The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-05-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
I appreciate the editorial comment about the quality of The Raising of Lazarus (Rembrandt) article. I wrote a paper on the artwork for an Art History class and I was able to turn that paper into this article; a practice which I encourage all university students to do. Of course I'm not the sole contributor and those other editors have done well to improve on my work. Anyone visiting Los Angeles ought to see the work at LACMA where it now hangs. The oil on panel itself is rough looking and the selected featured picture does it reasonable justice. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The people who need to be investigated are WMF, not WMHK. Money was allocated for a Wikimania. The Hong Kong team produced a "'Beautifully smooth' Wikimania with few hitches". End of story. Hong Kong should ignore requests for a financial statement, which serves no purpose whatsoever. I would recommend instead Garfield Byrd should be sacked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
What should the WMF be investigated for here? They provided WMHK with a grant to organize Wikimania 2013. It seems reasonable to expect a financial statement how the grant was used. And what's Byrd done here to be sacked here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense, Hawkeye. WMHK put on a well managed event, but that does not relieve them of responsibility for providing an accounting of how donor money was spent. That they haven't is, unfortunately, not surprising. It is of a piece with the resistance to and rejection of WMF norms and expectations after the chapter was refused a major uptick in funding. Nathan T 21:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Just chiming in with a side note here as the EIC of the Signpost and the author of our Wikimania report last year ("'Beautifully smooth' Wikimania with few hitches"). The front end of the conference was done very well; it was well-organized, there were no major mishaps, and the participants broadly enjoyed the sessions. The back end, however, has not gone so well, and that's what this story focuses on. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
WMF is yet to articulate what purpose the accounting serves. Putting on a well-managed event is what the funding was for, and that was done. The back end, as you put it, serves no purpose whatsoever. It is just an invitation to pointless bureaucracy and micromanagement. We should all reject this, and if they are indeed WMF norms, then more than one person may need to be removed. And yes, I once fired someone like Byrd for precisely this reason; prioritising processes over the mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that the WMF generally places too much emphasis on useless bureaucracy, to the detriment of the movement, I respectfully disagree about the issue of financial reporting and more specifically this situation. The reason why a report is needed is to see that the money was properly spent. I am biased on this issue, having helped organize a Wikimania myself, but I think most Wikimania veterans know that there have been Wikimanias that were organized better and spent less donor money. Not putting down the Hong Kong team here, which did a good job given the circumstances. However, both the WMF and the volunteers (us / the public) needs to know how the money was spent, both so that we know of deviations (if any), and so that we (the WMF and future organizers) can learn the appropriate lessons. Overspending on Wikimania is a growing problem in the movement, and therefore at this junction it's especially important to understand the financial aspects of each conference better. —Ynhockey(Talk) 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention the message this would send to future Wikimania organizers: "do what you want with the hundreds of thousands of dollars we're sending you; we won't be auditing what happens to it." Secondarily, imagine the subsequent effect that would have on donations to the movement. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems like there is a lot of passing the buck going on here. Who ultimately will be held responsible for delivering the report? What are the consequences for late delivery? What are the consequences for no delivery at all? And who would be on the receiving end of consequences, if there are any? (Wllm (talk), 21:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like this is a learning experience for the WMF. Hopefully this will lead to a change in practice were local chapters may handle the organization of things and the WMF is at least somewhat involved with managing the "back end". WKHK is a small organization. After organizing this size of conference I am sure they are burnt out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. "FDC's recommendation just months before the event to refuse funding for an annual grant to the Hong Kong chapter...." I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it's probably a lot easier to get accounting work out of people if you don't pull the rug out from under their budget just months before a huge event. If they had to use conference money to pay for expenses that were budgeted to the chapter to pull everything off, but are now afraid of getting in hot water if someone starts complaining that wasn't proper, then more power to them. EllenCT (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
(commenting not in my role as the FDC chair) I believe that the costs of accounting for such an event should definitely be included in the event's budget (which possibly is a reminder for future Wikimanias; but also for WMF which may decide to reserve an amount for this purpose for all future meetings). It is unwise to assume that a quite elementary report would be provided only if the chapter was given a grant for their general program. With such amounts of money, accounting for all expenses is really essential for transparency purposes, and also to show that we, as a movement, have integrity. Pundit|utter 06:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
@Pundit: are you familiar with critical path analysis in event, process, product, and budget planning? Can you imagine a situation where preconditions for a successful event funded in a chapter budget when the event budget was drafted would result in event failure if unexpectedly unfunded? Are you suggesting it would have been more ethical to duplicate such necessary chapter budget expenses in the event budget as contingent expenses to be returned in the event of chapter defunding? If so, were there ever any instructions to that effect? Do you think integrity involves preventing your friends from being in such unexpected situations? EllenCT (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch to assume that a giant uptick in general funding from the WMF for the chapters operations was a critical path for a successful Wikimania event - where "successful" includes the existence of basic accounting controls. The two funding streams were unrelated, the WMHK should have had no firm expectation of funding approval (as no such sign had been provided to them), the funding period for the FDC grant began after the event, etc. For information, the WMHK had no general budget grant from the WMF prior to the Round 2 submission to the FDC, yet asked for over $200k in funding for Round 2. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
As Nathan wrote. Also, all entities of this size have to have accounting services required by law. I'm only suggesting that organizing a large event may require some additional work in this area, which should be included in the costs of event. Pundit|utter 05:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Quite simply as the senior body in this relationship, WMF should have made sure that the appropriate reporting was in place - and maybe they did. What constitutes appropriate reporting is, of course, open to discussion. Had a third party event manager charged a fixed amount to organise and deliver the event, we would not be asking for their expenditure on paper napkins and attendance bags. Unless a specific agreement was made with the WMF to publish particular financial information, there is no onus from that point of view on WMHK to do so. WMHK does of course need to comply with HK law and accounting standards - that, however, is a matter for the regulatory authorities.
While investigative journalism is great fun, to request information with the rider "unless it is provided, questions will be asked about your probity" does not seem a good way to go.
Rich, we gave the conference organizers literally months to respond. I think the questions we raised were appropriate, and that they were given more than enough lead time to answer any of our questions. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Rich, not fun; hard work. Tony(talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Am I reading this right: the meta:Wikimania 2013 bids/Hong Kong#Budget didnt include any provision for overheads such as detailed financial reporting? Is there another revised, more detailed, budget that was constructed with the WMF staff after the bid was successful and before funds were handed over? John Vandenberg(chat) 02:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Those are some good questions. I always felt that WMF is not doing very good in budget transparency, and I'd love to see a Signpost issue focusing on that. In my opinion, what budget information is given to the community is disorganized, and non-verifiable (have scans of any receipts been ever posted)? By the way, it would be nice if the report would compare WHMK budget information (or lack of therefore) with those of priors Wikimanias. This report is a good start, I hope to see much more digging on this. For the record, I don't expect to uncover much problems, but I'd like to see the transparency of financial matters significantly improved across the entire Wikimedia movement organizations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL, what an outstanding example of Signpost style. Thank you for raising attention on Wikimania budget transparency, but I wonder why you focus on the lack of 2013 statements when m:Wikimania 2012/Budget is still empty. The only available financial statements for a past Wikimania are at m:Wikimania 2011/Budget (thanks Wikimedia Israel for your leadership in transparency!). On the bright side, WMF last month published its own costs for Wikimania, only 8 months later than most chapters, at m:Wikimania 2013/Budget. --Nemo 07:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nemo bis. Wikimania 2012's financial statement was posted four months after the conference, in November 2012, on the Wikimania Handbook. I did not create m:Wikimania 2012/Budget nor was I originally expected by anyone to post financial data there. I would like to also note that Wikimania 2012 is responsible for the overall development of the Wikimania Handbook, including a comprehensive timeline detailing all the factors that go into planning Wikimania and when they need to happen. The Handbook supplements the "Guide to Planning Wikimania" I prepared which includes countless receipts and invoices, so that you can investigate in detail which goods and services were purchased for the conference. (I make the Guide available on request, but I don't publish it online because some vendors get touchy about people posting their prices online.) The Wikimedia Foundation did not have comparable documentation until I sought its development following Wikimania 2012. So I strongly contest the claim that Wikimania 2012 was not transparent with its accounting. I am greatly disappointed that Wikimania 2013 could not build on the work I did for 2012. Harej (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Harej, I've transcluded the information on the now-standard place. Forgive me if it looked otherwise, but I was not making any claim about Wikimedia DC's transparency or accounting. In fact, other than greeting WMIL, the only organisation I mentioned was WMF, because WMF travel is the single biggest Wikimania expense by far. --Nemo 07:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
We should all understand that financial shenanigans are possible in any charity and in any business - when money is involved the watchword should be "trust but verify", not simply "assume good faith." With WMF grants, we are especially at risk: there are many inexperienced young people involved here in many different countries with different cultures of financial accountability and different methods of financial reporting. It is inevitable that we will have some "misunderstandings" and more mini-scandals with WMF money. We must accept that without condoning it and take necessary steps to minimize it. I say "more mini-scandals", but some might say we've already had our share of real scandals. These include events at a couple of our largest chapters, in the UK and in Germany (which failed to get approval by its own audit committee). If I remember correctly there were similar events in an Asian chapter and in Africa.
But there are only 3 paths to take here
1. close down all grants - which we don't want to do;
2 ignore the problem - which will *inevitably* lead to real major scandals getting international attention (a la the Red Cross scandal of several years ago, or the Brazil World Cup fiasco), which could possibly close down the project; or
3. strictly require financial budgeting and financial reports to maintain transparency both before and after projects, and to use our influence with chapters to help educate them on the need for financial transparency and how to implement proper financial reporting and budgeting.
3 is the only viable option.
People must realize that without transparency the projects themselves will be hurt or curtailed. Most shenanigans won't be of the type where somebody gets a grant and then immediately disappears across a border with a new Mercedes. Rather they will be padding accounts, e.g. an extra 20-30% goes to a family or friend's business with kickbacks expected. Or expensive but unneeded frills are added simply because they are easy to skim from. Project managers may spend more time figuring out how to get the kickbacks, or free computers, than in running the project. At some point we may have a Wikimania where everybody arrives and finds that there is no organization at all, mangled hotel reservations, no technology set up, or even no venue.
Kudos to Tony for following this up. The Signpost having a reputation for investigating the flow of money will keep everybody on their toes. I also think that the accounting dept. at WMF has done a good job so far, in a tough situation. But progress all around is still needed.
And don't forget the next financial scandal - I will say "I told you so." Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
All in one place
There is a photo of a planning committee, and they are all in one place. Wikipedia editors are scattered all over and almost never really met. So is Wikmideia different?— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 20:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Wow, the librarian connection arrangement seems very cool! It will be interesting to see how well it functions. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I should point out that the "Ask a librarian" links are not limited to the National Library only. Depending on the content of the article, they also refer users to the relevant state libraries, which can often be better placed to assist than the NLA for local enquiries. See Talk:Welsby, Queensland, for an example. Lankiveil(speak to me) 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
It's worth noting that in the "terms and conditions", the State Library of Queensland explicitly excludes foreigners and even non-Queenslanders from this service:
State Library staff are unable to:
• carry out research for interstate enquirers unless the material is only available in Queensland - please refer to your State Library or equivalent.
Yet the link is advertised to Wikipedia editors worldwide on this and thousands of other talk pages without mentioning this restriction.
Indeed they do, but why would someone from outside of Queensland contact a Queensland library for advice on non-Queensland related topics anyway? Lankiveil(speak to me) 05:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
Sure, but read the above quote again - the terms and conditions don't make such a distinction between Queensland-related topic and non-Queensland related topics. One has to conclude that all requests from editors not residing in the state will be rejected, even if they are about the subject of the article on whose talk page the service is advertised. (Except for the rare case when the request is specifically about a document where it is known in advance that the only existing copies are located within the state's boundaries, which would seem to exclude most reliable, published sources.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi HaeB, I've notified the State Library of Queensland about your concern and they have passed me this response:
Thanks for drawing our attention to these comments. We're sorry the message on our website could be interpreted to mean that non-Queenslanders are barred from our Ask Us service – that certainly is not the case. The service is actually provided for:
All Queensland residents
Anyone wishing to access information relating to the jurisdiction of the Library
Anyone wishing to access information which is unique to our collections
These service guidelines are common across all the state and territory libraries. The intention is to direct people to their own state institution, unless the information they seek is unavailable there, in which case we are more than happy to take enquiries from anywhere in the world. We’ll amend the wording on our webpage urgently.
I'll post here again when the text is changed. Sincerely, Wittylama 06:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this, Liam! That sounds great, hope it will be fixed soon.
It seems indeed that the State Library of Queensland is correct in pointing out that other state libraries have similarly problematic clauses (of course, I mean problematic in the context of mass-linking them on a global website; not telling the library what do to in general).
For example, the service of the State Library of New South Wales (advertised on e.g. Talk:Sydney) likewise excludes patrons from outside the state[1]:
"If you are from interstate or overseas
Direct your enquiries to your own library, unless the information or resources can only be found in our Library, such as original letters, diaries and paintings." (which, again, would seem to exclude most reliable, published sources)
Just to add to what Liam has said, I just want to point out that the SLQ link only appears on the talkpages of Queensland-related articles, so you're not going to see the irrelevant link all over the place. I would also point out that, for Queensland topics (ie: the ones that the link appears on), SLQ's status as a legal deposit library and collector of rare materials pertaining to the state through the John Oxley Library means that they are a rich source of reliable sources on Queensland history. When it comes to older sources, which are handy for topics like 19th century biographies and ghost towns, I've found their collections to be quite useful indeed. Lankiveil(speak to me) 13:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
I know that the SLQ link isn't shown on all 127,000 or so Australia-related talk pages like the NLA link, only on Queensland-related ones. But that's still more than 8,000 links, if I'm not mistaken.
And of course nobody questions that it's a fine library. Rather it's about avoiding "making the library and the editors unhappy (waste time on making an enquiry that is not responded to)", in the words of an editor (Queensland-based, no less) who already raised this concern when the project was proposed on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board in February.
Since I am the Queensland-based editor in question, my comments were about process, about proceeding with this addition to the talk page without first consulting the libraries involved. In the case of the State Library of Queensland, we have subsequently discussed this with them and they were comfortable with it (they are a very Wikimedia-friendly library and have donated over 50,000 historical out-of-copyright images of Queensland subject matter to Commons). I never thought they would be opposed to the idea in principle, but thought they might want some input into the wording possibly wrt to their terms of service. Kerry (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
HaeB I've just been advised by the SLQ staff that they have now updated their terms and conditions page which now provides more detail, and hopefully clarifies who they are able to do research for. Sincerely, Wittylama 05:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent work, Liam! Hope the State Library of New South Wales will follow suit. FWIW, the (also linked) State Library of South Australia already states similarly that their service is open to "anyone wishing to access information relating to the jurisdiction of this Library", although they exclude "extended research assistance to people interstate or overseas asking for information that is readily available in their own state, territory or country" [2]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi HaeB, I'm from the State Library of New South Wales Glamwiki project (our project page). We are adopting the National & State Libraries Australasia service guidelines for information requests (otherwise known as the Ask a Librarian service; see the guidelines in full) which includes answering research queries relating to our jurisdiction. You'll see changes to the information our website after our internal processes have been finalised. Rubicon49bce (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Edokter, thank you for your work over the last several weeks. I personally appreciated them. I hope we'll see you around the Signpost, even sporadically, in the future! Best of luck, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think the noncollapsing Vector navigation menu is broken. This situation reminds me of the old saw about the difference between a "bug" and a "feature": A feature is a bug that has been documented.
Seriously, though I do recognize that the peekaboo rendering of hidden content is problematic, I'm not sure this is the most elegant workaround. I certainly never thought it was one of the biggest performance hits degrading user experience. "Premature optimization is the root of all evil."[3]
I don't mean to shoot the messenger. Thank you Edokter for the reportage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Tom Neuwirth has said in interviews he's a drag artist, not transsexual per se (though he is most pleased for Conchita to be taken as support for transsexuality), and Conchita Wurst is a character - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I was just coming here to say the same thing. Describing Conchita Wurst as a transsexual is incorrect. She's a drag queen. Tom Neuwirth is (as far as anyone publicly knows) a cisgendered man who dresses up as a woman (but with a beard for an extra genderfuck twist) in order to entertain. Willam Belli once said, "If I'm not getting paid, I'm a boy", and the sources suggest the same is true of Tom/Conchita. Angr (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
And thank you Angr for introducing me to the words "cisgender" and "genderfuck" and the meaning of "cisgender" (sadly my work has blocked me from learning about "genderfuck"). --Roisterer (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Another genderfuck twist comes from using the term "cissy" (pronounced just like "sissy") for a cisgendered person, in analogy to the sometimes-offensive "tranny" for a transgendered person. Angr (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
On the Russian Federation's so-called "Anti-Gay Laws", and the (mis)reporting thereof in mainstream media, see this paper by gay activist Brian M. Heiss: static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/february2014/white_paper.pdf . --NSH001 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC) (NB: I had to render this URL out into plaintext because the spam blacklist was messing up this talk page. jp×g 10:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC))
If I get time I will read the rest of the paper, but the early phrase "As I began my mission to disprove the Curry - Dvorak analysis of the law" rather scuppers my hope for a document by an author with an open mind. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
That's a strange remark, since he takes the time to look at the evidence, and comes to the opposite conclusion from what he wanted to believe. --NSH001 (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Having got to the part where "Non-Traditional Sexual Relations" is apparently not understood to be almost synonymous with "LGBT" (p 22 of 72) I don't think this report is worth any more of my time. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC).
I think you are misreading the report here. He is saying nothing of the sort. Read it again, carefully, and in context. --NSH001 (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
PrisonPlanet, really NSH001? You do know that that's run by Alex Jones, the hack conspiracy theorist behind Infowars, right? I would trust anything hosted on any of his websites. SilverserenC 19:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I just got done reading the document and it is utter nonsense. The entirety of it boils down to, as we would say on Wikipedia, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The author just complains about events in other countries and in the US and says that if we don't bring those up, then we can't complain about what Russia is doing. SilverserenC 19:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
One small quibble - "Americans" who are anti-Puerto Rican or anti-Hispanic should not be called "pro-American." There's nothing more un-American or unpatriotic than discrimination against minorities. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That statement puzzled me as well, since a pro-Puerto Rican attitude is also pro-American since, after all, Puerto Rico is not only part of America today, but by the 2012 referendum, an aspiring American state. — Brianhe (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, my apologies. What I meant by pro-American are those who want to push a pro-statehood stance by any means. It must be noted that the American citizenship which Puerto Ricans have is one with limitations which was imposed upon them (did not ask for it nor had any say in the matter) by an Act of Congress (Jones Act of 1917) and not by a constitutional amendment. Therefore, said citizenship can be revolted if and whenever the United States wishes to do so. The way the Puerto Rican Government carried out the Proposed political status for Puerto Rico #2012, was a questionable one and has not been accepted the United States Government and that is why a new referendum will take place. Puerto Rico is a territory and will become either an independent nation or a state of the United States only if so the United States desires for it to be so. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)