The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-01-17. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Suggested correction: The anticipated length of the evidence phase was extended soon after opening to two weeks, instead of the initial (and customary, in all but the most unwieldy or complex proceedings) one week. The target date for the proposed decision was accordingly also moved back by one week. AGK [•] 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the update. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So lack of recent input is now worth a headline? Tony (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

When there is a lack of a proposed decision from the parties about what it is they would like to see, or from any other editors from that matter, then yes - this is something that is of significance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on HaeB's talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The workshop is a rarefied animal. When it's working properly, which isn't very often, you can expect to see suggestions which may be useful in preparing the final decision. There are, however, two powerful forces which run counter to this one: One, the workshop often turns into the same battleground that crystallised the given arbcom case; two, arbs usually choose to draft their own proposals. These two forces mean, more often than not, that the workshop is useless and has no real bearing on the case. In my view, it would be foolish to read anything into what is written there; it should be cited extremely sparing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, any comments on this point? I thought most people disagreed with Ohconfucius here which is why this step has not been abolished. Arbs say that they do consider workshop proposals, they value input from others they receive, and that often their proposals are based (in some part) on what they see there. If it had no real bearing on the case, perhaps that is something which needs to be reported. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• "most people" – I like that... is it supposed to be like the royal we. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The usefulness and relevance of the workshop varies widely from case to case. It's useful enough that we (the arbitrators) have decided to keep using it, but I wouldn't generally consider the number of proposals that have been posted to be "newsworthy." Just my opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow; I don't think we ever spoke about whether the number of proposals in a workshop are newsworthy. The issue was whether workshop proposals have any bearing on a case. Are you saying that, in your opinion, there are cases where workshop input has no real bearing on the case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• He never said the workshop didn't have bearing on the case. Every single piece of nonsense posted by any party or observer probably has bearing on the case too, but not all of it is reported. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) I've thought for some time, and this week's copy highlights it, that there's way too much weight placed on arbitration when the community is dealing with many similar matters itself. I don't know how many editors are blocked/topic-banned at AN/I, AE or AN3RR but it must be many times greater than those sanctioned by ArbCom. One of my colleagues mentioned the other day that it seems particularly unfair that an editor finds himself plastered all over SignPost if it's an arbitration matter but nothing is reported if it's a community sanction. Something wrong here. surely?  Roger ^talk 13:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• The way I look at it is: the AN pages are so action-packed and often difficult to follow. Although our highest court and 'last line of defense', Arbcom is slow-moving and boring place by comparison. That makes Arbcom a doddle to report; the thought of having to write an ANI report every week would scare me more than just a little. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Might be informative to list any community-level sanctions that happen though - topic bans, indefinite bans, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I actually have considered that at one point, but I always came back to a few different (yet similar) points regarding why The Signpost has historically focused on arbitration. Arbitration is:

• the final resort and the final step in dispute resolution. (even in the last fortnight, Community-imposed bans and restrictions have been overturned by AC, yet, can the same be said for AC's which are overturned by the Community? The point speaks for itself if a bit more thought is given to that and why it may be prejudicial).
• the only means of effecting an involuntary but binding measure in some disputes (desysopping administrators and so on).
• often completed through decisions which contain TLDR aspects (length of the process or decision, or the fact that it is too time-consuming or tricky to decipher for some users). Red tape is also an issue sometimes, with word limits and long/short waits, for one reason or another.
• complicated by political factors (be it in the form of elections, or beyond) as well as hard-and-fast obligations (be it in a functionary sense, or beyond). I think accountability is another word; particularly in the event that something is seriously wrong.

I do remember hearing an argument from someone (during an off-wiki discussion) that what is "wrong" with Wikipedia is all of these points, and that one of the users who is responsible for this fate is Wikipedia's founder as it was based on his vision and structure. That is something I don't know. What I do think is that it is these same points that make arbitration distinct from the other measures/steps/processes, and it is that distinction which keeps the report/focus limited. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have often thought about Roger's point and believe it has merit. I am less concerned about whether arbitration or ANI is more worthy of coverage in theory, but rather with the effect of Signpost coverage upon editors who are involved in a case. It seems a bit unfair that an editor may be involved in a case in a relatively minor way will have the matter publicized whereas one who is more seriously involved in another form of sanction will not. Signpost writers should always recall that the week's Signpost is linked from hundreds of talkpages, published on a mailing list, and so on—it is much more prominent than the arbitration pages themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist and Ohconfucius, I take very seriously what is being said here. The potential for the journalistic process to cause harm to individuals needs to be managed. As journalists, we want to cover events in ways that are interesting and informative to our readers; and we want to attract readers with our short headlines, which are plastered about on many many talk pages, as NYB says. These needs for openness, publicity, and reader-oriented interest can come into conflict with the sense of proportion in ArbCom proceedings themselves (stepping back to see the big picture), given the different objectives at each venue. Openness of procedure is different from suddenly finding yourself on a front-page spread. The vagaries of the news flow can lead to the unwarranted highlighting of an individual in a "slow" week, where in another week, by coincidence, that individual might hardly rate a mention. Let's face it, in some weeks AR is thin on newsworthy copy.

While they're different processes—ArbCom and ANI—they have evolved in relation to each other, and as arbitrator Roger Davies pointed out in an earlier Signpost story, ArbCom now takes on fewer cases (but bigger and far more difficult). I suspect AR was first conceived before ANI took on so much of the easier, less complicated matters ArbCom had dealt with in the early days.

These are good reasons to spread our wings to encompass mentions of what we deem is of community importance/interest at ANI, and perhaps occasionally more than mentions. It would minimise the exposure of any one individual or case, through dilution, as it were; and it would lessen the need to pad the AR with repeats of case backgrounds week after week. The page name could be changed to reflect the increased scope, which would attract considerable reader interest. While this would require more journalistic resources, it would be a neat structure for sharing and alternating week by week by Nmcvocalist and Ohconfucius, and other willing editors.

There seem to be three options:

1. Do nothing.
2. Retain the ArbCom-only scope, but develop a guideline for achieving a consistent balance between newsworthiness and the potential to harm individuals through undue exposure (especially in the short headline), and accept that in some weeks the AR might take a rest where there's nothing much to say (the sky didn't fall in when this happened a few weeks ago, and it's not as though readers will be lost).
3. Develop such a guideline and increase the scope to include what we deem as newsworthy at ANI. I suggest "Arbitration report" -> "Arbitration and AN/I". We have quite enough pages called "report". (BTW, AN/I would be so much cooler without the slash.)

I have, as you see, expressed these options in a completely biased way.

What does HaeB, the Managing Editor, think about the issue? Tony (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• As a first step, I think it would be relatively easy to add a concise 'community sanctions' section to the bottom of the Arbitration report, as suggested by Ravensfire, without changing anything. We could fill in the details about what to include further down the line. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Except for the fact that the arbitration report is about the arbitration process - not the Community process. I think the issue warrants a RfC so that the Community can comment on the arbitrators proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• I see that you are still in majestic plural mode! Whilst a change in name of the report might require an RfC, we should also remember that WP is not a bureaucracy. We may also take action per WP:BOLD to add a separate report to SP. I think that the only proviso is that the Managing Editor says 'aye'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• We didn't have to seek an act of parliament to redesign the "F and A" page, did we? I suggest that if people here are generally in agreement, a section at the bottom, simply listing and linking to community bans at ANI be included as a trial, say, for a month or so. Tony (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If this was but a mere redesigning, I would not have mentioned RfC; it is more than just a formality. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbcomm should have no special privilege for determining what goes into the SP. If arbs don't like the coverage of arbcomm, that is probably a good sign William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps this page overuses TLAs like NPG and FPC without definition. I'd presume reading the Signpost isn't intended to be similar to solving a crossword. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  I guess that was just a FYI, BTW?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the ReadWriteWeb article really chose a bad example and claims too much for Wikipedia. ReadWriteWeb asserts that before Wikipedia, readers "would have had no idea" about some nasty aspects of 19th century U.S. policy towards Native Americans. That's only true if readers limited their reading on the subject matter to out-of-print, 40 year-old sources like the one cited by ReadWriteWe. But there's been a revolution over those 40 years in how historians write about Native Americans; a reader without Wikipedia could learn the story after a visit to a library or bookstore. Wikipedia cannot claim any credit for this revolution, but we can help educate people about it. If anything, Wikipedia is often behind the times in this area, since too many editors prefer older sources that are freely available on the web to the modern scholarship which is still mostly to be found in books. —Kevin Myers 15:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I envy Sterling's experience here. Perhaps he had crafted a walled niche for himself and shielded his sanity from all the wiki-hate. NVO (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• NetworkWorld: "The 10 biggest hoaxes in Wikipedia's first 10 years"??? ... Huffington Post: "a slideshow of 'the funniest vandalized entries'"???! <groan> So much for WP:DENY. -- œ^™ 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As time passes, the world is seeing the extinction of languages and cultures. It is gratifying to note that indigenous language Wikipedias have a possible role in delaying or preventing this from happening. Development of sources and references would be a positive contribution in this direction. Achal's results are eagerly awaited. AshLin (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While I hope and believe that one day there will be a single language spoken by every human being, I do agree that as a repository of functional examples of languages, local language Wikipedias are a rare and to-be-treasured resource. I also hasten to add that places like Wikisource and to a degree Wikibooks offer the services of an internet repository for other documents in 'dying' languages. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While I hope and believe that one day there will be a single language spoken by every human being - Jeez I sincerely hope not! How boring would it be if we all spoke the same language? – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly there would be options for learning the old languages, and irregardless no one would understand what the New Yorkers were saying, but improved communication between all the peoples of the world would be a good thing, the social, economic, and political benefits would be huge. Besides, if you want dozens of competing languages that have overzealous followings, will never work well with one another, and have deep mistrust of each other, you can always get into coding. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if someone used a combination of WikiProjects to attempt to save the vanishing culture of a community. Is that too much to wish for? AshLin (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So I guess Jimbo Wales is officially our god... —innotata 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Jimbo as much as the next guy, but we've just seen his picture every day for two months at the top of our screens. Did we really need to have it again as the POTD? How about video of Wikipedians typing away in a big room like the infinite number of monkeys? Or something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VGkCbIZx2w&feature=player_embedded  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister projects

Sorry, what is a parallelised dump? Thank you. 131.111.28.82 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

See Parallel computing. Basically, the end result is that dumps will be quicker to generate in future. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-17/WikiProject report