The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-08-22. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

FYI, Waalkes (talk · contribs) is not an entirely new editor. He previously edited using a variety of IPs dating back to October 2010, [1] most recently as 81.210.206.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not being a regular Signpost reader, I was surprised to learn that my username appeared in recent editions. It might be a nice idea if editors are notified when they are mentioned. It is unfortunate that you chose to mention ChrisO/Prioryman's "pointed question" to me, but not the fact that I have twice ([2] & [3]) asked him to clarify what he is asking. Oh well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to contact all editors prior to publication; but it might be possible. I can imagine a pre-publication editing fury, edit wars, etc, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Even notification after publication would be better than no notification at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the wording may be the contentious part. "Hello. This is an automated notice to tell you that your name was mentioned in this week's Signpost arbitration report (link). This week's issue was published a few minutes ago; please do not edit it except to correct factual errors. You are more than welcome to leave comments, however, directly below the article. All comments are generally read by at least one Signpost editor, who will endeavour to respond to any civil requests to correct errors in the article." How does that sound? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but that would work for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DC, do you think it's important to inform editors when they are being written about?   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think most editors would like to know that they are being written about in the Signpost, which is very widely read by Wikipedia editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• At least 12 hours advance notice would be useful if possible. I found a pretty serious factual error in the blurb about my evidence in the Abortion case, which I could have instantly fixed had I seen it before publication. NW (Talk) 11:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be happier having advance notice if it was comments only, no direct edits. We don't want edit wars spilling over here. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't be an issue for me, and for most people I imagine, as long as it was clear who we could bring the matter up with to get it resolved in a timely fashion. NW (Talk) 13:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • All comments left at the bottom of articles will be read before publication (at least in theory, and, at least during my e-i-c'ship, in practice). So, would you like me to instigate this system? I can file a BRFA later today if it appeals (24 hours warning, 12 hours if not already warned, publication if still not already warned? But with strong recommednation of comment-only). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/LivingBot_20 - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Great interview with JJ, thanks for that. It's exciting to see that someone, learning partly from wiki peer reviews, can improve his photography to that level. It's interesting to hear the comments about how he works in the field. --99of9 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed this interview. It's good to put a face behind the person who takes the pictures as well. Looking forward to next week's interview. – SMasters (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the page title and the lead photograph is unfortunate. The title is "JJ Harrison on avian photography", and then it is immediately followed by a stonking photograph of an elephant. Rather a non sequitur, I think. The article should go directly after the title, and the regular features below that. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, that made me smile too. --99of9 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. How is it now? Tony (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be bolder and do as JackLee suggested, but will leave it to you this time, I've been bold enough with Melbourne :). --Elekhh (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, this is a regular page, and readers expect to see the newly promoted material listed. It's unusual to have a special story built in on this page, but the paucity of promotions suggested this was a good edition for it. I think people would complain if we completely reversed the usual format. Tony (talk) 09:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were a reformer ;), anyway I guess my feedback is that the idea for the interview was a really good one. --Elekhh (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I'll leave it to you, but I don't think people would really object so long as the featured material appeared somewhere on the page. I think the problem is the page title. Because it is right at the top, readers expect to see some content related to it immediately after it. However, they are confronted with a pachyderm. Perhaps the page title should simply be "Featured content", and the fact that there is an interview (and an interesting one, I should add) with JJ Harrison lower down the page should be in a less obtrusive box on one side of the screen. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 12:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. Management doesn't like major changes to SP articles after publication; maybe I'd have done it in reverse with hindsight. I've now bolded the notice at the top. (I do love the non-avian elephant right at the top, I have to say.) Tony (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Next time I suggest putting an avian suidae up the top... that will make FP for sure. --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome interview. It's people like JJ that makes Wikipedia so great! Big cheer to him. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See also this new post on the Wikimedia blog (portrait of another FP contributor on Commons who says he was in part inspired by this Signpost story about JJ Harrison), as well as this one from last week about JJ Harrison himself, which cited the Signpost article. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• We need quote marks around "Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia" because it is the title of an article, and maybe the word "Wikipedia's" right in front of it. At first I thought it was an essay that the newspaper had written." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the fact that I am disappointed we didn't catch that bit of vandalism when it happened, I have to admit that I find it hilarious that it was the Star that got caught with its pants down. One of their biggest name sportswriters is a prominent anti-blogger zealot whose entire argument is based on the concept that the mainstream media is reliable, while everyone else is not. Don't trust Wikipedia? Yup. You'd be a fool to blindly trust us if you are working in a serious pursuit. But the other lesson here is Don't trust the Star. Resolute 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Readers may be interested to know that for the last election cycle in the US, the Foundation office ran an aggressive education campaign with candidates for office. Together with Craig Newmark, we met with representatives of major party committees and discussed appropriate use of Wikipedia, including giving them a pipeline to OTRS so that they felt they could get quick resolution to electioneering online, in order to prevent turning Wikipedia into a battleground. It seems that last cycle that was enormously effective. If you're interested in joining in that effort this time around, please contact me.  :) - Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:India Education Program at Pune University, part of the Foundation's Global Education Program, has gotten off to a great start. -- Donald Albury 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One clear message that I got from this event was that many attendees found the editing interface cumbersome, with comments such as it should be "easier to edit", "more intuitive like Facebook or Word". I hadn't really thought about this before having been used to other wikis and early word processors since the 1980s. A WYSIWYG editing interface may help new editors break the ice. Congrats to the organisers of this event, which was positive and interesting. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear above just what they found unintuitive, which is the take-home message for us: was it the templates (especially some of the clunkier reference templates that spread vertically)? Was it the image syntaxes? Tony (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is also the virtually incomprehensible formatting of tables (as opposed to a WYSIWYG interface in tablespace, as many other wikis have), the fifteen different ways in which footnotes and notes and references can be created; the unthreaded discussions on talk pages; the html mixed into fancy signatures on talk pages, and the "Show changes" button that generates diffs that often don't clearly identify what changed, to name some major offenders. But I think hitting someone with an infobox, right off the bat when they open an editing window, is among the best ways to show someone new to Wikipedia that they're going to need to invest significant time if they want to figure out this Wikipedia editing thing. And, of course, that's just the technical side of becoming an editor: there is also NOR and NPOV and RS and notability, and dozens more policies and a thousand and one guidelines, not to mention IAR, that one should really learn to be a first-class editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite basic stuff really. Some of it so simple that it dosen't occur to experienced editors as being a problem.

• Which of the many edit buttons on a page should be used?
• If you click at the edit button at the top of many articles, the first thing you see in the edit box is an infobox template, which can look rather daunting.
• I was repeatedly asked why one could not just right click at the point where one desired to enter / amend text. Just like you do in a word-processor such as Word.
• This is long before we get into formatting references, policies, tables, etc. Just the first impressions were felt to be quite off-putting to many of the attendees who had not actually tried to edit before.
• Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

May reduce confusion if referred to as edit links rather than buttons - you're not going to find anything when scanning a page for buttons with the default skin. Which word processors require right clicking to edit documents? -- Jeandré, 2011-08-31t10:49z

I am just reporting what the users, new editors actually said. They said buttons! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish the event had been my idea, but it was actually my Wikimedia UK colleague Steve Virgin, who wasn't able to attend on the day. Fiona herself devised the format of the evening. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As discussed here, but never really answered, how do you vote no on the image referendum? I put 0's (and a 10 on one) for the questions it asked and fully expressed my disagreement with the image filter in the open comment section, but it would be much easier if there was just a specific question about whether you want the image filter or not.

Separately, I must comment that the Signpost saying "but criticised by a small number of others" is extremely inaccurate if you look at the discussions going on about the image filter, though I suppose everyone already knows that the Signpost is biased in its reporting. Silverseren^C 03:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect I also gave a 10 to the same question you did, Silver seren. And I would be very surprised if we were the only ones to do so. -- llywrch (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"The Signpost is biased" is (to my knowledge) incorrect, although it almost certainly is biased insofar as it represents the attitudes of its writers. In any case, attributing anything to a deliberate attempt at bias almost certainly fails Occam's razor: The Signpost is written to tight deadlines, by a small number of people. It is always difficult to read every thread on the topic. A better rule would therefore be to accept Hanlon's razor and assume ignorance here.

As the contributor of that sentence, I can truthfully say that the balance presented was my honest apparisal of the ongoing foundation-l threads. I admit, however, that it may have been wrong of me to extrapolate from that sample without checking the many other possible for outrage to be presented.

As a gesture of good faith, I would invite you to (re-, I presume)write up your thoughts on the image filter and referendum in the form of an Op-Ed, and I will personally make every effort to have it published. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 07:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you with my statement. I was referring more to my view that the Signpost is very pro-Foundation in the sense that, when there is a conflict between the Foundation and the community, the Signpost will often only cover the subject cursorily or will cover it with language that is subtly stating that the Foundation is correct. And the current situation seems to show that there is far more than just a little opposition to the image filter. I would personally say that the support and opposition to the filter is about 50-50, from looking over discussions myself.

If you are serious about the suggestion of an Op-Ed, I would prefer to defer it to someone with better writing chops than myself, but who also has the same mindset about the image filter, namely User:DGG. If that is possible, I would be glad to ask him whether he would be up to doing so. Silverseren^C 09:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that The Signpost has been (is) generally quite pro-Foundation (although whether this is intentional or not I do not know, but I suspect not), and personally I would like to see more contrary, but such things are inevitably difficult to pull off without miring The Signpost in the sort of controversy that might signal teh death of it. (As I say, in this case, the discussions I read were 80-20 support.) And yes, my suggest of an Op-Ed was entirely serious. If DGG (or anyone else) could write something in the next 72 hours it stands a good chance of being published in the next issue. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try; I expect to have the time tonight to do it. Despite my advocacy, I think I'm capable of an objective analysis of the discussion without bias. I consider the basic arguments in both directions correct, (though some of the subsidiary views presented in each direction seem otherwise), and it a question of balancing them. I have no doubt at all about where the balance lies, but it is a matter of opinion and priorities, and the same discussion can equally well convince others in the opposite direction. I could leave it at such an analysis, but since anyone following the issue knows my opinion, and might well not be as convinced as I am of my own objectivity, I will follow that section with an op-ed explaining how I reach my conclusion. I would expect this all to be fairly long, about 1000 words, but I can do it shorter. I do not see the initial or current discussion on the en Talkpage for the referendum as showing only a small opposition, but rather quite the opposite, so I think the brief comment above was indeed incorrect. (I do not intend to measure the number of participants on each side, or refer to them by name) As for the general balance between the foundation and the community, I have 3 wikifriends on the board, one a rather close wikifriend. I nonetheless am quite opposed to some of the major things that the present and past boards have done, as well as the overall trend towards increase of their general role. I think the general bias here is much less than Jarry thinks, but nonetheless present. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to wait till after the referendum. The result should give me a better idea of what needs to be said. as my opinion. If , contrary to my expectations, mine turns out to be a small minority view, what I say will be rather different. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the banner announcement about the image vote - I just posted this today at Wikimedia on the page for this project:

Let me suggest that as soon as possible, we hyphenate image-hiding, so as to clarify meaning, especially in the Wikipedia banner announcement. When I first saw this a few minutes ago, I thought it had to do with a feature to hide your personal images. I think that ...opt-in personal image-hiding feature... does the trick.

KConWiki (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The attendees were very interested in editing topics they were interested in [sic], and agreed that general women's issues and interests should be covered more in depth and given more interest on the project.

It turns out that men are also more interested in editing topics they are interested in (no wonder!), why should we, therefore, edit their topics? If we do not start becoming more girly will Wikipedia never get rid of its systemic bias? Let them go f-ck themselves, I say.

187.113.193.31 (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point insofar as that it is at best questionable to expect people to edit in areas they aren't interested in for no other reason than that others who are interested in those areas feel these are underpresented. At the same time, your inflammatory rhetoric is not helpful, and you do appear to miss that such trends can be self-perpetuating; systemic bias may well be caused by a lack of editors interested in certain topics, but it also cements the lack of editors that caused it in the first place. As such, initiatives that reach out to prospective editors and encourage them to contribute are valuable and worthwhile.

Of course, it should also go without saying that this must not be done at the expense of other editors. Every constructive contributor is appreciated, and everyone's good-faith contributions are valuable, no matter their age, nationality, sex, skin color, gender, area of expertise/interest etc. Balance can be achieved in many ways, but not all of them are beneficial in the long run, and we as a community should take care to not exclude anyone or feel anyone unwelcome, and this goes for men just as much as for women. -- 88.70.193.14 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not obligatory, and WP:CSB isn't obligatory either. It's just a nice thing to do. How to handle systemic bias: realise it is there, point it out to new contributors, share the problem with the particular affected groups, and if they are interested give them the option of participating in WP:CSB. If they still want to go and write about Pokémon or baseball cards, again, Wikipedia is not obligatory! —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I really admire these folks putting this editathon together, and if any of them are reading this, hats off to you! I went through and added a bunch of additional categories to the individual articles in Category:The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, and also fixed some defaultsorts. I think that adding the categories to those pages will help bring readers to those articles who might not otherwise have made it there - For instance, by editing the Bucky (Tyrannosaurus rex) article to put it into Category:Tyrannosaurs, Category:Specific fossil specimens, and Category:Natural history of South Dakota, you might get readers who started out reading about Sue (dinosaur).

KConWiki (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/Technology report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/WikiProject report