The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-06-25. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

The proposed decision dates are a joke. There's no point in mentioning them, because they're never met. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be an idea to not include the "due by" as it seems like it's forcing a deadline. But I still think an ETA is nice. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Far worse without an intended deadline. Do you not remember the bloated text and five-month cases, old-style? Tony (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just writing based on how LR used to do so. Also, the dates given are the actual deadlines IIRC. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:14pm • 04:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-25/Featured content

• Re: the large television/film industry (Wales' "content industry"). More like "fee content industry" vs. "free content industry", with Wikipedia, libraries, etc. being part of the free content industry. Another battle worth taking up is Disney's stranglehold on US Copyright Term, at least in regards to photographs, which now has works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until at least 2019. So we got seven years to get things moving. There's lots of post 1923 photos that would improve many Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a few weeks ago, The Signpost was self-righteously castigating the firm of Julius Springer for using Wikimedia Foundation material without proper attribution. I pointed out that Wikipedia regularly violates copyright. Ah, several replied, Wikipedia violates copyright, but it does not violate copyright for profit.

Now Jimbo Wales is acting as the attack dog for pirates, who steal from artists, for profit, and The Signpost does not even address whether Wales has any conflicts of interest, comprising his ability to be a spokesperson for WMF/Wikipedia.

Again, The Signpost cannot be bothered to get even one quote from the other side (U.S. prosecutors, artists, etc.), but just rolls over for Jimbo. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be charitable here and think first that Signpost coverage problems are due initially to lack of writers. Perhaps you could ask to do some coverage of this sort of topic, or maybe an Op-Ed? (I have no connection, this is just a suggestion). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Aggregators of pirates are not stealing. They are making lists of locations of stolen property which can be copied. In fact, O'Dwyer was making it easier for the police to do their work, but they went after him instead. Perhaps you should check Jimbo's talk page history for more information on this. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with Jimbo is regards to whether WIkipedia is liberal or not. We're meant to represent the English-speaking world as a whole and it is a well-known fact that the English-speaking world outside of the US is definitely more liberal. We have no reason to and shouldn't conform to what the middle line would be in the US, but what the middle line is for the world. And that line is definitely going to be further left than the one in the US and that's fine. Silverseren^C 07:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• "For example, the national health service supported by all major parties in countries such as the UK and Canada would face vociferous opposition in the US". That's a biased statement right there. It would face "vociferous opposition" from special interest groups in the US, not from the American public. You might try reading our own article on public opinion on health care reform in the United States which says "65–86 percent of U.S. respondents support a government guarantee of health care for everyone who needs it." Now, where is that "vociferous opposition"? Follow the money... Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many members of the Republican Party have vowed to repeal the Obama-championed heath care law if they take the Senate and Presidency in 2012, and that law is a far cry from a British or Canadian health care system. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• You mean many members of the Tea Party, a special interest-funded fake grassroots movement that in no way represents the American people no matter how many times Faux News says they do. The fact of the matter is, the majority of American people support health care reform, including physicians, nurses, and even the insurance companies. The opposition to health care reform is just another manufactured controversy promoted by PR organizations who depend on convincing the gullible 20% to drown out the voices of the 80%. Huxley was talking about this kind of tactic in the late 1950s. Every respected analyst on both sides of the aisle agrees that health care reform is necessary in the US. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's basically an astroturfing campaign, but then who's going to have the time or energy to fight it head on? That's how we are where we are, and that's why Wikipedia gets criticized for bias from both sides. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "has faced" would be superior to "would face" -- because now, it's looking like more than three times the savings for all of the preventative care. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Using an index of words to check for bias seems like a poor methodology. It is ridiculous to suggest that if an article talks about civil rights or economic growth etc then it has a bias purely on the basis of using the words. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, especially if the index is calibrated to American political norms, which are much to the right of that of any other English-speaking country. An article on the British Conservative Party could well show up as being 'liberal' on such a measure! Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this research on bias in our articles should be dismissed outright. It would not be surprising if an article on a 'conservative topic' was written with a slight conservative slant, and an article on a 'liberal topic' was written from a slight liberal slant, simply because people tend to write articles on subjects they're interested in. That's something we should always be aware of and try to correct. Robofish (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, some people like to write bad things about their opponents. :) I wonder which group is stronger. Anyway, it's great that bias is assessed, it's the only way we can fix it. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• We don't know if it's an actual issue because the methodology for checking was not rigorous:

1. the content just might have to use some of these "slant" words, how can you explain involvement in civil rights without using the word.

2. It doesn't cover usage of the key words in a negative way (bias the other way)

3. The paper has undergone no peer review, and no internal review (per disclaimer on the paper)

4. Does not take into account non-american editors who have not been exposed to the same media.

5. The "report" is actually a blog post on the new york post.

We shouldn't assume it to be true as the evidence is very poor, and so speculating on the reasons for a slant is essentially pointless. We don't know if there actually is a slant. It's a bad idea to base decisions off conclusions in studies like this. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems that those attempting to study our so called bias are forgetting that neutrality lies in the eyes of the reader. It is not just the articles that have bias, it is our preconceived notions of what we will find on a page that helps skewer our perspective on the matter(s) discussed in the article(s) in question as being conservative or liberal in our opinion. It would do well of people to remember that unless Vulcans are designated as the sole editors of the encyclopedia there is going to be some bias in an article, and until we learn to gravitate away from the edges of the political spectrum and move more toward its center we will find bias in an article regardless of whether it is there or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fascinating, but let us not forget that our fictional Vulcans are biased against emotions, and much of our content involves generating emotional reactions from the reader, such as portraying political and social disputes between liberals and conservative. The only reason the audience connected with Spock was because he was half-human, even if he tried to fool us into believing he was fully Vulcan. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose you favored Bele for his coloration. However, everyone knows that Lokai had the better claim to superior coloration. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• The bias study isn't worth the paper it's printed on — it starts from the fundamentally flawed premise that by identifying 1000 buzzwords as "liberal" or "conservative" and tracking the evolution of their use over time, one can somehow objectively measure the change in an article's "neutrality." There is no such objective measure, this has to be a subjective process. And subjectively, from my perspective, NPOV works. Carrite (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's job isn't to fix political bias in the media. Wikipedia articles are to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. If the relevant literature is politically biased, then a Wikipedia article's prose survey reflecting that political biased would meet Wikipedia's own commitment to a neutral point-of-view. The "international community of English speakers" should be irrelevant to Wikipedia's content. It is the "international community of English writers" that affect Wikipedia's content (and yes, the international community of English writers is slightly more liberal than the liberal U.S. media, even though the international and U.S. populations are conservative). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting juxtaposition of these two stories. While a study trying to assess bias solely upon how often certain topics are mentioned in any context is clearly bogus, I do think it gets more and more difficult each day to deny that Wikipedia is biased against copyrights and other intellectual property laws. DreamGuy (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's a need for an en.WP article on Institute Francais. Tony (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Tony, do you mean the London one or the Paris one? (both should be spelled Institut français, I think). -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also Institut français des relations internationales -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• My experience is that there should be some middle ground between SA and NC. There are major institutions that cling to NC, because SA is a step too far for them. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Those are really two different things; I'm not clear on what sort of provision would be considered "middle ground" between them. Powers ^T 11:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it is obvious: it is one for lawyers to wrestle with. I said there is a clear need. My hope is that a new generation of licenses would recognise that the stark commerce allowed/commerce not allowed binary choice is missing the actual concerns of big players. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • What are these concerns? Would you recommend allowing some commercial use, but not all? And what does commercial use have to do with the ShareAlike provision? Powers ^T 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Three questions there, then. First point: for example Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and British Museum start from NC as default, and their concerns may be different in the two cases, but real. Second point: I just ask if there is a manner in which "accounting standard" rather than "business model" could be used. Third point: Wikimedia recommends CC-by-SA (in effect); if CC-by-NC is in use or the "natural" license for (say) a non-profit, or potential donor to Commons, the case has to be made that SA is an improvement or win-win. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • CC-by is more free than CC-by-SA, so we as a movement would have no problem with anyone wants to drop the ShareAlike, if they don't like that provision for some reason. As to your first point, you didn't actually explain what these organizations' concerns are; just knowing that they have concerns is not helpful. As to your second point, I don't understand the distinction between "accounting standard" and "business model"; I don't think either term appears in the CC-by license terms. Powers ^T 18:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
        • • I think it is "not helpful" to speculate in public about the concerns of major institutions who are in a sense already Wikimedia partners. In fact it is plain bad taste. There are several prominent Wikimedians who works at the Sanger; GLAM relationships with the British Museum mean we can ask them directly any time we want about their licensing policy. You can also research these things if you need to. This is after all just a comments place.
          • I didn't claim anything about the current CC licenses. I'm simply pursuing a line of thought, since you didn't seem to be following at all a discussion I thought was current. When we say "non-commercial" what do we mean? We tend to mean "not for profit": but banning reuse of material from the BM (say) simply because there is a charge made is not we do (for good reason). Given the size of Web content, a "finding service" for images might be acceptable if it really met the cost of finding, without a high premium. Reuse in printed form where there is a charge for printing costs only is sort of "non-profit" activity. I just have a vague feeling that accountancy and the idea that "profit centres" can be tracked might be an idea that has some legs.
          • I know that academics tend to think that NC is OK, because there is no money in academic use of anything (to speak of, in most cases). We take a different line, and are right to IMO, but we have to make a clearer argument. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure what discussion I haven't been following... maybe you could provide a link? I'm afraid the bulk of your response has gone over my head. Either I'm being dense, or you're being confusing, and I'm not sure which. Powers ^T 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually no, not necessarily. CC-by can be worse because we don't want people taking free content and selling it for their own personal gain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Why not? Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
            • One of our goals is to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" i.e. not stuck behind paywalls... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
              • CC-by doesn't allow anyone to sell free content; it allows them to use free content to sell other things. The free content remains free. Powers ^T 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Hopefully this will end the World Health Organizations refusal to move to CC by dealing with their concern that CC holds them to national legal jurisdiction. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 01:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• For me the most important goal is improved compatibility with other licenses, namely cc-by-sa with GPL (as discussed on the Mailing list). That would reunite the two biggest pools of copyleft culture and remove the currently existing arbitrary legal barriers between free software and free artwork. Draketo (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The main impediments to these licenses being compatible are on the GPL end, not the CC end. That said, copyleft licenses are inherently difficult to make compatible as this is the nature of copyleft (since the licenses must be maintained). Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Page 7 of "On the Evolution of Quality Flaws and the Effectiveness of Cleanup Tags in the English Wikipedia" makes for interesting reading for editors interested in knocking over some smaller clean-ups. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Per: "In summary, low-activity and new editors, along with anonymous users, tend to delete more than they contribute; this reinforces the notion that Wikipedia is largely the product of a small number of core editors." - So when is the foundation going to stop obsessing about making Wikipedia ultra-friendly to IP editing and to start getting serious about studying who its content-creators actually are and what tools they need to do their jobs better??? Here's one hint: we're older than you think we are. Here's another: we need access to JSTOR. Carrite (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I think you're presuming the Foundation wants to keep its current content creators. ;-) Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well duh, Killiondude. If instead you counted on anon IPs and part-time contributors, I think the study shows pretty clearly that we soon wouldn't have much left to look at! MeegsC | Talk 11:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  There's a good reason for the Foundation's advocacy of the myth that anyone can contribute & improve Wikipedia: funding from major foundations. It's easier to get a charitable grant for an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" than one only a select few can. Money does influence content & presentation in ways undreamed of by your philosophy, Horatio. -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• RE: "A small number of core editors" - Sounds like the recent 1%ers vs. 99%ers issue with the 99%ers trying to take what the 1%ers contribute. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'll just chime in here with WP:HUMAN and mention that I'm an IP that;
  • references articles
  • fixes BLP problems
  • and generates content

Just wanted to point that out for people that aren't aware of the contributions of IPs. 64.40.54.121 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone else notice that the contribution percentages might be skewed by reversions of page- and section-blanking? Some of the most "prolific" contributors might just be wikignomes who revert blanking vandalism. Powers ^T 12:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, blanking a page or reverting it are going to look much more dramatic in this methodology than actual content edits (or justfied removals), if every character gained or lost is equal. So it doesn't really show you who the content contributors are. The study shows that accounts with only a few edits are net contributors--but that probably just shows that blanking vandals are less likely to register. And even if the content contributors are a select group, the "1%", you still need to find ways of steadily injecting that group with new blood or else it will be lost through attrition (regardless of whether the WMF caters to the preferences of current contributors, there's going to be a natural dropoff rate). The track record of Sanger's Citizendium model is clear, cliquishness does not build an encyclopedia. 169.231.98.141 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Since much of the text in wikipedia is interwiki links, I can guess that persons running interwiki scripts can run up a huge % of the total text.
    • Also, 1% writes 100%?? Sounds like a problem with counting methods. If someone adds a new fact, and I completely rewrite his text, is it counted as text written only by me? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've often wondered who the 1% are 20% of. I mean, 20% of the people doing 80% of the work is an old story. There is no bright line saying where the community ends or begins. So it's as if, maybe, the 5% are those we should concentrate on? Where does this lead? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

the law is generally recursive: of that 20%, 20% of them will edit 80% of the 80% of total articles--in other words, it is expected that 4% of the editors will be responsible for 64% of the content. WP is similar to other human activities. It would take a highly artificial structure to do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing about counting up how many characters were added by which editors really should have also mentioned an earlier similar study by Aaron Swartz.[1] In both cases I have some doubts about the methodology and in particular in the more recent study, I'd like to know if there was some attempt to separate out additions made by automated scripts rather than human editors. 69.228.171.149 (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• The story about the citation needed template isn't all that surprising. Quality content contributors (like those working on FAs) often use or encourage the use of profligate cn tagging on a specific article, so they can identity claims that need referencing in what is often an already densely referenced article. They then go about replacing all the tags with references. By contrast, unreferenced is usually a well-intentioned drive-by tag, left for some unidentified individual who has knowledge of the subject and may never respond. --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• e"contributor authoritativeness". Is this merely a typo gone unnoticed for days by our usually eager nitpickers? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a place we can discuss the Wikipedia/Wiktionary mobile apps? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia mobile app has its own irc channel and mailing list (mobile-l). If you see something wrong with it you can always file a bug. (There's also pages at mw:MobileFrontend/Feedback, but I'm unclear if anyone reads that page). Bawolff (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This means that there is no easy way to comment on it, sigh. I thought about sharing my thoughts, but I don't feel like dealing with an IRC or listerv client... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback for Wiktionary can be left on the feedback page, or in IRC at #wikimedia-mobile. Pfhayes (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-25/WikiProject report