swedish article leads to the record (or you can see it here). CoL attributes it to LepIndex as of 2005, but the LepIndex record was updated in 2011. So, it's not quite as bad as it looks at first, but there are a couple bad practices by the bot. The CoL record is "provisionally accepted", probably because there were problems with the underlying LepIndex record (i.e., Erysichton elaborata not actually existing). Lsjbot shouldn't be creating articles for taxa that are only "provisionally accepted" on CoL. Also, Lsjbot cites/links LepIndex with a date of 2005-06-15. That's the date CoL harvested the LepIndex record. The Erysichton elaborata article was created in 2013, and the LepIndex record was most recently updated in 2011. I think it's really bad practice for Lsjbot to imply that LepIndex was accessed when it really only looked at CoL's outdated copy of the LepIndex record (if Lsjbot had actually accessed LepIndex directly, it would have found the updated record). Plantdrew (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (both). So it didn't originate with Wikipedia, we (well, the Swedes) only propagated the error, which was never accepted definitively in the first place... Like you said, not as bad as I thought, still pretty awful to get this error as your millionth article, widely reported in many newspapers (I have seen mentions in newspapers from e.g. Italy and the UK of this article...). Fram (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much I can add to this since I'm not a entomologist. However, having worked with lemur taxonomy, this isn't surprising. Taxonomy is a mess, even for an infraorder with ~100 species. In entomology, the number of species can be significantly higher (by several orders of magnitude), so errors are bound to accumulate, especially across multiple systems (e.g. CoL, LepIndex, and Wiki). The only thing we can do on our end is be careful and critically review our sources. Personally, I shy away from online indexes for taxonomy since they tend to be outdated and sometimes wrong. But then again, I also have a book that currently acts as one of the leading authorities on lemur taxonomy which is published by many of the leading experts in the field. (Admittedly, not everyone agrees with it, but I address that in the articles I write.) And again, I'm also dealing with ~100 species... not thousands. I wish I could be of more help here... – Maky ^« talk » 19:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I did some searching through my entomology sources, and I couldn't find reference to this name. I'm not a taxonomist in practice though, so there's a chance there's some buried history on the naming here. I tend to be a bit untrusting of online indices without a source. Unless a source with the actual description and naming comes up at some point, I agree with others above that it's probably better to merge it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the articles due to current knowledge and sources. But I really don't see the embarrassment about the bot creating the article. AHA (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if newspapers across Europe have articles on "Swedish Wikipedia has 1 million articles, mainly thanks to a bot", indicating what that millionth article is, and it turns out that it shouldn't have been created as the bot was incorrectly interpreting data (and that it took 2 years and another Wikipedia language version to find this out), then yes, I find that rather embarrassing. "We have loads of articles, but a bot creates them and we don't really care whether they are correct or not"? Not really a headline one would want to see. But thanks for the merge! Fram (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If you could read swedish you would have known that the article told about the complexity surrounding the taxon, and this was much discussed on the talkpage, so in no way we didnt care. And your interpretation Fram of the error was obviously incorrect. Taxonomy is complicated as well as being humble. --AHA (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I Google translated the talk page. There was discussion about what the current name was. No one noticed that the article title never was an accepted version in any serious taxonomy, or that Lucas never used the version which the article claimed he coined in 1900, and so on. You seem to be making excuses to hide the fact that the probably most widely publicized article of the Swedish Wikipedia was fundamentally wrong. Taxonomy is complicated, but when you have three acceptable versions throughout history, Wikipedia shouldn't put the article at a fourth one. It took two years and an outside discussion (here) before you finally took some action, so if you did care, you clearly didn't do so seriously enough. Fram (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Op-ed: DYK, or proudly displaying incorrect information on the Main Page with alarming regularity (38,211 bytes · 💬)

Every time such complaints are made about DYK, I look at the current FA and invariably find that it is possible to nitpick it in the same way. For example, the current FA blurb states, "Hughes is generally thought to have died after his Spitfire was struck by flying debris from a German bomber that he had just shot down." This is misleading because there is no definite explanation of what happened and there are several plausible theories (see Australia's Few and the Battle of Britain). And note that such articles about Australian fighter aces are a recurring feature at FA and so we typically get one each month. In other words, we have a similar pattern of repetition and deviation.

[Inserted] Pinging Ian. He's traveling, though. Andrew, have you ever raised any of your concerns over the many months that any of these articles are being reviewed, at PR, GAN, FAC, and sometimes A-class? Reviewers' views are treated respectfully, in my experience. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Dan. I'm certainly happy to discuss things but I think the wording is supported by Australia's Few and several other sources -- in fact I corresponded with the author of Australia's Few to help get it right. DYK or an article lead is not the place to go into detail about every possible explanation beyond the one most commonly suggested -- that's for the main body of the article, where the various speculations have been touched on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I still beg to differ. The ADoB states, "The confusion that surrounded the crash remains unresolved." Aces High states "More recent research appears to indicates that he was in fact shot down by Bf109s" There's no consensus in these sources; just a variety of possibilities. Anyway, that's water under the bridge. Looking at the blurb for today's FA, we have "The hijackers crashed the aircraft into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT..." Sources such as The 9/11 Encyclopedia state that the time was actually 09:37:46. This exact time appears in the body of the article but it has unaccountably been truncated in the lead and blurb. It's not clear why we should be rounding the time off but, if we're going to do this, it should be to the the nearest minute, which is 09:38 not 09:37. My point, of course, is not to find fault with these particular articles but to demonstrate that it is possible to nitpick any and all of our content, just by taking a hard look at it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how we tell time. Rmhermen (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The time is debated on my talk page. Meanwhile, the main page has moved on. Today's FA howler is "Unlike in much of his work, Waugh did not..." The double preposition makes me wince, especially as the topic is a work of stylish prose. See the Economist's style guide for more on that. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The answer to all this is found at the bottom of the main page – the disclaimer which states, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY ... Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." Perhaps we should state this more openly and emphatically as we are never going to achieve 100% perfection. You might still think that a 10% error rate is too high but please compare with the following recent headline: Nearly 2/3 of psychology papers cannot be trusted. Scholars such as Prof. Ioannidis reckon that a remarkably high number of peer-reviewed papers are wrong – as many as 80%. We seem to be doing reasonably well compared to them. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's comparing apples and oranges in any case, but you are comparing 2/3 papers containing an error with 1/10 sentences containing an error (in this very small sample). Fram (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the famous/infamous Nature study suggests that rates of error are endemic in Wikipedia and in the most prominent encyclopedia. [6] [7]. Moreover, Nature admits its reviewers probably made some mistakes, themselves (published mistakes in peer review . . . sounds familiar). [8] (last paragraph - interestingly, it calls them "honest errors" - perhaps, they mean unitentional?). Human failing being what it is, it can be hard to know how much perfection is the right amount but yes Wikipedia is bad - sometimes seemingly endlessly, so -- nonetheless, it is a worse shame if any thinking person does not expect that to some degree. Between the hope and idealism and the despair and reality, each person may decide.

The editors' work criticized above should be directly contacted and asked to respond (like Nature did). If DYK needs a Final Review Board, and there are 2-3 people like Fram was, willing to do it, just create it - but that, of course, will also have errors. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That Nature "study" was very poor science. No one should take it seriously. Thank you for an excellent report, Fram, and it's good to have you back. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a science of mistake in written work (erratumology? lathosology?) All Nature did was get "experts" to blind-read articles and find mistakes - what would it mean to take that seriously? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Worse is when the DYK tries to trash a living person - without any evidence at all. This one (pulled) was unforgivable. It was blind luck that I happened to look at the queue before it hit the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's enough problems with the DYK process without this sort of ridiculous nit-picking. The difference between sales and profit? Oh noes! Come on. If you don't like it, don't read it, but to talk down to everyone involved in the process for minor, and in most cases questionable, problems seems beyond the pale. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think there's a major difference between sales and profit then I have a bridge to sell you (It's actually just a plank of wood, but both things cross water). I'm not sure how I feel that you don't think there's an important difference between the two when you claim to work at a hedge fund; I guess you actually just day-trade penny stocks as a hobby (the difference between the two is nit-picking).
It's not a minor point he's making- literally the only thing the reviewer/poster is supposed to do is see if the sentence has a source in the article that says the same thing. Apparently, 10% of the time, all they do is check if there is a little [1] after the sentence. That's kind of a problem. --Pres N 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, wow. If you are arguing that that is a minor error I think you have a WP:COMPETENCY problem and should not edit Wikipedia. Ever. DreamGuy (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. The minor error is not sales vs. profit, the minor error is that the wrong term made it into the hook. That's minor, because the error is not going to cause the Wikipedia to fail, which appears to be what Fram is trying to say. On the contrary, misunderstanding what people are trying to say and then suggesting they be kicked off the project is precisely the sort of thing that is causing the project to fail. In any event, given the multiple reviews the article gets as it stands, I suspect that any remedy that attempts to "fix" this problem will ruin the whole process. So which is it, do we accept a certain number of errors will get through, or make the process so rigourous that nothing ever passes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this or any single error will not cause Wikipedia to fail, speaking of strawman arguments... Symptoms of failure are not causes of failure. Apart from that, after getting a to-be-expected thrashing for your opening post, you now try to make a completely different point and claim that we are misunderstanding your position. Perhaps, if your opinion is "if you don't like it, don't read it", then perhaps you could just have skipped this op-ed instead of reading it and replying to it. If I have included "minor, and most cases questionable, problems", feel free to bring them here for discussion. Your first attempt backfired quite badly. As for your final question, if those are the only choices: with the current error rate (and the similar error rate going back for years), my vote is for option B. Fram (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The following is copied from the current version of the article: "As a result, Airtronics increased its profit from less than $1 million in 1983 to $3 million in 1985, and to $8 million in 1989 with a staff of 18 employees." Cited to a source that says: "Airtronics has 18 full-time employees and had sales of about $8 million in 1989. [...] After Airtronics teamed with Sanwa, sales more than tripled--from less than $1 million in 1983 to $3 million in 1985--and have climbed steadily since." The wrong term did not just make it into the hook, Maury Markowitz. Andreas JN 466 06:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fram is not talking about the rate of errors here but the types of errors. The article writer can misread, misunderstand or mistranscribe the source; or the source may itself be wrong. A leading cause of error seems to be the requirement to paraphrase. Let's not kid ourselves that DYK articles are more error prone than average. They get checked multiple times. And part of the reason for having DYK, and sending articles to it is to have them checked. All our quality control relies on editor review. That has its weaknesses. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, why is the draft banner still on this page? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just discovered that a reference book I have been using, produced by respected publishers Methuen, has the wrong date of death for someone. They were out by one year. Shall I throw the whole book out or just make a correction on that page? I wonder how many people were involved in the production of the book? Philafrenzy (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy nails it. Fram has demonstrated what it's like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most surprising, this fallacious line of reasoning appears to have escaped the editors of the Signpost, who should have prevented its publication unless Fram rewrote his editorial to conclude with suggested recommendations for improvement and change. Without that, this is simply delicious fractal hypocrisy, humorously meta-demonstrating the very problem Fram complains about. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Amusingly, our article Surrey Theatre actually already had the right date (1901). Philafrenzy (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  - As you are well aware, I have made enough recommendations to improve DYK, as have others, and I listed a few in the op-ed. And could you perhaps indicate which "fallacious line of reasoning" that is? I am not asking to throw ouw the baby with the bathwater, the hooks are all there is to DYK, they are the stagnant pool of odiferous bathwater you wouldn't want to put a baby in. Of course, as so often was the case when I pointed out these errors on the DYK page, shooting the messenger is easier than actually tackling the issues at hand. See also Prioryman's message below for more of the same, though without the pseudo-intellectual veneer. Fram (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
    - Sorry, Fram, but this piece utterly fails the basic, requisite structure of a five paragraph essay, and as an opinion piece, it offers no suggestions for improvement or concluding remarks other than the childish and absurd "no one really cares". Seriously, Fram? Seriously? I suppose this is acceptable if it was written by a young child, but the big boys and girls expect a bit more than a plaintive cry for sympathy. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
      - Oh no, and I was so aiming to write a school essay in five paragraphs! Boohoo, this dreadful news just ruined my whole week... Opinion pieces don't have to offer suggestions for improvement, I have given those (as stated in the piece) at WT:DYK in the past, but some of the entrenched DYK regulars resist all criticism or attempts to improve things. The purpose of the piece was not to suggest improvements, but to identify a problem spot which has gone unnoticed or uncared about for too long. First identify problems, then find the causes of the problems, and then look for remedies. My piece aimed to do the first bit, not all three in one go. And Viriditas, you may find "no one really cares" (actually "no one seems to reallly care") childish and absurd, but people like you, or Prioryman, or Maury Markowitz above, do give a very good impression of not caring one bit about having basic errors passing DYK review easily and regularly. Fram (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
        Fram, the basic, requisite structure of a five paragraph essay necessitates an introduction, narration, affirmation, negation, and a conclusion, and this structural component is found in every good editorial or opinion piece. So, yes, opinion pieces most certainly do have to offer suggestions for improvement as part of their structure, and without it, your essay is just a lengthy whinge, with no rhyme or reason. A closer reading, however, reveals projection on your part, as the only person that doesn't care here is you. This piece demonstrates that you care not one whit for the reader, for without a negation and conclusion, there's no purpose to your complaint. Furthermore, this piece illustrates a lack of social intelligence on your part. You've insulted every editor who spends their valuable time reviewing DYKs and tracing errors, and you've shown little to no awareness of your faux pas. I think the real reason you are no longer active on Wikipedia is because you don't understand interpersonal communication. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
        What I produced was what is described here, especially "a simple, declarative op-ed (“policy X is bad; here’s why”)". That your replies focus on perceived procedural problems with the op-ed, and on the writer of it, instead of on the actual contants of the op-ed, and the underlying structural problems of DYK, is quite telling. Baseless speculation on why someone chooses not to edit here any longer, and using that to attack someone, is a (mild) personal attack though, and a rather poor ad hominem argument in any case. So, do you care about the number of errors that get on the main page through the DYK process, and if so, do you have any suggestions on how to change this? Perhaps anything from the op-ed paragraph "Many suggestions to improve DYK were proposed: not showing nearly every proposed article but only the best or most interesting ones, limiting the number of DYKs per person (to get more variety instead of dozens of hooks on very similar topics), adding more reviewers, banning people with many problematic (incorrect) DYKs from nominating more pages, even abolishing DYK altogether. Some things, like the suggestion that one shouldn't only look for a source confirming the hook, but also for sources contradicting the hook, were seen as a good idea, but (as the below examples will show) have not been implemented." (from that op-ed that should "offer suggestions for improvement" but didn't, in your version of reality: or should I, to meet the strict criteria of what an op-ed must be to be acceptable to you, have somehow suggested new solutions instead of listing the ones proposed in the past, as if these weren't worth considering any longer?). Feel free to continue your some line of argumentation as in your previous posts here, but don't expect further answers in that case; replying to strawman and ad hominem arguments isn't entertaining or fruitful for very long. If you want to discuss DYK, then I'm all for it though. Fram (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a simple answer: wikipedia works based on the famous say about "all bugs are shallow". Why not enough eyeballs at DYK? answer is simple *BORING*. Nobody really peruses them. It is not like in goode olde dayse when every DYK was a pearl: you could even use them as pickup phrases :-). Now: "DYK that the mountain degu can obtain sufficient moisture from its food to satisfy its water requirements?" Sad. (Language on stilts ("sufficient", "moisture", "water requirements"; Nothing special; many small animals can do without drink; Generated by a DYK-craving author (September 9: 4 DYKs; sheesh, be more modest, colleague))) Staszek Lem (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

To err is human, and all publications are full of errors. One of the most frequent problems I encounter when writing articles is conflicting sources, which means some of the "reliable sources" are certainly wrong. I've been reading a well received book by a highly regarded Harvard historian, and found errors every few pages, but I still learn a lot from it. The best thing about Wikipedia is whenever you find something incorrect, you can fix it instantly. But let's not kid ourselves, Wikipedia is full of junk, POV, and falsehood, and at the current rate of improvement (with simultaneous degradation - many GAs become junk after a few unsourced IP edits), it will become obsolete long before it becomes perfect. Just click the "Random article" (gasp, it's linked from the main page) a few times and you'll see what I mean. -Zanhe (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to suggest that because stuff isn't perfect we shouldn't do quality control, Zanhe. You ticked off on Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Lodi. The citation for the hook, as it turns out, is not offline at all--here it is. I don't wish to argue that it's not a reliable source or that print sources don't make errors, but hey, first of all it says "settled", not "inhabited", and one could argue they're different. More importantly, and I guess Thine Antique Pen didn't notice it either, that paragraph isn't talking about the province but about the city. And that's a huge difference: a claim about settling the city is now made to apply to the area that city is in, an area in--as Fram I think said--a fertile area in the heart of Italy, over 300 square miles big. (I see now Fram also linked the source, and commented on the city/province point.) So, sorry, but you ticked that off way too quickly and way too easily, and I think the same happened to Template:Did you know nominations/Province of Pescara. Someone with over 200 DYKs should know better, and someone with that much experience should know that some articles need to be looked at closer than others. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  - @Drmies, Cwmhiraeth, and Thine Antique Pen: No, what I meant is no amount of quality control will be able to catch all mistakes and satisfy all critics. Wikipedia's scarcest resource is good editors, and constantly criticising prolific contributors on minor issues with no real long-term consequence is counterproductive. After all, the more work you do, the more likely you make mistakes (I've already dramatically slowed down my contributions lately, after watching another long-term editor being hounded off Wikipedia by multiple SPA attackers). As for Lodi and Pescara, I obviously would have suggested changes if I had access to the sources, but I ticked them off based on the AGF principle because I didn't. DYK rules do not require sources to be online and do not require reviewers to track down offline sources (which is often impossible). -Zanhe (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    - I've had similar discussions before. Of course we can't catch every mistake, but we can do a better job. What irks me is the "DYK doesn't require" this or that. DYK doesn't require lots of things; it doesn't actually require good writing or an exciting topic or decent coverage of the subject in the article. Or solid sourcing. That doesn't mean that an article we put on the front page shouldn't have all those things. And there is a bit of slippage between "if I had access to the sources" and "ticked them off on the basis of AGF" (you don't have to link that for me): we do have access to that source, and AGF doesn't mean one doesn't have to look for it. And yes, I believe DYK reviewers should improve the article whenever they can (TAP knows I'm a believer), and in this case that wasn't hard. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Although in no way an excuse, this article was expanded by Thine Antique Pen as part of the Stub contest, with no intention of it becoming a DYK. That it did so was my fault, as I asked TAP if he objected to my expanding it further and putting it forward for DYK. So I added the geography section and a bit more history and nominated it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, that it went through DYK with errors is not your fault, and you didn't write that section. BTW, it's nice to see you're still around. I feel like a dinosaur sometimes. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The quality of this piece would have been marginally improved if it had been published in 20 point Comic Sans throughout. Prioryman (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Classy! Fram (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Fram is not immune to error. The article Adriano in Siria was written by Fram and nominated for DYK with a careless error which was fortunately picked up by the reviewer (me). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

In which case that's an example of the system working correctly. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And of course, that was an error in the article, not in the hook. So your reply kind of completely misses the point of the op-ed. Fram (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet, it doesn't really miss the point, because at the end of the day, the hook links to the article, error-prone or not. The accuracy of the article comes first, which helps insure the accuracy of the hook. So far from missing the point, Cwmhiraeth has nailed the solution -- the solution you failed to provide. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. But for those of us less capable of mind-reading, could you explain that "solution" that Cwmhiraeth provided to avoid regular errors in DYK hooks on the main page? And perhaps explain why it didn't work, if it has been in place for so long already? From here, it somehow looks as if that solution, whatever it is supposed to be (find a glaring typo errors and ignore the ones that actually take some source-control to find? Something like that?), isn't really that good. Oh wait, I get it: if people, instead of making the effort to check that one sentence is error-free, would make the effort to check that the complete article is error-free, then DYK would be error-free. I'ld like to retract my "brilliant" and replace it with "mind-bogglingly stupid". If you can't find the people, the time, and the competency to check 16 sentences a day, then how would you propose your "solution" would work in practice? There is a reason I didn't provide this "solution" (make the articles error-free), as you would have rightly ridiculed it. I somehow don't think @Cwmhiraeth: intended this to be the solution for DYK errors you read in it, but I'll let them state their own position on it. Fram (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We are all human and prone to error and my point really was that it is risky criticising others when one's own efforts are not perfect. However, Fram did perform a useful service to the DYK project during 2014, drawing people's attention to problems with hooks that others had missed, and as a result the quality of the DYKs was raised. Fram may not think so, but it has had a lasting effect on me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That's basically the reason why I didn't make an op-ed criticizing people, but one criticizing the process by pointing to problems with the end product. I'm not certain that the quality of DYKs in general has been raised, but that's not a criticism of you. And my articles contain plenty of errors, though hopefully mainly typo's and outdated information. Fram (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While it's true that errors are inevitable in a project of this type, and that DYK adds a level of quality control that would not otherwise exist, I agree with Fram that there can be little excuse for the propagation of errors in DYK hooks that appear on the main page - at least, not at such a rate. A DYK hook, after all, is no more than a single sentence that needs to be fact-checked - and yet, too often, DYK reviewers cannot even achieve this much. Why not? Well, a lot of DYK reviews are now, of necessity, QPQ reviews, meaning a review that must be done before one's own DYK nomination is accepted. It is pretty clear to me, as a longstanding DYK administrator, that some QPQ reviewers simply don't apply themselves to the task. And why should they, when they know there are no consequences for errors, even egregious ones? So long as we do not establish greater accountability for QPQ reviewers, I think we can be assured that issues in the DYK section such as that identified by Fram will persist. Gatoclass (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You forgot to mention the proposal to switch DYK to use Good Articles instead of new articles. I don't remember when it was discussed, but it was presented as a way to decrease the amount of completely bogus information in DYK. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrific idea. Too bad that, given Wikipedia's inability to change, that will never happen. ResMar 23:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. What exactly is the deal with the stubborn, inflexibility of the site demographic? I'm looking at the main page right now and it's like looking back in time a decade. Do people realize the rest of the Internet has moved on? Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas: You're touching on a well-known, well-entrenched, and ultimately likely lethal problem with the movement: there is a total lack of flexibility on the part of the editors because of the massive investment that the senior editors who have come to dominate this site have in keeping it as it is or as close as possible to as it is today. The main page looks to be a decade old because it is a decade old. DYK has the same issue. ResMar 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would want to keep this site "as it is". Presentation and design evolve over time as we discover new ways to do things. Can anyone name a top website that hasn't changed in the last ten years? Something is seriously wrong here. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Drudge Report. Like wiki, it's simple on its surface. Unlike wiki, it's also simple behind the scenes. Alaynestone (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea, based on the barely-reviewed GAs that are routinely submitted to DYK. Too many articles get their green pluses with little or no commentary and little sign that the reviewer has checked the article against the GA criteria. The whole point of DYK is to reward new content creation so eliminating newly created content from the process is a non-starter. I'm never impressed by people that wish there was a Grand High Poobah overseeing a project and, by golly, they're exactly the person for the job even though they dislike the actual work involved and no longer soil their hands with such tasks. - Dravecky (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The RFC (Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC) discussed whether recent GAs should be added to the class of articles suitable for a DYK appearance. The proposal passed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (I put this in the wrong spot - pinging User:Kaldari. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC))

(e/c) That was approved. And Fram's OpEd says one of DYK mistakes was from a good article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The author has identified the failing of this process is that Wikipedians (the nominator, the reviewer, and the admin) aren't doing their jobs. Why does this happen? There's pressure to publish on time. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- If you care to look into publishing times, you'll see something is published two weeks and even month after deadline (used to be 5 days). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- "publish on time"? DYK has been repeatedly asked to reduce its publication rate in an attempt to catch some of these issues, there is a real objection to it. Why DYK feels a need to cycle quicker than any of the other parts of the main page is a mystery, a bit like the myth that DYK is there to encourage new editors to contribute. Evidence please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  Articles have to be nominated within seven days of creation (or achieving GA status), but they can be worked on for as long as the creator wishes in the Draft space or User space. The days when the review had to be completed in as many days are long gone; nowadays articles sit on the queue until the reviewers are satisfied. So there is very little deadline pressure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  - And nowadays articles sit in the queue because the process has been bureaucratized to extremes. In the past the only three questions were asked: Is is a new article? Is it more than a stub? Is the hook catching the eye?. Done. No paranoia to have an error in the article: this is wikipedia, not cast in stone; the crux is "INTERESTING". If something is interesting, the reader will be ..er.. interested and do more research (and I would not care about passive trivia consumers, who just read and bitch). If an interest is provoked, chances are the person would want to share her interest of excitement, may be even with wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And that process changed because of articles like these - well, ones in the "real press" anyway. You can reminisce all you want, but those days are dead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dead, not without the self-serving efforts of self-nomming "DYKes of Main" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Consolation prize

If it's any consolation, this Signpost has an article on the 2-millionth article in the Swedish Wikipedia, which led me to a much more embarrassing ongoing situation with their millionth article of 2 years ago.[9] Fram (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak Swedish either but that issue seems related to a point made above – that much scientific literature is debatable or just wrong. Taxonomy is especially fluid and seems about as reliable as our category system. See Taxonomic inflation which explains that "Clearly, there are big problems with species lists." Andrew D. (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

hey Fram, are you still blocked from bugzilla? have they extended it to Phabracator? this kind of critique is counter-productive: the signal to noise is so low, people tune it out. however, you are a good poster child for the community; anyway, thanks for all the dramaz. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And the relevance of bugzilla/phabricator to this op-ed is...? For someone complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio, you surely aren't giving the best example here. Oh wait, could the fact that a long time ago I blocked your other account User:Duckduckgo as a username violation have anything to do with your appearance here with a post which has nothing to do with the op-ed but is only poisoning the well about the author of it? Nah, no one would be that childish. Fram (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Tech news in brief (149 bytes · 💬)

Traffic report: Mass media production traffic (1,371 bytes · 💬)

Kudos to EllenCT for preparing this week's traffic report! It takes effort to analyze the data and the reasons for article popularity every week, and her help is greatly appreciated!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I enjoyed it. EllenCT (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Love it, great work and thanks for helping out! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to pile on, I also really enjoyed your work, EllenCT! Nice job! Michael Barera (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Great job with your first traffic report, EllenCT!:) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)