The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-03-21. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-21/Arbitration report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-21/Features and admins

I am the first one surprised to think this, but still: Mrs.Bufe is not that notable herself, I guess. So why "pillorying" her son for being a narcissist? Just wanted to say that the news is not that relevant IMHO. --Elitre (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be an en dash in 2010-2011. Ref names should be added as well, using Reflinks 180.95.18.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Fixed the dashes - thanks and feel free to make such minor corrections directly next time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think that calling something a conflict of interest without an investigation is itself a point of view (POV). Have we considered the use of the term "vested interest" and let people draw their own conclusions rather than impose those of the editor. billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

When I began reading How Small Businesses Can Get a Link from Wikipedia, I expected it would describe some dodgy practices marketers use to promote themsleves or their clients. Instead, it shows that Wikipedia forces some honesty onto that industry. Anyone can hype themselves, but try doing it on WP and they'll soon be forced to face their own inadequacies. And if their contributions to society have had little value or notability, again they'll be forced to admit it when they find that no one cites them. Just like academia. Death may be the great leveller but Wikipedia comes a close second. LordVetinari (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It rather reminds me of this XKCD comic. Eventually, SEOers will evolve to the point where they realise that the world will reward them if they produce useful and valuable content rather than attempting to learn the secret cheat codes for Google rankings. Eventually they'll learn that their Wikipedia links will stick around if and only if they actually have some value to the reader rather than basically being marketing vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the quote "I wanted it to be able to evolve into something was worth reading" a typo? Guy Macon (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.

By the way, Wikipedia is mentioned again at the very end of the interview, after Cunningham envisages a "grand challenge" to use information technology for "making it possible to see and understand everything" (e.g. involving what journalism does today): "It's not that far from the challenge that Wikipedia has taken for itself, but it's that a 100 times over". Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ward has had a long fascination with process -- especially with finding a "developer review process that couldn't be abused". A years back he gave a presentation was able to sit in on (but I admit more than a little went way over my head) about a web portal he created for the Eclipse Organization. What excited him was that he was able to anchor the working code at every point to the tests that assured the quality and accuracy of each tool in the portal. If you changed the code, there was a button which you could then click on; this immediately validated the changes you made against the test cases which defined what the portal was intended to do in the first place. No need to submit a change for review, wait for the meeting, then argue why its adoption made sense to programmers, end users, & the bottom line. (He wrote a blog about it, it appears to have gone offline; see my own blog post about his presentation for more details.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In case it happens to be Signpost-worthy, the article on Iman al-Obeidi has been referenced 6 times in the last week in notable media, which are listed and quoted on the article's talk page under the "mentioned by a media organization" template. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Very interesting about NPG. Anyone know if they have been informed? Jujutacular ^talk 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

David Gerrard indicated that WMUK and GLAM folks had contacts there and would take it up. I left it with them.--Scott Mac 00:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately the NPG and Wikimedia, as institutions (or at least some people), are at least on speaking terms (like "a family... Admittedly a rather dysfunctional one, but a family nonetheless"). I didn't ask them for comment myself, but notified Liam, who however is travelling at the moment, but I am assuming NPG has been contacted or will be very soon.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Regarding labelling, people aren't just re-inventing the wheel, they're debating "round". Much of the topic was argued intensively more than a decade ago, with implementation and testing of many systems - which mostly failed, for various reasons. I suggest reading the "The Net Labelling Delusion". But I know almost nobody will care about ugly facts, it's all about beautiful theories -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this picture filter thing goes through, will any images at all be blocked by default before a logged in user has changed any of their preferences?--Rockfang (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. This technology would be user-centric. No images would be blocked automatically.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If no images are blocked automatically, then virtually none of the controversial issues are addressed (except a tiny one I call "Stop me before I look again", which is not significant in practice). The point of such systems is to enable widespread blocking from readers not authorized for the material (note I do not use the word "censorship" in the preceding sentence). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about penetrating institutions who are banning Wikipedia due to strong content restrictions, I generally favour pure client-side solutions for that, since they could (in theory) be pre-installed by an institution and made difficult to ciircumvent or de-activate. The proposed feature would at least have utility for self-censorship and parents of young children under 8, but it remains impractical because there's no good way to tag images. A third party client side solution incorporating its own tag lists would step around this issue. Dcoetzee 06:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This feature is pretty much entirely designed around the "stop me before I look again" scenario. It could, in theory, be enlarged to provide site-local default filters, but that is outside the scope of the design parameters given.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But it is then a feature which almost nobody wants, and does not address the major controversies. There is a vast difference between people not wishing to see things themselves, and wishing other people not to see material the readers want to see, but which is deemed harmful. This goes very far back. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jorm: Thank you for the response. Had your response been "yes", that would have been my only issue with the picture filter.--Rockfang (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, this sort of thing has been seen before. He means that Wikimedia itself will not block automatically, as far as he knows (he can't guarantee this, that's just the current policy, which could always change in the future). He cannot state that e.g. public libraries will not block automatically (perhaps due to pre-installed censorware settings), because that is not under his control. Of course, it will be said that public libraries should not do that. Shouldn't, shouldn't, shouldn't, will be the refrain. However, they will, if history is any guide. Excuse me, I'm having bad politics flashbacks :-( -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not concerned with what libraries do or don't do.--Rockfang (talk) 07:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Seth, the feature would not make it any easier for libraries to block content than at the moment. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? My understanding is that, architecturally, the idea is to have widespread labeling, optimized for content restriction. Note I said nothing there about the social "values" then applied to that content restriction. Is your point the common one that such restriction is already quite widespread? If so, then why is anything being invested in what should then be an off-the-shelf application? (n.b., the obvious answer here circles back to the problem with nominal scenario not addressing the major controversial content issues). Again, these general issues have been played out many times before. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As in, this development is aimed at substantially reducing the technical know-how (and often money) required to limit one's own viewing. Although I have some ideas to the contrary, these developments don't substantially reduce the technical know-how (and often money) required to limit other people's viewing, as is the case in libraries in say libraries. The two are, in the most part, technically unrelated. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And where is the outcry and pressure to limit one's own viewing (rather than a speculative user-case)? I really wish people were familiar with the extensive labeling systems background. But sadly, I just don't have the endurance these days to do the debates again. At this point, I regret saying anything at all. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the authors of the report, since they specifically recommended it, I guess. Or not :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's interesting to read Doc James say "What we do here really matters, with nearly 200 million page views a month for medical articles alone and 50% of practicing physicians in the U.S. using Wikipedia in clinical practice". With this degree of exposure and the inherent importance of medical articles, is there more weight upon the shoulders of WikiMedics than others? Are they more accountable? As such, are their contributions more worthwhile, and do they require unprecedented scrutiny? It's a true tightrope. Seegoon (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)