The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-10-17. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Of course NPOV doesn't apply to Signpost, but should you really call WikiProject Conservatism "a WikiProject in disrepute". ? Maybe "in dispute" would be better? Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
  
  • That wording may have been a little strong, on reflection. This issue was written and edited under serious time and manpower pressure as I and many of our other regular journalists are currently unable to contribute to a normal extent; I apologise. Skomorokh
    • Although normally I wouldn't edit the arbitration report, given that Skomorokh agrees it should be changed, I'll copyedit the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not only could the clerkes write orthographically, but the castle builders prefigured the perpendicular. It is the scanners who suffer from un-hip rotation. Rich Farmbrough, 12:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
  
  • Rich, you are special. Implemented! Tony (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Featured lists? If none were promoted please note so. I am also slightly upset that List of Oakland Athletics team records was not mentioned in this weeks FC or the last, and was promoted. Albacore (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Could you ask User:Dabomb87? He does the FLs. Tony (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who have done web work almost as long as visual browsers have been around, the reason Wikipedia has exploded is that a single page, the watchlist, keeps one instantly up to date on a horde of pages and images one has worked on. One can come back weeks, months, or even years later, and start right back up working on one's interests. Concerning overseeing the creation of concise, in-depth, continually-evolving articles on any topic nothing beats the watchlist. Blogs suck in comparison since they just pile up info without making it concise. Website software (offline or online) is a pain to use in comparison to wiki editing. As concerns the quality of info Wikia sucks in comparison to Wikipedia. Wikia does not have a sitewide watchlist. Every tiny or big wiki has a separate watchlist. MediaWiki developers need to create integrated watchlists for wiki farms. Then indepth info illustrated with images and videos will spread and explode beyond Wikipedia. Semiprofit Benefit Corporations with wiki farms using MediaWiki with integrated watchlists could change the internet world. Serious info, imagery, graphics, animation, and video collaboration could spread way beyond Wikipedia. But not without something as simple but necessary as a sitewide watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And a priority for the Foundation developers might well be to enable the watchlisting of individual sections—the advantage would be for discussion pages rather than articles. Tony (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation might know that, were they to attempt to talk to experienced editors. Instead they worry about what the lurkers emailing each other about Wikipedia & throw limited resources at unwanted things like image filters. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, LQT has attracted a considerable amount of Foundation resources (not enough? too much? you decide), and that would enabled you to watch individual threads. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TimeShifter: Just to clarify, are you proposing shared watchlist between different wikis hosted by the same folks (fairly easy to do all in all I'd imagine), or a shared watchlist feature that spans wikis hosted by separate people (Which is an interesting idea, but more difficult to do, at least in a non-naive way of just checking every single wiki involved). Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Timeshifter, but a global watchlist has been one of those perennial requests that was an old idea when we discussed it on the Strategy wiki. I have edits on dozens of wikimedia wikis, it would be great if some of those could pool watchlists - even if only ones that shared a server. Of course there's the risk that if it was developed it would be as temperamental as liquid threads was in its early days. But the solution to that is more testing before rollout, the devs do have a decent sized test wiki don't they? And though I'm a supporter of the Image filter it would be cool if we were consulted on the relative importance of possible developments - I bet the community would put global watchlists and a score other useful and uncontentious changes ahead of an image filter. ϢereSpielChequers 10:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Bawolff. I would like to see both types of combined watchlists created. There is a small amount of work done towards an integrated watchlist for all the Wikimedia projects. That needs to be finished. A cross-site watchlist between Wikipedia, Wikia, other wiki farms, and other wiki sites would be way cool too. A universal watchlist where one could select what wikis to include. I would keep Wikipedia separate myself since I have a lot of pages I watch on it. I would put all the minor Wikimedia projects, minor wikis from Wikia, and many other wiki sites on a universal watchlist. The main Wikia wiki that I edit on I use recent changes since I am an admin on it. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki watchlists: There is a script ;) [1] User:Yair rand User:Hans Adler User:Ocaasi User:UncleDouggie --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have it installed. See Integrated watchlist#Existing tools and User:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js and its talk page: User talk:Yair rand/interwikiwatchlist.js - see how-to note at top. I have it installed so that it also shows my Commons watchlist at the top of my Wikipedia watchlist. The add-on Commons watchlist only shows edits by others today. It is not currently possible to also show one's own edits on the Commons. Also, "today's" edits means only those edits on today's date. So if one is only a few hours into today one only sees edits by others during those few hours. There is no way currently to see 24 hours, or the last 2 days, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia work is Google's de facto marketing subsidy of it in terms of search ranking promotion. But nobody (in academia) seems to want to think about that :-( . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is popular. That is why it is at the top of Google rankings, or in the top 10 in many search results. Wikipedia is not popular because of Google. I often look for Wikipedia pages first when looking for info. Many other people feel this way, too. People link frequently to Wikipedia pages from their websites, blogs, other wikis, etc.. I do from all 3. Google algorithms see all this popularity and put Wikipedia pages high up in search results. Of course, that further amplifies Wikipedia's popularity. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a symbiosis between Google and Wikipedia. Google keeps Wikipedia in the public eye and a fraction of a fraction that use it become active contributors. A decent quality and vast store of non-commercial information in the form of Wikipedia articles keeps Google relevant. You want info fast? You google it. BAM, there's the Wikipedia article and the answer. Quick and simple. We shouldn't flatter ourselves to think that Google rankings had no part in WP attaining "critical mass," just like they would be stupid to ignore the enormous free "value" that WP provides to them and their search engine. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The egg, of course. Eggs existed long before chickens, and the first chicken almost certainly hatched out of an egg laid by the chicken-ancestor (while abstractly the chicken-ancestor might not have been an egg-laying creature, in terms of how evolution works, it's virtually certain it was very nearly a chicken rather than something dramatically different in terms of how it produced young). Similarly, there were/are a large number of would-be Wikipedias (content-farming is a cliche), but there is only one Google. Hence Google is what matters. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia laid the Golden Egg. :>? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

while i tend to buy the "wikipedia as freeware front end for non-commercial google status enhancement" thesis; i seem to recall other engines. best but not only? Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia makes Google work", the other way around is possibly more true, Wikipedia made Yahoo redundant, u need human resources to grade hyperlinks, Wikipedia does it for Google ;o) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Arabic WP vids: I looked at the first part of one and it seems very professionally produced. Is there an English translation or subtitling? Tony (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a general idea. The video starts with the importance of Wikipedia (Wikipedia appears in the top results of most web searches). Then explains the general idea behind Wikipedia and that YOU can contribute. Then compare the Arabic version with other versions in terms of the number of article to the number of language speakers. On the positive side mentions the Arabic version exceeds other large versions in the percentage of growth. Then mention different ways you can contribute (writing an article, translating one, correcting a mistake or even fixing a typo). 46.153.195.194 (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tony (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's too bad I didn't hear about the Wikiproject MfD, I would have definitely voted Delete. There's a reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Liberalism redirects to a task force in Wikiproject Political Culture. And I think even that is too much. We shouldn't have Wikiprojects based about political ideology. Having Wikiprojects for articles about political parties would be, potentially, fine, as they would be dealing specifically with well-defined articles that are about the political party. But using ideological terms like conservatism and liberalism that, by their very definition, are vague and can mean different things from one day to the next is useless and doesn't benefit theproject at all.

The only thing that Wikiproject Conservatism shows and which was pointed out slightly in this Signpost is that it exists to push that Conservatist ideology on Wikipedia and that is completely inappropriate. Silverseren^C 15:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Users have the right to assemble, to organize themselves, and to collaborate with each other. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and WikiProjects facilitate collaboration. The MfD process shouldn't be used to disorganize users. The project has produced and maintain 23 FA's and 38 GA's. Why should such a productive project be disbanded? The Right Stuff's first and only issue only talks about the WikiProject, its users, and the work they've done. In its current format, The Right Stuff doesn't even include anything resembling political advocacy. There isn't anything wrong with keeping its project members informed with a newsletter. Even if individual members seek to push a particular ideology, I don't see any evidence that the WikiProject as an organized group is doing the pushing. Wikipedia is about making information accessible, and if the project is expanding and improving Wikipedia's documentation of conservatism, then it's working in line with Wikipedia's goals. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Even if it's not doing it as a group, it also shouldn't allow such activism by the members that join and it's quite clear if they're joining with statements like the one exhibited in this Signpost, they are joining for an activist reason. Silverseren^C 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you like politics-related userboxes to be deleted as well? Users have the right to have opinions and to express them openly. As long as they aren't inserting claims that aren't reliably sourced into articles or removing claims that are reliably sourced from articles, they have the right to express themselves outside of the mainspace. Wikipedia is home to users who are openly anarchists, libertarians, conservatives, socialists, and more, yet we allow them all to edit and create articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That has nothing to do with what i'm saying. Comments from people that join like "enlightening conservative people & topics in a world darkening with liberalism" shows that they aren't meaning to join for a neutral reason. Expressing an opinion on your userpage is one thing, joining a Wikiproject so you can work at pushing that opinion is not the same thing. Silverseren^C 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Special:Contributions/Jjrj24, [2] – I don't see any misinformation from that user. You're giving too much credit to a cherry-picked quote. If anything, that user is simply the victim of being unfamiliar with Wikipedia. His or her user talk page history shows clear signs of newbie-ness. Perhaps someone should try to talk to him or her instead of quoting him or her on a page he or she might never look at (in effect, criticizing the user without letting him or her know about the criticism). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • FWIW, Wikipedia users have no rights except the right to vanish and the right to fork. Any other activities they may engage in, singly or in combination, which disrupt the goals of this project can be prohibited by the community. That has included disruptive userboxes and projects.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism isn't the first active WikiProject to be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2006. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects were nominated for deletion many, many times: [3], [4], [5]. The WikiProject Conservatism MfD shouldn't be described as "the first MfD of its kind." This MfD is far from being unprecedented. I'm shocked at how little research and effort Jorgenev placed in creating this Signpost article. As seen by Silver_seren's comments, Jorgenev's Signpost article had the effect of transforming the newbie Jjrj24 into a poster-boy for what's supposedly wrong with the WikiProject; meanwhile, no one ever told Jjrj24 face-to-face about what they felt was wrong with his comment. Jjrj24 never received any warnings or complaints about the comment on his talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Projects such as "WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship" or "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency", despite having Wikiproject in their names, are hardly Wikiprojects in the usual conception and everything found your link, Michaeldsuarez, were either projects nominated for inactivity or projects that had just been started with only one a two users. As far as I can tell this is the first serious Wikiproject with a topic that that had sustained activity to be subjected to a serious deletion nomination and in that way it was unprecedented. I used Jjrj24's comment because his was used as an example at the MFD. JORGENEVSKI 22:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that I'm finally gained your attention. Perhaps you should start clarifying and improving what you've written. Its present state gives the wrong impression. My comments should be a sign that it's giving the wrong impressions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm pleased that the Deletion challenge ended a keep, I wish I had known about it so that I could have weighed in before closure. There have definitely been a couple missteps by this fledgling project in terms of advocacy, but I think the general output has been good and level-headed, outside of the inevitable fisticuffs that are going to spring up over hot-button topics like abortion. Carrite (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
• Rather biased presentation. I demand that the editor in chief of this rag-newsletter resign right away. Actually, I'll start a RFAR and nominate the Signpost for MfD as well. After that you can start a RfCU on me as it happened to the guy that started the RFAR on WikiProject Conservatism, and who also trolled several other places as well. Go left/right Wikipedia! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Actually, my impression is that this project is unusual in that it avoids advocacy to the point of suicide, and I have thus argued on its page. I think people have their heads in the sand. Do you not think that the "Israel" and "Palestine" projects exist to large extent (although not totally) to counter each other? Have you not seen remarks in IRS like "reality has a liberal bias"? Why do Conservative writers seem to get immediate RfDs? The project's purpose is to work on topics related to Conservative ideology, and this is what it does. However, I have argued that it should also act as a watchdog against anti-conservative POV's, so as to add the conservative POV and achieve actual NPOV though the balance. I have not had an easy time of it, I assure you, so you can all feel better. (By the way, if political ideologies may not have projects, I expect to see one of you purists issue an immediate RfD on the Feminism project.)Mzk1 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the Toolserver "saw its direct funding cut entirely" is a bit misleading. Wikimedia Germany continues to fund the Toolserver, and several chapters have agreed to chip in on hardware and maintenance cost. It is however true that the Foundation has made clear that it will no longer support the Toolserver financially. To put this in perspective, it should be considered that the Foundation only gave money for the Toolserver once, a single (but sizable and much appreciated) one-time grant.

The Foundation is supporting the Toolserver project by providing rack space, bandwidth and some admin time for hardware setup, etc. I expect that this will continue to be the case for at least another year or two. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that phrase; it clearly doesn't summarize what has happened and is happening. Removal of the phrase doesn't affect the core of the discussion, which is that the toolserver depends on the German chapter for its existence, and that Foundation is now putting its efforts elsewhere. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I meant there that the Toolserver is no longer going to receive monetary support from the Foundation (that obviously wasn't as clear as I intended: apologies).

I didn't actually know that the Foundation was providing (or did provide, or whatever) benefits in kind - but now I do :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia really did need a backup created in a region that isn't a nearly annual hurricane target. This is a good move. We should continue in this direction by hosting a copy in Boston somewhere. I'm sure a University would take us up on the offer, and having it in Boston is useful since so many academic institutions doing research on Wikipedia are located there. I wonder how long it would take to transfer a copy to a laptop by firewire. Probably faster than downloading it over the internet. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The MediaWiki repository received its 100000th commit on 16 October. It was promptly declared "lame". Still an impressive number though. Reach Out to the Truth 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was lame because I'd called dibs on the 100000th commit months and months ago, but I ran out of time before having to catch my flight (see a flurry of commits in the 99970-99990 range from me). When I saw the 100000th commit was something so mundane and uninteresting, I called lame. I really should've put a pre-commit hook in place to keep anyone from stealing it from me ;-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

All good! Thumbs up. Wikipedia is far too valuable to ever be lost. We should have near "perfect" restore ability. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! Great to see NHRP covered. I take photographs of NHRP's and sites, so happy to see folks getting coverage about this. On a side note, Multichill developed a cool template for Commons photos of NHRP places! Hopefully this will come in handy if/when we can develop "Wiki Takes Monuments" in the US. Take a look of it in use here: Commons:File:Pioneer-hall-museum-tn1.jpg --SarahStierch (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, wiki presents the US as the default setting. It's not history in 'my' neighbourhood as I am in the UK. Please, try to remember you have readers other than Americans. I wish the editors of the Signpost - and Wikipeida in general - would remember this. Look how many times a place in the US has no qualifying 'United States' to tell us which country it is, whereas even the most obvious places outside the US are given their country as a qualifier ({Paris, France? anyone). This habit of US editors of not giving the country and assuming that a) we all will know it anyway and b) the US is the default so if we don't know it, we'll assume it, is WRONG. This is an international encyclopaedia and should be edited accordingly - not one rule for the US and one for everywhere else. 86.133.212.131 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, many Americans have poor geography skills, but there's no vast anti-Commonwealth conspiracy on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No conspiracy here. We tend to treat projects as if we were locals regardless of the country, see the WP London Transport interview for an example. On a side note, the UK and commonwealth countries have been well represented this year, with four UK-specific projects, one Australian project, and one New Zealand project. We approached some Canadian projects, but there wasn't a lot of activity on those projects. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as Mabeenot briefly mentioned, parochialism comes naturally. An example is your referring to Wikipedia as "wiki", as if it were the only wiki in the world. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)