The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-07-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-12/Arbitration report

• If a village quacks in a forest, and no one writes about it, does the village exist? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is the first Signpost article I've been mentioned in. Didn't expect it would be for something like this though; must be a slow news week if the settlement AfDs are getting extensive coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write that, however, you can always suggest discussions at this page. —mono 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that section - I simply went through the AfDs and picked a random one. It's a bit difficult to write an AfD report on a deleted article, since, if I had not contributed myslef to that discussion (which, to be impartial, I shouldn't have), I would not have seen it before it was deleted. Like Mono says, if there's an AfD that you feel is/was interesting or unique, please do suggest it on the suggestions page, or to myself or Mono. Regards, WackyWace ^{you talkin' to me?} 10:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, not an easy matter to balance reader interest and frequency of including this report. Probably in retrospect, two sections might have been better this week. Also, I'm trying to think whether there'll ever be image possibilities. Probably not. Pity. Tony (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why the MoS has reached such a point that some people can regard it as being so close to "official policy". As far as I'm concerned, editorial guidance is simply codified good practice. Certainly if a WikiProject has a good case to vary some aspect of style matters, in favour of something else that is definitely good practice, I hardly see the reason for overriding their expertise; and exactly how is that to be enforced, anyway? Charles Matthews (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just about every publisher has a house style sheet. There's nothing to stop free debate as to why an alternative to MoS guidance should not be followed in a particular article or set of articles. If there's a good enough reason, that has always been possible, as emblazoned at the top of the MoS; in such cases, consider alerting the MoS talk page so a change might be considered. Tony (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a single set of transliteration standards for Middle Eastern languages is a perennial problem when trying to follow the news. Is it Osama or Usama, Qaida or Qaeda? No one else has managed to make these names reliably searchable - I wish Wikipedia would round up a blue ribbon panel and vote up a universal standard. Maybe the media would follow our lead. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If it quacks like a Potemkin village, is it a Potyomkin village? Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The new format is great, very interesting. Sasata (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the headline now: "Wikipedia promotes Terrorism!!! Oh, the humanity!" bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I must be the one who promoted it (no pun intended) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I love the new format, especially the short blurbs on the new admins. Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 04:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

+Delighted by the new format (and not just by the mention of my name). Thanks to the writers for the effort they've put into it. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Really appreciate the descriptions on promoted items, definitely gives them the status they deserve having become featured. The disappearance of the FP gallery dismayed me at first, but I can now see how it no longer serves a good purpose in the page's context. Well done. Radagast (talk) 04:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Good to see Distributed element filter being featured. I wish we had more featured articles about technical topics. -- œ^™ 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the 'Does David Barton edit Wikipedia to promote his views?' section, 'Newshounds.com' should be 'Newshounds.us'. (See the actual URL.) 'Newshounds.com' appears to be a webcomic - in fact, it's what our article Newshounds is about, not the anti-Fox website. Robofish (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the observation, and the effort of posting the above comment, but this is a wiki you know :) Skomorokh 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I am an incompetent wretch =/. extransit (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The slides for Möller's talk are now available at [1].

It should perhaps have been noted that the film's exact title is "Truth in Numbers?", but I wanted to link to the Wikipedia article about it (deleted in December 2009, see deletion discussion), which had the title without question mark. Ragesoss has more information about the screening on his blog [2].

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's full history was moved to User:Church of emacs/Truth in Numbers, which looks like an up-to-date draft for when it eventually (likely) does become notable.--ragesoss (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The multi-cam work was just great for the Q and A sessions—it gave us a sense of being part of the audience. I'm interested to know who owns the live stream / vid. Is it freely available for use on en.WP? Tony (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• As written in the article the recording and streaming were done by iStream, which seems to be a Polish company based in Poznań: http://www.istream.pl/ According to Manuel Schneider the recordings will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons in the Theora format [3], but I presume it may take some time for the company to do the Theora-encoding of the many hours of recording. — fnielsen (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• About the BnF partnership, I am afraid this report is largely inaccurate (probably because we did not communicate much on it, true :-). The early preparations of the technical work were done in late March. It really started in early May, just after the announcement. This work was done by a core team of three volunteers of Wikimédia France, with much help and input from fellow members and experimented contributors to Commons and Wikisource who brought their expertise of the projects.
  The BnF did not provide any DjVu. The technical challenge was precisely to build the best DjVus possible from what they gave us, while keeping as much metadata as possible and making the future work of the Wikisource folks as easy as possible.
  Finally, we requested a server-side upload on July 2, which was performed by Tim Starling on July 10. The associated Wikisource pages were initialised by bot later this day, live from Wikimania in Gdańsk.
  Thanks for reporting on this project! Jean-Fred (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Also, the upload is complete for the moment: all the books provided by the BnF as part of this partnership are now on Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for filling us in! Be sure to keep us updated :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem :-). For reference, we have set up a page at Commons: Commons:Bibliothèque nationale de France. More should come in the future (maybe on the Outreach wiki). Jean-Fred (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the first sentence of the opening paragraph and laughed out loud; evil politicians! Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The 'expenses scandal' to the 'Wikipedia scandal'? It's a possibility! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to defend those who remove sourced information, but WP:UNDUE also applies here. For example, that a group had a protest on the top of one's house, even though covered by the press, is of questionable importance; I think a good argument could be made that including it [and I'm speaking here without researching the matter] would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In summary, the matter is more nuanced than the newspaper article makes it seem. And that's assuming that everything that was removed really was appropriately sourced, a heroic assumption, I'd guess. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an example of what I have long predicted - the use and abuse of BLP hysteria to whitewash the encyclopedia. Even where BLP is not directly invoked, its chilling effect enables the removal of negative-but-true information with ease...and it's only going to get worse. BLP must be repealed as soon as possible, and the fanatical faction of BLP hysterics that Wales has allowed to dictate policy on Wikipedia - due to his own increasing identification with the celebrity class - should be examined closely. Their commitment to a free and open encyclopedia is in doubt. Shameful. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton (as usual). Obviously sourced, balanced, encyclopedic information should be put back in, but the WP:COI rules permit a politician or her staff to remove criticism that is not supported by WP:reliable sources or that gives WP:UNDUE importance to trivial events. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers said it best and most succinctly here. Anyone is entitled to remove information from Wikipedia for any reason, but if it's relevant, well-sourced information, it will almost certainly be reinserted. In such cases, policitians and their staff should refrain from the ineffective strategy of directing editing the articles and instead voice any concerns they have on the discussion page. Dcoetzee 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Houses of Parliament have no rules prohibiting staff from changing Wikipedia entries on politicians." I wouldn't let this line stand in an article! What is it saying? That the Houses should have such a rule? That anyone would even think that they should? Parliamentary librarians, for example, would be ideal contributors. And certain MPs are constitutional experts, and have written widely about politics and politicians. People widely edit their own articles, or those of people they know, sometimes unwisely, but mainly without the types of problems indicated in the news reports - for which we should be, as ever, vigilant. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

You may want to complain to the Telegraph, too, as their article contains a similar statement, from which this one was adapted.

There are of course differing views about when or if editing the Wikipedia article about oneself is acceptable, perhaps correlated to how strong one's concerns about issues like corruption or astroturfing are in general. (Outside of Wikipedia, conflict of interest rules have existed for centuries in many contexts and countries.) But in any case I would say that rules prohibiting staff of companies or institutions from editing Wikipedia entries are quite frequent nowadays, which could justify the Telegraph noting the absence of such rules in this case.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's something pathetic about this story, because Wikipedia is only spanking the most wretched amateurs who edit using a real name account or a traceable IP. The ones who have the wit to hire a PR advocate or company who can deliver edits from a range of preexisting accounts, will face no penalty. Whether they are politicians or fans, far more effective censors are encountered every day by those who try to sneak in a fair word against American "conservatives" (reactionaries). For example, I wanted to add to Modern liberalism in the United States the following, "According to the ASA, IQ data from the "Add Health" survey averaged 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative".^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} An unrelated study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores.^[8]". (The reference list lengthened with each try, but no number is ever enough) What I got were editors who told me things like "even if it's true it's way too POV for wikipedia" and that I was "trying to add controversial content for which you clearly have no consensus", who reverted every attempt within a few minutes, any time of day or night. Of course, Wikipedia policy calls for much more stringent redactions in articles about living persons... Wnt (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Then try adding it with an additional reference to Geoffrey Miller's insights into IQ, personality traits and political views. See Note 3 in the article on him. Tony (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from article page:

Trying to rewrite history, is like running behind a waggon loaded with manure. Somehow, some day, some wikipedians will virtually unload the waggon. --IdaShaw (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

End of moved part

• Urgh! My comments/interview and a mention of myself aren't here! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You didn't answer any questions about the project. You only answered the question about yourself, which became part of the introduction. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why not mention me in the introduction? It's disappointing to be interviewed and then not see it published. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, same here, but that is what news is like. Not everything can be included . Airplaneman ✈ ^Review? 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Added a mention in the intro for both of you. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

←NerdySD, maybe you should have been mentioned; maybe not. I haven't looked at it carefully. But please note that the purpose of this page is not to include mention of particular editors—it's to provide an interesting, informative read for the whole community, on the WikiProject. I do believe users should be advised at the top of the questionnaire page that their written feedback on which the article based could appear as Signpost narrative rather than direct quotation, and when quoted might be modified to fit the run of the prose (users, of course, have the right to review the text). This is normal journalistic practice. Tony (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)