The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-11-29. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/Arbitration report

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stale  – No consensus to make a change, much bickering (this is not the right forum for that), little or no relevance to the article. We're done here. --NYKevin @259, i.e. 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I reviewed the blurb on my guide, and found only one missing space, but two notes: I deleted the entire paragraph on Polargeo's guide, as it hardly seems wise to highlight one editor's guide to the exclusion of others, and I'm wondering if a paragraph should be included about the pending crisis, whereby last year's RFC has conflicting results, asking for a Committee of 18, with some consensus for 60% support percentage, but it is highly unlikely that 12 candidates will get even 50% support this year. That we may elect arbs with lower support tallies than are needed to pass RFA is a concern expressed frequently across Wiki about this year's elections, and I'm wondering if it shouldn't be mentioned here. Only three guides support as many candidates as there are vacancies-- most do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC) In case it isn't clear from the watchlists, all your changes were reverted by Poleargo. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC) With a single revert I removed Sandy's spin [1]. We cannot have guide writers coming into the process and making changes that favour their own guides. SandyGeorgia already pulled this same stunt before the guides were written here she has not learned. Polargeo (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, in all fairness, in your first diff Sandygeorgia was keen not to promote any guide, not attempting to promote her own. In the second diff, she appears to be attempting to return a sentence about any voter being able to write a guide, and again not slighting your guide. That said, from a journalistic perspective I would support the mention of your guide for its unusual pictoral quality - journalism requires quirky subjects, pictures et al in order to be interesting to the average reader, and I would not have read any kind of endorsement into it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) I concur. I think it is legitimate to question whether an individual guide should be highlighted, but I like the picturesque nature of Polargeo's guide and it is fair play for journalists to make use of that, as long as there is no explicit or implicit endorsement. Geometry guy 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Polargeo, you've been doing this all day-- I'm concerned that you really don't read discussions you're involved in. The change I made in no way promoted any guide, much less my own; the Signpost currently promotes your guide to the exclusion of all others; strange editorializing. Polargeo, please stop making false accusations and personalizing discussions-- you've been at it with me for several days now. What is the "stunt" business you refer to-- you're rather far afield of AGF here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Sandy, it doesn't "promote his guide to the exclusion of all others". It lists all the guides. It just picks out Polargeo's guide as quirky because of the pictures. There's no consensus here to delete that paragraph. I respectfully suggest you revert yourself as having made a mistake in not realising that there is more copy here than perhaps you had read initially. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC) In other words, it promotes one guide. Anyway, I just saw your message, but Tony1 already reverted it. I forgot this isn't the New York Times-- it's the Enquirer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Can't we all just be friends. Seriously, let's not have to break out the edit warring templates over this. Please? Sven Manguard Talk 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Not to worry-- what seemed obvious apparently is not-- I must have forgotten where I was ... no edit warring from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I recall that you were extremely rude to Palergio on your talk page recently. The incident must have been removed; I can't locate it. Tony (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Not removed, just on a subpage. --Elonka 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) See, Sven, wrong again ... they'll keep digging up stories to take pot shots at me, wonder why ?  :) Ah, the conversation where Tony begins discussing me supporting my "mates", then Polargeo began some incomprehensible rant claiming something unture (and unrelated) about Ling.Nut's RFA on my voter guide talk page, so he can call me a "novice troll", then moves on to some completely fabricated claims about me "attempting to stop him from having a guide", "dropping Rlevse", and various and sundry complete fabrications. Now, who was rude again? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Who was? Not me ... and I don't remove messages, so perhaps you're remembering how rude he's been to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Facepalm can we just kill off this thread entirely before all of the simmering tension erupts? Sven Manguard Talk 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) If you can find a way to kill it off without more stories being told about me, I'm all for it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) No offense, but if you stopped responding, people would move on. Threads die from lack of interest. People already came to your aid. Put a notch in your win column and move on. For example, pretty much no matter what happens from here on out, I won't post to this thread because everything that needs to be said has been said and it is time to move on. Sven Manguard Talk 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) * See, wrong again ... seems I make a nice target :) I wonder what this is all about ... lots a stories and lots of spin, must be a good reason for that stuff goin' on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: so, back on topic after the diversion with false stories; I was asking if The Signpost could not mention that last year's RFC put us in the spot of having to fill up 18 seats even if candidates get less than 60% support; in other words, it's easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship. Only three guides endorse as many candidates as they are vacancies-- most do not. Perhaps a new RFC might be run now, since it looks like we'll end up with arbs that may have marginal support, we shouldn't be appointing arbs who are oppposed by half the voters, last year's RFC was shortsighted and didn't provide for this circumstance (although it was raised), and the 18-member Committee hardly seems necessary with declining participcation across all areas of Wiki and declining numbers of cases. A good ArbCom is better than a big ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not easier to be elected to ArbCom than to adminship, because voters' standards are higher for ArbCom. The two can't be directly compared like that. Powers ^T 15:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Voting guides are an established tradition at ArbCom elections. This year, there are 21 of them, more than the number of candidates."

Is it really notable that there are more published views than candidates. This is commonplace in elections around the world. If there is a point being made here (too few candidates? more guides than ever?), it should be explicit rather than implicit, should it not? Geometry guy 23:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be says because most of the guides are minimal and incomplete. More were encouraged to add on this year, so more did, but about half a dozen of the new guides don't really say anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will leave it to others whether to add my guide there, but at the very least, "This year, there are 21 of them", is no longer correct, as mine brings it up to 22 :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit late in the electoral cycle, and in terms of this edition of The Signpost. We let through some hasty updates by authors of voter guides, but a completely new one cobbled together today is rather too much, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it in a wiki spirit to update articles with new information? A traditional newspaper has no choice but to do its readers a disservice by providing inaccurate, obsolete information that it can only correct in the new edition; it cannot magically update the printed sheets. Obviously, this is not a problem for us - so what's keeping us from correcting it? And don't say that inaccurate reporting is traditional :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason Wikinews doesn't allow updating of its articles after a particular point in time: because news articles are a snapshot of the situation at the time they were written. Powers ^T 15:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly adding a note at the end of the article that more guides are being written, and a link to the template, might help. Or even just display the template here. I might write one myself, but probably not until the weekend, or maybe just after the election finishes. More to remind myself why I voted the way I did (haven't actually voted yet), than to influence others (guides should not really be written with that motivation). I may also just turn up on the talk page of various guides and disagree with the authors. :-) What would actually be better than a guide is a link to what people think are the best questions and answers. Indeed, I was hoping that the Signpost would cover some of the questions and answers, rather than taking the easy option of a tour around the guides. BTW, Tony, I've updated the template here. I think I filled it in right. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"rather than taking the easy option". I spent a whole night doing this page by myself. There were concerns enough about balance in treating the voter guides alone; doing a story on discussion pages would need a lot of work and careful balance. I also had to write the entire F and A page by myself, and copy-edit some of the other pages. Any volunteers? Tony (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, I was overly critical there. I, for one, do appreciate the Signpost reports, and especially the F&A page (which is much improved in its new format). I am just hoping that voters take the time to look through the questions and the discussions, and don't just read the guides. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, I'll ask the election volunteers whether we should include mention of / link to discussion in the notice that goes out soon on the usual pages. Tony (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/Features and admins

"graphic banners featuring Jimmy Wales (which had been proved to be most effective in testing)"^{[citation needed]} --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to find out who came up with the idea of being able turn those banners off in preferences. I'd pat them on the back for a job well done. :) Rockfang (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mike, see meta:Fundraising 2010/Banner testing. It was the definitive winner. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fetchy, there's a nice little blog article where it shows that the statistics for the Jimmy banner are a bit skewed. I'm currently looking for it, but I remember sending a link to James about it (I believe James put together the stats). Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, can't seem to find it. Maybe James has logs or something. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

...and that page was already linked in the article (see "the Foundation's banner testing results" in the paragraph about AOL Urlesque), as well as in the Signpost background article linked at the top.

However, it does not appear to contain all the testing results (only mentions tests conducted before the fundraiser started, and none testing personal appeals from community members). According to the banner history page and recent updates from the fundraising staff (as well as earlier comments by Philippe in the media, see last week's Signpost), a banner featuring the appeal by Kartika was tested several times on US readers, and performed well, although I can't find a page giving actual testing results (wmf:Special:ContributionTrackingStatistics seems to be intended to provide that kind of information, but it appears to be malfunctioning at the moment).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the novel is automatically CC BY-SA, even when it would have included bits of Wikipedia. I can't remember the exact phrasing CC BY-SA uses, but GNU GPL (another copyleft license) basically has the statement "if you don't agree with the license, then you can ignore it, but your rights are then outlined in the standard copyright law". The author of the novel chose to ignore CC BY-SA, and chose not to apply it to the work. In that case, it is then up to the authors of the Wikipedia passages and the author in question to find an agreement that satisfies both parties (for example, relicensing the book), or the author has to remove those passages and cease distributing them in a manner that violates CC BY-SA. Copyleft licenses are "viral" because people consciously make note that they're obligated, by the license terms, to apply them in the derivative works. It doesn't work automatically. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

...and an addition: Since this issue also touches fair-use and excerpting, that's actually a good example of people ignoring the license and letting the thing revert to standard copyright law. If you're just taking a small quote of text out of Wikipedia, you're usually ignoring the CC license and exercising the fair-use power granted by the copyright law. Nobody is crying bloody murder over short, attributed Wikipedia quotes - and nobody should. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the Houellebecq controversy: that's certainly a bold claim! I'm not too wise on copyright law, but does Gallaire have anything even close to a valid claim on the licensig of teh book because it ripped Wikipedia? bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "CPOV was chosen to contrast playfully with the foundational and self-contradictory NPOV policy. We thought it clearly signified that we were not a bunch of "gee-whiz isn't Wikipedia great" academics." - I didn't make a fuss about the following, but I do think they were somewhat insular in terms of not respecting some critical points of view. Per an article by One Who Shall Not Be Named, "Wikipedia criticism group purges three critics":

"The CPOV organisers have decided to remove you from the list. We feel that your contributions are working against the kind of dialogue we would like to see flourish on our list. Our intent is not to nit pick about Wikipedia, show our disdain for it, or to reveal its members to be evil or cult-like, etc. etc. Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion."

I know, I know, the audience here may cheer. And, loyalty oath, it was their right to do so. But again, I do think it indicated a notable narrowing of boundaries of discussion. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to the article written by Gregory Kohs, the reason why he, Finkelstein, & Jon Awbury were all banned from that mailing list is clear to anyone who peruses the mailing list archives: the three of them turned the list into a medium for expounding their views on Wikipedia. Over the months previous to their ban, the list was overrun with posts from two all of them.

I am not saying that there are no problems with Wikipedia, either in its management or its content. But far too often the problems that people like these three complain about only exist in their minds. (Wikipedia a cult? I've been here 8 years & I still haven't seen any believable signs indicating that.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Two points: 1) I honestly don't think the first part is an accurate characterization. I don't believe there's a way I could objectively convince you, so I'll have to leave it at that. I can point out nothing was said about posting too much, rather the reasons given were specifically viewpoint-based, so there's at least that much evidence you're inventing a negative justification (I've been around the Net long enough to know how this goes :-( ). The sentence "Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion." seems especially indicative of a certain bias and exclusion in order to favor Wikipedia supporters (which, sigh, is not saying everyone there is a Wikipedia supporter, rather that a deliberate managerial decision was made to exclude people who dedicated supporters would object to, regardless of whether they did anything wrong). It's inevitable that this will be deemed the fault of the excluded, but I just don't think that's a fair assessment. 2) See the process outlined in point #1 1/2 :-). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is your complaint that the list moderators said, in effect, "Go away. We aren't interested in what you have to say?" We have all received that kind of response; it happens on & off the internet all of the time. (I haven't subscribed to that list because, quite bluntly, I don't think they have anything that I'm interested in.) As for your concern that "nothing was said about posting too much", the three of you are well known as critics of Wikipedia, & nothing any of you posted there was different from what all of you have posted about elsewhere. Whether the label is appropriate or not, people who say the same things about the same subjects & ignore the feedback or responses are seen as being kooks -- & get banned. Maybe it's time for you three to either figure out how to present your ideas in a new way, or simply move on from these ideas. For better or worse, Wikipedia is going to continue to exist regardless of what the three of you say or do. -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment about CPOV is that, repeat "they were somewhat insular in terms of not respecting some critical points of view". My point in the paragraph directly above is that your accusation seems, as best one can objectively show, to be inaccurate and unfair, and driven by opposition to critics. You made a specific conduct charge, based on nothing I can see but the viewpoints of the sides involved. When evidence was put forth tending to rebut this charge and prove my original point (that the removal was viewpoint-based), you have done nothing but reiterate negative characterization of critics. Putting aside the deep philosophical problem that one can never establish anything absolutely, i.e. trying to have some factual determination even it can't be done perfectly, can you see some signs about why Wikipedia is a cult? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you are of the opinion that Gregory Kohs should not be named here; he is so quite often when relevant. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. It's humor, making gentle fun of the tendency of some (not all, not every, some) Wikipedia people to have an automatic reaction to him. The capitalized "...-Not-Be-Named" is an allusion to the sacred and the profane. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion and material is available at An Infamous Site in a thread on Institute Of Network Cultures -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Two additional remarks:

• It probably wasn't quite clear from the wording that Johanna Niesyto's research as described in the interview belongs to her dissertation (working title: "political knowledge cultures in the wikipedia").
• All but one of the images were made at the Leipzig conference (thanks Ziko and Rob Irgendwer!); this slight bias is due to the fact that among the photos from the other two conferences which are available online, none appeared to be under a free license suitable for Wikipedia. However, Anne Helmond generously agreed to relicense the shot of Nate Tkacz under CC-BY-SA on the occasion of this interview.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There were two different kinds of contributions in Leipzig:

• One group, of which Peter Haber was a representant, was very critical about Wikipedia, but as these contributions were well based and showed a lot of insight, the Wikipedians accepted it and were happy to learn.
• The second group was very critical about Wikipedia without showing insight. There was one person who claimed that Wikipedia in German language is only a Germany Wikipedia, because articles about Austrian and Swiss subjects are likely to be deleted. When Mathias Schindler of WMDE asked for examples, there came nothing. Of course not, because the person had made it simply up.

Sometimes it seems that Wikipedians can't bear negative comments on their project. The truth is that we love contributions from the first group, even if their judgement about Wikipedia is very "negative". But with the second group, our pacience is expectedly low.--Ziko (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• There are two types of young Wikipedia editors: The clueful and successful type, and the immature, annoying, less-than-clueful type that shouldn't be on here. I know of more than a few young users (12–14) in the latter category and I simply cannot believe that they don't understand how to maneuver the corporate nature and internal politics of Wikipedia. I'm not sure I've ever masked my disapproval of most young editors (90% waste time without much [quality] end result), but anyone who disagrees with me is invited to email me or discuss this issue on IRC. I don't wish to start a firestorm here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, of course, 12-14 year olds are generally do not have much "real world" experience, so they are less able to understand why some parts of Wikipedia work in the way they do. Many of them also probably do not see the point in reading seemingly boring pages full of "policies", aka "rules". A young Wikipedian probably enters Wikipedia with the mindset that Wikipedia is an unstructured free-for-all. Not that I'm saying all young Wikipedians start out like this. Brambleclawx 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• When I started editing there were only four rules. And that's as it should be. Moreover the structure (and rules) should support ad-hoc editors. It's the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" not the "encyclopedia anyone who can be bothered to read all the guidelines, polices, essays and precedent can edit". Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
  

• From my experience, the clueful types have been roughly distributed amongst the age groups. I have found some contributors in the 12-14 group who are very mature & intelligent, as well as some 30+ who are clueless & very immature. Maybe there are fewer jerks amongst the 50+ groups because they would rather say "it's too hard to edit Wikipedia" & forgo doing so, than prove the problem is on their side of the keyboard. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• By no means are the young the only people who can be clueless. Generalizations aren't fair, even if you do have a point. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Inforapid mindmaps can't index articles with apostrophes in them. They don't appear in other articles' mindmaps and can't be searched for as the root of a map. Try, for instance, Macy's or Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Powers ^T 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested it before - but would it be possible to have a 'Random article with an action required tag' (or similar) linke on the side menu?

Also - it might be useful to group some of the 'pages requiring care, consideration and attention' by subject rather than by type of action necessary. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There are such lists, created by bot, on a project by project basis. The "Expert" tag also supports subject classification up to a point. It would be reasonably simple to extend the clean-up category system to cope with a set of generic subject clean-up categories, and it might forestall the incessant creation of subject-specific clean-up tags. If this would be considered useful, gain consensus and let me know and it can be implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Something quite close exists: lists of articles needing cleanup by WikiProject. Considering that most WikiProjects are based around some subject, this should give you what you want. Svick (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SuggestBot is also worth a subscription, if you're not already on their list. 84.51.181.140 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You can use the linkintersection tool as well. I use it to find Novels that are orphaned with this query. I like it because it doesn't just give me articles tagged by Novels WikiProject but also newly created ones in the category tree, Sadads (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the file type proposal, the intent here is to significantly expand the number of file types that we can at least store. For many files such as 3D images or layouted documents, we currently can't retain source information at all, which dramatically limits reusability of content on Wikimedia Commons. Yes, restricting uploads to a trusted subset of users has large drawbacks, but so far no solution has been proposed that could be implemented with reasonable effort to achieve a comparable or better outcome. I've written a bit more here, and have tried to cover some of the alternative approaches in the proposal itself. At the end of the day, I'm happy to support any near-term solution which achieves the same outcome: allowing us to consistently retain source data for uploaded files.--Eloquence* 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly looking for open document file types with links to the corresponding pdfs as otherwise at present, the uploaders are forced to maintain the source elsewhere. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/WikiProject report