The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-08-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• I guess its true what they say: "If at first you don't succeed, call an air strike." TomStar81 (Talk) 05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• I enjoy how much effort goes into the essays that are written and published before such a small audience in the MILHIST newsletter, and I hope republishing it here will expose it to a larger audience. ResMar 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is not about the article above, but about this issue of the Signpost - which I think is a great issue - content, editing - bravi to Resident Mario, Gamaliel & the rest of the volunteers! - kosboot (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Very well written article, thank you for all efforts! Cheers, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Didn't know about the three raids against Tirpitz. Happy to know there are good articles on those ! Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Good post! I am also going to write a blog post about this... thanks

<a href="http://oracleequipments.com/pass-box-manufacturers/">Pass Box manufacturers</a>

You know, you really need to watch crediting. You failed to give proper creit for three of my images this week; in two cases neglecting I restored them, and in one, removing all credit from the original creator. It may well be that there's other issue. I don't have the knowledge to be able to immediately spot them Also, watch your italics:Anklyosaurus, Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm, Abraxas sylvata, The Lady with the Lamp, La favorite, Béatrice et Bénédict, Aida, Tectarius coronatus ( and Old Woman Frying Eggs should all be italicised at every occurrence (Genuses and species, and also titles of books, paintings, operas, &c are all italicised); "Eta Carinae" should never be, but is. And "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna (1939–44), Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna (1939–44),Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna (1939–44), Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna (1939–44),Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna (1939–44), Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia koruna ..." needs taken out back and shot. Seriously, reformat your sets. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I applaud the restraint that caused the editing team not to include a graphic from the Hegassen scroll. I was looking through the Featured Picture candidates and came across that scroll, only to have to enlarge it several times to see what was being depicted. I think that is the first time I've seen farting illustrated in artwork! I wonder if this was a common theme in some periods of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

My life ambition is now to find more farting-related illustrations for Liz. --Roisterer (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

…et voilà. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Just one quibble. I don't undestand Sportsguy saying "not all paid editors and COI editors are here for their own benefits..." Aren't paid editors here because they are paid? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Demur - many people with clear "conflicts" hold their beliefs independently of their "job." As one example - suppose a person interested in (say) Gnarphia edited a very large number of Gnarphia related articles - I would suggest that he (or she) was doing so out of actual personal interest, no? A doctor who specializes in treatments for Cholophilia (tis is supposed to be a fully fake term here unlikely to have any article - if it means something, I apologize) should reasonably be expected to be interested on articles about his speciality. That doctor is being "paid" (in a very strict sense, to be sure) but the issue we ought to be concerned with "Is the person making edits , and receiving payment (of any form) for those edits.

As long as the requirements for reliable sourcing applicable to the topic are met, and the general Wikipedia policies and guidelines are closely adhered to, I am not too worried.

What would be of concern is if Wikipedia became "Paypedia" - that is where commercial entities told "customers" that they could make a favourable Wiki article for $X, just as I find the "purchase" of followers on Twitter to be nicely absurd. More to the point, editors who hold "personal opinions" which outweigh their willingness to abide by policies and guidelines actually applicable to the end product of Wikipedia are far more of a problem than the editor who dares to write "d**n" in a post not part of the final product - articles and the material related thereto. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia and shipwrights) Collect (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: thanks for putting this together, nice work. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks to everyone that participated. Sometimes we only hear from people with the loudest microphone that have the most extreme viewpoints, so this was an opportunity to hear from editors with more well-rounded views that are not often heard. I'm a personal fan of @Smartse: and his devotion to following high-quality sources; also, he expertly up-roots even the smallest bias in my COI work, all without a hint of drama. So it was no surprise that I also found his contribution better than anything I could have written myself.

Regarding the discussion above, a POV pusher is basically just an editor with strong opinions that are not reflected in the source material and not supported by the majority demographic of editors (for example, open-source advocates are not considered POV pushers, because everyone supports their editing agenda). I think most PR people, article-subjects, etc. edit based on their personal views just like any POV pusher, but their conflicted motives, exposure to corporate kool-aid, and a desire to please their paymaster create very extreme views, thus they become POV pushers. Most POV pushers, including conflicted ones, are acting in good faith and just believe in the rightness of their edits. Paid editing firms are a little different in that their motives are more purely financial, but even in my sponsored work I find myself developing complex personal views and being upset if an editor makes changes I don't think are very good. This personal investment is true even though the edits don't effect my pocketbook and even when those edits are promotional and/or benefit the article-subject, but are still not very good. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Roc Nation appears to have fixed their typo. - Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Have they? I'm looking at their page right now and it still reads "Rahmeek". In any case, if it does get fixed, here is an archived version from June 26, 2015. Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• How many times does the Daily Mail have to publish bad (and often purposely fabricated) information before we stop allowing it as a source? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes not of wrong stuff is published. Another example of why we at WP:MED delete the daily mail on sight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Of course as medical source Daily Mail is relatively useless. However, despite what some notable Wikipedians say, it is not the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. A source to be used carefully, more carefully than The Times, perhaps, but not as carefully as The Sun, or The Daily Star. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
      
• "a number of experienced editors are attributing the drop to the normal summer decrease in Wikipedia traffic" .. if that was true we should also see a similar drop in mobile. -- GreenC 13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. I always assumed lower traffic in the summer (and a spike in vandalism in the Fall) was due to young people whose primary access to the internet is via their school. Mobile users generally have their own devices. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Google is specifically using a "micro-Wikipedia" <g> for searches - many folks just want date of birth, death, and a celebrity overview - rather than the generally hard-to-read (see articles on "readability of Wikipedia"), massive articles (the vast majority of future users will use mobiles or tablets) which all-too-often dominate Wikipedia. I commented a long time ago about this inevitable phenomenon, but no one noticed <+g>. Expect Google-driven traffic to go down substantially more in future.

(from the cited article) "The problem is that a few months ago that click might have gone to Wikipedia. And in fact the info in the Google box is drawn from Wikipedia. So on the one hand, this is good for Wikipedia (its info is featured prominently and the box does give Wikipedia a link). But on the other, Wikipedia thrives on clicks and this box is designed to save you from actually clicking through if you only need the bare bones info." Collect (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way does Wikipedia thrive on clicks? As far as I can see there is zero downside if someone gets the same information directly from Google and it answers their question. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That was not my claim. It is a quote from an article which I certainly did not write, so your question should be addressed to the person who wrote the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The downside is that if fewer people come to wikipedia, fewer people become editors. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm one of the people who can't see emoticons. Maybe that's a good thing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Doc James intimidated? I don't believe a word. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC).
  

• I think an attribution is missing from the paragraph after the quote in the first story.

According to Wikipedia's medical articles likely have a larger readership than WebMD and are used by 50-70 percent of doctors.

Shouldn't it be "According to (someone), Wikipedia's medical articles..."? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Nicki Minaj story was amusing. Perhaps somebody should notify her about the source for the error? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• I still believe that superprotect was the single largest mistake in Wiki-history. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Superprotect was a huge mistake, but such hyperbole makes it impossible to take your comment seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I amended my comment. This should (hopefully) solve the issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I worry that hyperbolic comments may be taken as "evidence" by some in the WMF that the unruly community is in need of the adult supervision only they can provide. You can see the images produced by opponents on Commons; many are quite preposterous and some are in very poor taste. Superprotection deserves strong objections and even contempt, but we should keep things in proper perspective. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• With around 35 or so employees, some of them very senior, fired, time limited contracts expired, or simply voluntarily moved on since Tretikov took office, it's possible that WMF opinion could now be swayed to accepting major policy changes demanded by major Wikipedia communities. Otherwise if one day the Foundation suddenly finds itself with a multimillion $ server farm and nobody writing articles for it or to maintain the pages, it will be their own fault. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree Superprotect should never be used to force cosmetic software changes on a community that does not want them. While I do not think this will ever be attempted again, I think it would be good for the WMF to come out with a statement to that effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That would mean a substantial weakening of the movement's ability to improve Mediawiki—a selling out of the WMF's ability to steer a little cohesion into disparate communities. Tony (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: That's just silly logic, though you are not the first to advance it. It does not follow from "Past software deployments have met resistance" that "Wikimedians are fundamentally resistant to change." That interpretation, when asserted by WMF personnel (in the past, I have not heard it so much recently) has been highly self-serving, illustrating an important COI the organization has in such matters. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The support percentage for Liz's RfA should be reported, using the standard method of calculating it, as about 73.5%, not 71%. I believe the report here is including the neutrals in calculating the ratio, which is not how it's generally done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I should have looked it up instead of just doing the math myself. I'll correct my error. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely true. I did not vote on it as I saw the problems inherent in taking any position at all (ArbSpeak). To the point, moreover, is that discussions about many RfX issues (not just the case discussed supra) are now in process (Wikipedia_talk:Reflections_on_RfX inter alia). Collect (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• It would help if someone from WMF would communicate to say "we trust the community (which created us) and will not oppose them, except where it is clearly our legal bounden duty."
• And it is most satisfying to see Liz appointed admin, where I'm sure she will do sterling work

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

• I read Peteforsyths blog post about the WMF board election results and disagree with this article's characterization of his remarks as "almost giddy". Pete was gracious and generous in his praise of the defeated incumbents, and acknowledged that he was not a good candidate himself, which is why he withdrew. I see no need to use a phrase to describe Pete's writing which, in my mind, carries negative connotations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for saying this, Cullen328. While I tend to agree, I'm not too worried about it -- Resident Mario provided a good overview of the history, and that's the important part. The one thing I'd have liked to see was a note that I was the author of the letter -- which I think would help readers understand why my reaction was relevant. But, meh. Good piece overall, glad it was published. I had not previously noticed Doc James' comment above, which I believe is the first time a Trustee (after election) has emphasized the importance of a public comment about related practices going forward. Thanks for that, James. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Superprotect was a convenient way for the WMF to achieve their short term goal of implementing a technical solution. It's no secret the foundation believes that technical "solutions" will solve falling activity and attract new editors. I do not believe their focus on technical solutions to be the answer to the current problems and in doing so they have turned their back on the current community which will continue to shrink away by being alienated and overridden. Mkdw^talk 03:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Gamaliel: This was a while back and the page has been blanked so you might have forgotten, but shouldn't you disclose that Auerbach was quite critical of you in his workshop comments? Brustopher (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
• Gamaliel, your description of the interaction between me and a now-sitebanned user who (according to Jimmy Wales) committed a BLP violation against me and subsequently harassed me across several other websites as "a spat" is noted. My participation in the case stemmed, of course, from the actions of that party to the case, who was ultimately site-banned at the close of the case. Auerbachkeller (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  According to Jimmy Wales? Mercy me, it MUST be serious. Parabolist (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/Technology report

• That bonus chart is such a great idea, thanks for including it. Why are John Kasich's numbers so high? I guess people saw him during the debate (rumor has it that Roger Ailes jiggered the numbers so Kasich snuck in at #10) and wondered who the hell he was. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have seen some reports saying Kasich seems to have picked up some in the polls after the debate -- similar to Fionrina, the attention and a decent performance probably helped them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that bonus chart is a great addition. It's not a sign of how individuals might vote in a future election but it does show who they are curious about, who they want to find more information on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Hey, remember NPOV?

Democratic Party Candidate	Page views in past 30 days
Bernie Sanders	452,104
Hillary Clinton	178,395
Joe Biden	90,600

EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• These were not candidates in the GOP debate, I believe!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest calling Kalam a "former scientist" is not how Wikipedia generally treats such major personages. He holds a large number of honours for his work, and we ought not diminish his stature by saying "former" when he was stricken five minutes into a lecture on climate. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I happen to follow American politics so I find the chart interesting, but I agree with EllenCT that only creating one for the Republicans does appear biased. It also contributes to complaints of some that the English Wikipedia and Signpost have an American bias in coverage. Most editors are probably American, but many aren't. There are a number of other bonus charts that could have been created about more prominently featured articles on the list that had universal appear. Mkdw^talk 03:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting. No one complained about my prior chart comparing the Furious movies. I guess that's because they are famous worldwide. It simply drew my attention, as did this. Anyone and everyone is encouraged in use the WP:5000 for research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the U.S. Republican chart is only of interest because there are so many candidates at this point in the presidential race. I doubt it will become a regular, weekly feature of the traffic report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly we don't intend to do that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Donald Trump: Is politically biased comment allowed in wikipedia (I know, this is not a wikipedia article and The Donald makes a good comedy sometimes (believe it or not, reminds me Zhirinovsky), but still propaganda makes me feel uneasy. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • POV issues are a regular feature of this section, but my protests have all fallen on deaf ears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• We are not deaf, we just disagree. NPOV does not apply to the Signpost as discussed before, but I heartily welcome comments and differing opinions to be discussed here. I just got to find out who Zhirinovsky is, and that's a fascinating connection that Altenmann made. I believe the commentary section of the chart, which many have cited as their favorite part, serves an important purpose. My hopes may well be grandiose, but these charts are a first draft of the history of human culture, I would like those in the future to be able to gain some insight into what wikipedia readers might have been thinking about in 2015. See the "insights into popular culture" section of this 2013 article for more on my thoughts about this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the reports by individual Wikimania grant recipients by username: m:Category:Wikimania/Scholarships/Reports/2015 Jane (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We just hit 100,000 painting items on Wikidata (mostly paintings in collections of top museums that have been added in bulk). We have way more than that in files on Wikimedia Commons, so there is still lots of work to do. To compare, we only have about 6,000 articles on paintings and only about half of those are linked to painting items directly (try the autolist query claim[31:3305213] and link[enwiki]). Many articles on Wikipedia that feature a painting are not about the painting, but about the paintings subject (in the case of people or buildings). Here's hoping the next 100,000 paintings will take much less time! I would like to see a tool to gther the information from Wikidata painting items and make them available in an infobox for use in WIkipedia articles. I should probably set up a WP:SoaP here on enwiki just for that and for easily crosslinking to Wikidata project pages. Jane (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)