The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2017-02-06. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• "Mathsci was un-site banned from Wikipedia..." not "site un-banned"? OED here we come...Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed it up. GamerPro64 01:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it's very precise to say several arbitrators "expanded" on the statement. How others may have intended their individual statements is something they will need to clarify themselves, I at least intended my statement as a dissent, not an expansion. While I take the problems with harassment very seriously, I consider the danger of paid editing also of great importance. Any solution must acknowledge both, to a greater extent than recognized by the majority statement. We need to protect individual WPedians, and we also need to protect the encyclopedia. . Smallbones has cited one extraordinary example of the danger; there have been others similar. But it is equally the cumulative effect of the many ordinary promotional efforts that make our articles on commercial and noncommercial organizations and their affiliated people no more reliable than the press releases most of them are based on. Deliberate bad faith editors should not be protected, and have no right to anonymity. The main difficulty--and it is one I do not minimize--is detecting them without harming the good faith editors who imitate them under the impression that promotional editing is our accepted norm. It's concern for those unfortunately misled editors which prevents us from acting in the drastic ways that might otherwise be desirable. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DGG, thank you for the feedback and clarification, that important error was mine. I'll update the text accordingly. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand the position of the ArbCom statement. The legal team's advice specifically deals with publication of the company name only in relevant instances where that has not been shared in violation of terms of service. The legal statement excludes sharing of information other than the relevant company as well as publication of company name in a circumstance that does not involve an admin or is not related to investigation into undisclosed paid editing. How anyone translates this to an "almost unbounded exemption", I have no idea. SFB 13:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Readers who keep track of featured content promotions may especially enjoy this edition's WikiProject Report, on WikiProject Birds, which has had a strong showing of recent FC. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm left wondering if anyone has compared mass media attention to the Women's Marches to that of the 2002–2003 marches against the Iraq War. My hunch is that the latter was taken considerably less seriously by the media, but I don't have hard comparative coverage data to compare. On a separate matter, I find Cohen's statement about particular things happening (some arguably good, some arguably bad), all with roads leading to a Trump election victory, to come off as an unsavory stew of melodrama, piety and misdirection. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

First! (to comment) @Peteforsyth: @Tony1: I appreciate your effort in reporting this story. Perhaps the most overlooked report of the year. Not as sexy as cancer research, I suppose. wbm1058 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks wbm1058. I'm not sure which story you're referring to, but I confess I was a little surprised that neither of these elicited much discussion -- I felt that both contained worthwhile original reporting on topics of significant interest to the Wikimedia community. Glad to know you agreed. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Some of us discussed this before publication at WT:COI ... Meghan Sali's Huffington Post piece incorrectly states that paid editing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Paid editing is in fact allowed either by non-privileged editors or by administrators. - Brianhe (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed -- thanks for calling that out, Brianhe. It would help a lot if those speaking from a position of authority would be more diligent about making the relevant distinctions to reporters and bloggers. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• That MOS:TV discussion is precisely the kind of reason I tend to avoid such conversations — it's impenetrable to users who don't spend much of their time working on guidelines and metacontent, and very quickly turns into a confrontational, defensive argument. I don't have a lot of time to spend working on Wikipedia; I have little desire to spend it arguing with other editors when I could be researching and writing article content. I was going to go and agree with the recession of the MOS change, but discussions of that kind always being quite so unwelcoming and confrontational means I'd rather not participate. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• I remember suggesting a periodic table like that a couple of years ago. I'm glad to see that we actually do indeed have one and that it's now up-to-date. Abyssal (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Found the original discussion: [1]. Abyssal (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Kudos for getting the very recent Wikimedia-l politics discussion into this article, including the amicus brief announcement that was made less than 12 hours ago. That list has seen some serious debate over the last couple of weeks, to the point where one of the list moderators resigned (and who can blame him...) Funcrunch (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for noticing that, Funcrunch. It was certainly a challenge to finalize this story, as substantial developments rolled in while we wrapped it up. It made our delayed release feel almost timely, at least for a moment! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Those who applaud members of the WMF making political statements and publicizing them using WMF resources should keep in mind that times change. The day may come when instead of the WMF pushing a political POV that you agree with, they may start pushing a political POV that you disagree with. I say that if anyone involved with Wikipedia wants to express a partisan political opinion, they should be required to do it on their own personal blog. The WMF should stay out of partisan politics and be forced to follow NPOV like the rest of us. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• There are dependencies here though. First, is this really a partisan matter, or a matter of obvious right and wrong? After all, folks all across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about this specific order. I myself find virtue in some of Trump's policies but not in others. But this specific policy works against long-held foundations of the nation itself. Kind of different. Second, if the order affects WMF's business, they automatically have a natural position to criticize it. On these first two counts, it is more than simply pushing a garden-variety political POV. Third, I as an editor cannot expect to agree with all WMF decisions, of which this is one. Overall, the WMF should exercise caution, but also not be blind/deaf/dumb/morals-free, in hopefully rare cases like this. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• If I start expressing my political opinions on Wikipedia's servers I will be in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. And it would not matter if I think my opinion concerns "a matter of obvious right and wrong". It would still not be allowed. Why should we exempt WMF staffers from that very sensible rule that the rest of us have to follow? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that you think the WMF has the same set of motivations, the same constituency, the same coalition of supporters, as that amorphous concept of the community. Tony (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Was that an answer to my question "Why should we exempt WMF staffers from that very sensible rule (WP:SOAPBOX) that the rest of us have to follow?"? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: Because WMF staffers aren't writing and maintaining encyclopedic content in their role of WMF staffers. For example, our aim is to write Wikipedia from a NPOV. Their job is to promote and support Wikimedia/Wikipedia wherever appropriate, as much as possible. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• That's a nice theory, but WP:SOAPBOX is not limited to encyclopedic content: "This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages." I am a person who volunteers to "promote and support Wikimedia/Wikipedia wherever appropriate, as much as possible" as well as volunteering to write content. Yet I am prohibited from using Wikipedia as a soapbox. I see zero justification for allowing WMF paid staffers to do what I am forbidden to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Read what you wrote and quoted and realize that it applies to English Wikipedia. Nothing about Wikimedia or Wikimedia pages or e-mail lists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• I never implied that the WMF is bound by Wikipedia's soapboxing rules. I said that they should have such a rule and asked what about them makes it OK for them to soapbox. All I am getting in response is things that are not different between the two. The difference is not, as you claim above, because they don't create content but instead try to improve Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Many Wikipedia volunteers don't create content but instead try to improve Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Yet they are not allowed to soapbox while WMF staffers are. The difference is not, as someone claimed below, that some WMF employees are Iranian immigrants and might be prevented from traveling to Wikimania or other conferences. Some Wikipedia volunteers are Iranian immigrants and might be prevented from traveling to Wikimania or other conferences. Yet they are not allowed to soapbox while WMF staffers are. I am still looking for an answer that explains what is different about WMF staffers that they should be allowed to soapbox. Again, I am not claiming that they are not currently allowed to soapbox. I am claiming that they are allowed to soapbox and questioning whether they should be allowed to do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• Again, because there are different roles. You might not accept that but it's self-evident to me (and here we go around the "you're wrong, no, you're wrong" circle). If some politician starts shutting down sources of reliable, scientific information I don't expect soapboxing on the politician's talk page but the WMF actively speaking out against this is fine with me as it affects it quality of our content. Or if an organization releases 375,000 images online under CC0 then the WMF can certainly highlight and publicize that, showering praise on the organization, but I don't expect the org's talk page to be filled up with kudos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Pete, you can find more information about the Craig Newmark grant on the Community health initiative page on Meta, where we provide an overview of what the project will do, including a pdf of the grant proposal. We'd be happy to talk with you some more about the project, if you want to follow up with some more information. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DannyH (WMF), I've now updated the story with this info. I wonder, will the WMF take a structured approach to organizing information like this? Two places where I'd hope to find these documents are meta:Funding, which appears to be untouched by WMF personnel; or wmf:History of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has not been substantively updated since Sj's efforts in 2012. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the links to the Community health initiative page and the grant proposal were included in all of the announcements about the grant -- emails, blog posts and press releases. You linked to this discussion in your piece, and the information is there. It's important for this project that we're as transparent and community-inclusive as we can be. We're currently hiring folks to work on the project, and there's going to be a lot more information posted on Meta and on enwiki over the next few weeks.

I'm not familiar with the two pages you linked to -- as you said, I don't think those are WMF communication channels. To keep updated on current Wikimedia Foundation news, you should probably keep an eye on the Press room and the Wikimedia blog. This post from a couple weeks ago had all the current info on the anti-harassment grant. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DannyH (WMF). My apologies to you and to our readers if we were insufficiently diligent in tracking the available information. However, there's a deeper issue at play here. The second of the two links is on a wiki explicitly under the control of the WMF; it describes itself as the "history" of the organization; and it was largely built by a sitting member of the board. Perhaps you or your colleagues could provide some clarification on what constitutes an "official communication channel"? Because this certainly has the appearance of being one.

As a side point, the 2007 book Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency, written by Harvard scholars who have actively supported the Wikimedia movement, argued (IMO convincingly) that effective transparency requires careful focus on the end user. (The authors released the case studies in the appendix under a free license at our request; I transcribed them at Wikisource. Highly recommended reading.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. I should acknowledge some much appreciated assitance from Mike Peel in that transcription effort. -PF

Thanks for your apology, I appreciate it. Please let me know if you want any more information about the anti-harassment project. We're really excited about it, and I think the Signpost readers would be interested in learning more. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Any attempt by Wikipedia to interfere in politics should be based on more than just "this thing done by my political opponents affects human beings, and our colleagues are human beings, so it's Wikipedia's business to comment on it." Unless the politically-relevant policy is specifically aimed at Wikipedia or the Internet, rather than just being aimed at a group of people that happens to have members working with Wikipedia, Wikipedia should remain silent. This is no better than having Wikipedia advocate for Black Lives Matter on the grounds that some Wikipedia contributors are black people, or against it on the grounds that some Wikipedia contributors are police. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some WMF empoyees who are Iranian immigrants, so the WMFs response is actually more of a practical matter than "this affects human beings". The ban potentially affects the ability of WMF employees (and community volunteers) to travel outside of the US, for example, to Wikimania or other conferences (as they may have a hard time getting back into the country). Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Kaldari, your point is a good one, but the WMF's blog post goes well beyond a discussion of employees. I think that is the source of the strong pushback.

Consider the headline, specifically, of this NY Times piece: "Tech Opposition to Trump Propelled by Employees, Not Executives". Going back to the SOPA initiative, the WMF at least made the effort to attain community support before speaking out in its name; but this time, it used language like "Knowledge knows no borders. Our collective human wisdom has long been built through the exchange of ideas, from our first navigational knowledge of the seas to our ongoing exploration of the heavens." -- without first seeking a consensus in its communities.

The legal brief WMF signed onto, along with 100 companies, uses a different kind of language: "The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than 50 years -- and the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result." (emphasis added) In other words, Facebook is not presuming to speak on behalf of all Facebook users, and Levi's is not presuming to speak on behalf of all wearers of blue jeans (I don't think).

I think the WMF is in a process of figuring out the (internal) political dynamics that impact how its messages are received, and I believe that the scope of its critiques is a significant factor. I don't think it's a big deal for WMF to overstep once in a while, but I do think that's probably what has happened here, and I suspect that in the future, it will find more politically viable language for this sort of thing. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• #NotMyExecutiveDirector --Pudeo (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• WMF has now taken side in internal politics in the US. For me as a Wikipedian in Norway its not useful. Partly because some people do like the current president and partly because with lining up together with big companies as Google, Facebook etc. they are giving proof of that I am working unpaid for a US company named Wikipedia (that's the view the petition gives). Who needs enemies when one has such friends? And to be very clear, I am not a supporter of Donald Trump, but there are millons of other organisations and groups that take care of protests and restraining him. We don't need WMF as a political player, we need it as a support for Wikipedia, period. Ulflarsen (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that this is not the first time at all. At least since the SOPA initiative, in late 2011, WP/WMF has taken partisan positions. And editors pushing away those who disagree. All not Trump-ish at all. Yeah... right...

For those claiming this is a matter of "right or wrong", you realise that Trump (and his administration and supporters) believe they are right and you are wrong, right?

So if "we" "are right" we can use whatever means to do whatever to promote and enforce our "right" position. I wonder why WP and WMF should think so, but I bet Trump agrees with that.

And as you say, WP/WMF is not a US-only organization. Nabla (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent post, and you touch on many of the issues I have with "edit-a-thons" which typically have a 1% yield rate for converting "editors." We should also think about rebranding them so that making "editors" or even editing is not the goal. A lot can be done at these meetups relating to media literacy, becoming better readers of Wikipedia, or using it as a research tool. I think the emphasis on "editing" at meetups is too great, and it may start with ditching the "edit-a-thon" label, which we know folks in non-English language already do. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Amir, thank you for this essay - I could not agree more! Actually I am even angry about people who 'sell' a workshop as an instrument to recruit new editors, after all the experiences we made in the last years. Ziko (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Editathons were never meant to recruit new editors - they were aimed at the existing community. Same as marathons are not meant to introduce people to running... But because the idea of an introductory workshop to editing wasn't really around at the time, people morphed editathons to try to do editor recruitment at same time! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel and Wittylama: - Good point, it may be the right time to make that explicit separation. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

YES to all of this! And one more important point: Editing events can have a positive public relations effect. Some people come to them with an open mind, thinking the Wikipedia thing might be crazy or might be great, but they don't have a feel for it. If we calmly communicate that the system works, it's open, we are sensible good-hearted people, and they are free to participate again from home or to abandon the project . . . then they will bring this understanding to their future interactions. That helps determine whether they support it and use it and recommend it in the future. To be successful our platform needs to be buffered by a large class of the public who thinks it is sensible and should not be undermined and attacked. Furthermore it gives them an educated view on fake news elsewhere or errors on our site.

Therefore when managing such an event I do not aim for unrealistic vision of creating permanent editors. Instead I think we want THIS event, right now, to be clear, sensible, and convincing. We want to put a few good bytes up. It should be in a comfortable place with some refreshments if possible. If there is a presentation or a handout it should be coherent. We want them to go away thinking they were welcomed into the system and it made sense and they succeeded at contributing something they can remember and recheck later. The goal is to do something good today, not to carry around a sack of homework and do it tomorrow. When the event is done hopefully they feel good about the site and the event. If that is accomplished, that is a pretty good success. -- econterms (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this article, Amir! I'm happy if this dialogue becomes a starting point on what to improve. Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) who says he has run events that actually did produce editors. I have to agree that the usability issues are real, and there is more to add:

• The Main Page, where most of our readers land, is one of the few without an edit button
• If an IT-savvy person comes around that knows what 'view source' is, the main page is one of the most cryptic.
• Ideas on what to improve on Wikipedia appear only after the user has created an account
• Clicking "anyone can edit" leads to a manual, not to a list of simple things to improve
• Previewing an edit does not detect edit conflicts. Preview fine, page still doesn't save :(
• Totally unimportant things result in a barrage of complaints. E.g. not signing on a talk page is no issue at all, a bot does that. However, the bot makes it sound like a problem ("previously unsigned...") instead of neutrally adding "This comment was made by...", and some user will certainly issue a warning on top of that.

I'm sure there is a lot more... someone willing to package this and drop it at the appropriate places? -Pgallert (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I entirely disagree. While the article makes the case that edit-a-thons might best be used for generating phabricator reports, I don't see any return on investment for my time and effort. WMF is spending money on this software development and I'm not hosting sessions just for free Beta testing. I've attended a dozen edit-a-thons and have another coming up in a couple weeks. If we're not helping new editors then I don't see the point. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we propose a session on reforming the edit-a-thon model - rebranding, effective ways of running meetups beyond "editing," etc. We've done some sessions in the past on how to reformat meetups, such as at Wikiconference 2015 [2] but we should make it a workshop or design thinking exercise for Wikimania. Anyone interested? @Econterms, Amire80, Ziko, Mike Peel, Wittylama, Rhododendrites, Guettarda, and Ragesoss: -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Count me in! It would be great to have some results helping to the organizers of these kind of meetings. Ziko (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Me too Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm interested. Maybe a joint call? Or, you mean a real conference session? -- econterms (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Thanks for the ping. Certainly something I'd be interested to talk more about.

At the risk of reiterating what we already know... A big challenge, as touched upon in this piece (thanks, btw, for writing it Amire80) and in the comments, is the question of what the goal of a given workshop is. Is it to transform new users into active editors? Is it a public relations event (a general celebration of the project? demonstrating a broadly positive ethos? generating warm and fuzzies -- and possibly, indirectly, donations)? Is it to foster community among existing enthusiasts? Is it to make a direct impact on the quality/coverage of articles (by coordinated targeting of particular subject areas or content gaps? by fostering contributions from groups other than the typical wikidemographics)?

Obviously it's rare a workshop will be solely about one of these, but if we're talking about reform and/or experimentation, focusing may make assessment more feasible. There are a lot of these events going on, and with the availability of tools like the Programs & Events Dashboard, certain kinds of outcomes are easier to track now than they have been in the past.

Of course, it may be that the typical edit-a-thon model of public engagement is so entrenched that what we really need is just some experimentation with other models -- to document those models and allow them to be replicated before we start thinking about things like assessment.

Maybe a good project for Wikimania would be not just a session discussing why this is important, but actually planning a few atypical types of workshops for conference participants. Obviously a different audience than is typical, but maybe the most straightforward way to get feedback... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: - I like the idea of not just talking about alternative methods, but actually performing/demonstrating them with Wikimedians, or at Wikimania, one could also have public-facing sessions to show some of these models. For example, we did this in a very crude manner at Wikiconference North America San Diego, where we had two training sessions a day for the public, which was a very traditional "learn how to edit" class. Maybe we can talk to Coren about doing this at Wikimania in some way. I'll also add some other ideas/resources to the next section that Pete started. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel like a huge piece that is overlooked in the planning and hosting is gauging the audience. I admit, I'm more tech-comfortable than some, and it is easy to forget the level we have reached, and can be hard to remember to cover the little details, when presenting to people. Different audiences will have different goals. For example, I met librarians in the Midwestern US who have the assumption Wikipedia is unreliable. They are not unwilling to learn about Wikipedia, but I can guarantee with their current mindset, they have no interest in spending time editing. They just have not had that belief challenged before through education or in a conversation to encourage learning. Maybe developing structures for people to use in different settings for different audiences would be great. Including information about gauging learning needs of the audience would be equally as important as the content. If you're hosting a session with great information, but no one is learning, it will frustrate attendees and make them not want to come back. Thanks for writing this Amire80 - great information and discussion starters! Jackiekoerner (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. At Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYBG January2017 we had librarians and scientists. Hghly literate, ready to learn our details of policy and technique. At public libraries it's diverse. Some are as ready as journalism students, but some don't quite understand how to use the mouse. So, we must pitch to the audience, and alas, sometimes to the lowest skill level because we're not big enough to split the audience. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: Sounds like a good idea. I'm not planning on being at this Wikimania, but let me know if there's anything online I can do to help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado, Smallbones, Ziko, and Econterms: To get the ball rolling, I created a submission page on the Wikimania2017 site. Please bear in mind this is just to get the collaborative process in motion for those interested to participate in the session (I only pinged those who explicitly expressed interest in a session, but others are, of course, welcome). Please add/change/remove/comment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a mantra of every business. (No wonder customer is the prime enemy of Customer Service. :-)

Corollary 1: There is nothing wrong when a newbie wikipedian writes the whole article in plain text. By "plain" I mean non-wikified, without categories, even section headers.

"Edit-a-thons" should focus on our core content policies on how to identify and deliver encyclopedic verifiable information, rather on how to fill in {{cite book}} or {{infobox person}}. A wikipedian must start feeling fun of contributing to common knowledge. Once one becomes a "wikigraphomaniac", technical hurdles are shallow.

Corollary 2: It is not the allegedly arcane syntax of wikipedia, it is the seasoned wikipedians who shame newbies with "four tildas".

Corollary 3: Knowledge-friendliness not user-friendliness is the key to the success of wikipedia. There are no "wikipedia syntax users", there are "knowledge contributors", even if their knowledge is about pokemon.

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

+1. Ijon (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, there is a difference in the primary goals of edit training (to create new contributors) and edit-a-thons (to create new content generally about some theme). Edit-a-thons are like "Clean up your city" weekends and "fun runs for charity"; the participants are giving a day to what they perceive as a "good cause" and not a lifetime. Edit training is where we hope to create new contributors. I've done a number of edit training sessions over the past few years and would make these observations.

The participants are in the majority female and generally middle-aged or older, which is a very different profile to what we know of existing editors. Perhaps because the edit training is held at and advertised by libraries, participants are almost always either librarians or active library users with interest in some kind of non-fiction topics, often history. So they seem like the right kind of people to attract as contributors and are a missing demographic of Wikipedia contributors.

However, they struggled with the syntax of wiki text, and the conversion rate to active editors was pretty much 0%. But for the past year or so, I have been teaching the Visual Editor and what a difference it makes. I am now seeing participants continue to edit after the training session. An edit training session I did with a group of librarians about a month ago for 1Lib1Ref went on to produce over 1000 edits with one "newbie" individually adding over 100 citations. Some of these librarians had previously done wiki text edit training and marvelled at the difference using the Visual Editor. So, edit training can create new contributors if you teach the Visual Editor.

But right now, users of the Visual Editors are treated as second class citizens. Talk pages are not enabled for the Visual Editor which is a problem for them. Documentation on just about everything is written almost entirely with wiki text examples and no advice for the Visual Editor user, so they cannot "self-help". Even the TeaHouse isn't enabled for the Visual Editor nor the Visual Editor's own Feedback page.

My experience shows that there are willing and able contributors out there if we can deliver more user-friendly tools and advice. Maybe these folk won't become administrators or maintainers of templates, but they can certainly write content with reliable citations which is the meat of an encyclopaedia. Enable the Visual Editor for IPs and enable as many pages as we possibly can for the VE user and I believe we will attract new contributors (with and without edit training). PS having taught myself the VE so I could teach it, I find I now use it for most of my content editing. Kerry (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 to this. I was at an editathon with new editors the other week and I was so surprised at how new users, who were generally not very technically literate, were able to immediately understand how the visual editor worked. I would get half way through an explanation on what buttons did the thing they needed and they'd already done it. Absolutely endorse using VE with new editors. Sam Walton (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

re "I would get half way through an explanation" - OF course people are generally smart and when hinted into right direction, they will figure out the rest themselves. But what about new editors with no guidance whatsoevr? Did anybody run this kind of experiment? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure but my point is that I've done training with both VE and markup and it's been my experience that the users using VE found it immediately easier and more intuitive to use. Sam Walton (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The research you aks about has been done, see here. Kerry (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It says basically no difference. Anyway, out of interest I turned it on and got mixed feelings. Some functions did appear handy. However I became frequently frustrated by various glitches during various mundane "non-advanced" operations. To be fair, it is better-behaved compared to over a year ago I tried it last time, when I even could not enter [[]] by plain typing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Kerry saves a lot of time in workshops. Talking about the VE buttons that insert links and footnotes takes five minutes. Talking about doing the same things using wiki syntax can take half an hour or more. I just mention wiki syntax briefly and move on to talking about VE. If I talk about wiki syntax at all, it's only about indentation and signatures in talk pages (and then I quietly pray for the faster adoption of Flow). --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I certainly can't compare my experience to yours, by any means. But all the roadblocks you've mentioned really do exist. Here are some 'helpful' hints at what I've done while giving instruction to new editors at edit-it-thons:

• explain the concept of vandalism, what it is and why their editing may be mistaken for it.
• explain how not to get blocked.
• encouraging the immediate creation of a user page, opening up their talk page.
• sending the new editor a welcome message to their talk page, and then asking them to reply to me.
• create a draft in a sandbox and don't call it a draft (those drafts can disappear in minutes just like a new article.)
• find references first (at least three), then create the article.
• showing them how to make their article goes 'live', apply the {{underconstruction}} to the top of their new article
• at this point, there is the opportunity for the new editor to continue to expand their new article.

Interestingly enough, those editors that become more active begin editing or creating content on topics that interest them, rather than fulfilling an assignment from someone else. If I can, I suggest that the encyclopedia can become an expansion of one of their hobbies and that many will benefit from their knowledge.

I follow with thank yous, barnstars and offers of assistance. I will remove their undercontruction template, add some categories and create the talk page. Again, your experience far outweighs mine, but I've been pleasantly surprised at some of the newer editors who have become active. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent article - while I haven’t attended any editathons, I have done a lot of NPP, so I know how often people make these kinds of mistakes.

I think that there’s a real need to have a great culture of behaviour on NPP, something that hasn’t always been true. Doing NPP, I see my role as being often to “finish off” articles - to get things in place like citations, categories, WikiProject tags and a reflist, maybe to do a trim and then to clearly explain what I’ve done and why. Having worked in education, this is very instinctive to me, but I do think that not enough people have this attitude. (It’s often worth clicking over to a new user’s contribution history to see if they’re on an editathon - if so a message like “Hi, I see you’re at this editathon and I hope it’s going well. Just a few things I’ve added to your article…” can work wonders for morale.) For this reason, I really encourage admins to do NPP and remote editing of editathons - it works wonders for showing what misconceptions people have about Wikipedia and why. One sees very strange mistakes. As you say, while new contributors often write interesting content on unexpected choices of topic, far too few stick around.

As a personal comment, I think a lot of editathons are far too ambitious - they chuck people off the deep end in the hope that they’ll swim. Yes, I know we don’t have enough articles on women and ethnic minorities, but creating new articles is difficult, and often I have to face the fact that the subject isn’t notable and the article isn’t very good or even not on an appropriate subject. (In this case breaking it to the user gently is most important.) What they tend to teach - that creating articles is difficult - is all too true. At the heart of Wikipedia is citation to sources, and way too many editathon articles don’t cite a single source. I find the 1lib1ref project much more realistic in that they start with a preexisting article and focus on adding citations to improve it.

If we must have editathons that create new articles (and I think given evidence of systemic bias we must accept this as a need), I’d encourage a checklist approach, to get each article out the door with (say) three citations, a reflist, two categories and a WikiProject tag, and that a four-sentence article with these features is fine. I see way too many new articles that are thousands of irrelevant words too long where it’s clear that people haven’t spent the editathon getting used to things like formatting. Perhaps writing on a blackboard during the editathon what the structure of a Wikipedia article is (title in bold, reflist and categories at the bottom, sections headings marked with = signs, etc) would make understanding clearer. Blythwood (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• How is this different from the Gamergate controversy, or any other example of unpaid advocacy editing? When Wikipedia was founded, it opened itself up to attacks like this. The problem isn't paid editing, it's our tiny volunteer base. Serendi^podous 11:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not the tiny volunteer base. It's pretty much the entire Wikipedia community and the Wikimedia Foundation who constantly fail to accept how serious these issues are, and how they affect the encyclopedia's reputation. And their refusal to acknowledge and invest in the the need for more, policy based controls on who can edit, and who can patrol the new content. Many Recent Changes reviewers and New Page Patrollers are among the least qualified of all kinds of editors - over 20% of users who join WP:AfC do it to be able to be sure their own articles make it to mainspace.
The tiny volunteer base are the idiots (like me) who organise and do the cleaning up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thus far, the punishments for paid editing result in bans. What if the WMF chose to send "cease and desist" letters (and publicized such incidents) and if ignored, filed lawsuits against such editors? I know this would lead to a drain on the legal team's resources, but might WP's rules be taken more seriously? - kosboot (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There are certainly steps WMF legal could take. The key step for the WMF, IMHO, is to widely publicize that we have strict rules against advertising and undisclosed paid editing. Individual editors can do "naming and shaming" pointing out where specific companies are inserting ads into our articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got to get those editors to find out first who the culprits are before they can do the naming and shaming. Since its conception, Wikipedia has had a totally dysfunctional system for vetting new content and/or new users. Every common or garden village residents blog or forum has stricter rules than Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "totally dysfunctional system for vetting new content and/or new users"—@Kudpung, I know you're into ideas... Do you have any recommendations on this front? Or is it under discussion somewhere? czar 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been under discussion for 6 years but we've now arrived at a corner of a blank wall - on one side it's the WMF refusing to recognise it as a priority and on the othr is our volunteer community itself who insist on the 'anyone can edit' meme and continue to regard NPP as a hobbyhorse rather than a policy driven core function. As a result, I'm stepping down, but there is to be an election for people to carry on with the work I've been doing for the past 6 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.
— Garry Kasparov[3]

It takes a certain wherewithal to edit in high-activity topics, nevertheless with bad-faith actors. But it's insult to injury to then put our time-sinking editors through even more time sinks once it becomes apparent that (1) the actors are indeed bad-faith actors, and (2) the effort is designed to overwhelm our editing capacity. I hope there will be more discussions about article quality now that we're past the point of collecting garbage on every topic and in the stage of refining that garbage into that which is reliably sourced and that which isn't. To that end, it's worth collecting in one place stories like the one above as documentation for the many wasted hours of editor productivity. Juxtapose this situation with the other article in this Signpost on the women's march and how the editors chose to keep IP access because there were more productive IP edits than otherwise. I don't know the specifics of either situation, but that spirit of decentralized guild-like decision-making is emboldening. If our best editors are being overwhelmed in stewarding a topic, the best solution is not always the libertarian option of walking away and hoping someone else will fit in (nor is it to believe that particular stewards are the only ones worth considering), but the stewards should be able to appeal to the community for restrictions that will support their work in what becomes a war of attrition. I don't know how else to describe the above story, yet I especially don't know how to justify a volunteer sticking around for that kind of abuse once the problem gets that deep. Sometimes we fight for free/open in the wrong venues—the encyclopedia is free/open, but every individual article reflects the consensus of those who edit it, and those isolated instances may not be free/open. If Kudpung is correct in his assessment that both the community and admin do not treat these affairs seriously, I hope that in the future we could have more solidarity when our own editors are confronted with efforts so designed to exhaust them, because if those outside efforts succeed in their exhaustion, both our community and the encyclopedia will suffer. czar 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for investigating editors with the goal of naming and shaming those deemed to be bad actors. Focus on content, not contributors. {{Request edit}}, which has been around since September 2007‎, is the editing mechanism for editors with an actual or apparent conflict of interest. That populates Category:Requested edits, which was set up back in September 2007. One can monitor the status of this backlog over time by checking the edit request table's revision history. How has that worked out, are COI-editors satisfied with the handling of that workflow? So the problem is that some COI-editors are either unaware of that workflow, or are choosing to bypass it. The solution for articles such as Banc De Binary, which is currently only semi-protected, is simple. Raise the protection to a new protection level called "COI-protection", so that only administrators and vetted editors who have been granted the privilege (analogous to template editors) may edit it. Administrators and COI-protected editors can then work the Category:Requested edits workflow. Problem solved? wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I'm not calling for Wikipedia editors to be named and shamed. I'm calling for the businesses, the paymasters, to be named and shamed. It does little good to say User:BannedSock was engaging in paid editing. But saying that XYZ Inc.'s article was clearly promotional and infested by socks - that's another thing entirely.
  • COI-protection is a very good idea. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Re: "widely publicize that we have strict rules against advertising and undisclosed paid editing." You mean like, widely publicize that we have strict rules against illegal immigration and substance abuse? How's that working out? wbm1058 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What have you got against telling people our rules? Everybody in the world should know that paid promotional editing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Everybody in the world should know that paid promotional editing is not allowed on Wikipedia - try telling that to the Wikimedia Foundation, Smallbones. In a video conference on the topic with the WMF two days ago I was accused by them of organising a 'pissing contest'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There may be many mom & pop promoters who don't know the rules; sure, no problem with telling them the rules. I'd guess that all of the suspects editing Banc De Binary were already aware of the rules though. wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting case study. I fear, however, that there are many other cases where we have failed to stop spam/advertisement/COI/propaganda. I wrote about it a while ago at WP:CORPSPAM. Anyway, I thank you Smallbones for bringing this topic up, we need to be constantly on the vigil for more spam/COI editing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

An interesting and well-researched article on a desperately important issue. I'd compare it to developers who will gain by building something that will cause harm, such as a mine in a nature reserve. The developers have professional staff skilled in the process and paid to advance their cause by whatever means (and that can include disinformation or other forms of "political" deception). The nimbies are volunteers, organise in their own time and at their own expense, and may be outflanked in many different ways. Guess who's more likely to win. Anything that can help tilt the balance in favour of truth is to be welcomed.Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this brought up at such a late date. Most of this happened in 2014. Here's the history on AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844. As a result of that, all the Banc De Binary editors and their sockpuppets were blocked. After that, further problems on Wikipedia were not difficult to handle. John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

While "naming and shaming," as described in this piece and discussed above, has an important and legitimate role, it's an approach that should be used with caution. In some cases, "naming and shaming" can conflict with our assume good faith policy. One clear instance impacted a client of mine, who had diligently observed Wikipedia's policies in both letter and spirit. A columnist called out their clearly disclosed efforts, and Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales repeated the (largely inaccurate) accusation, explicitly stating that shaming was in order. This prompted extensive discussion on Wikipedia; ultimately, no wrongdoing was found, but the accuracy of Wikipedia's content had already suffered substantial damage in the meantime. Beyond that, the call for "shaming" had negatively impacted our collaborative dynamics, with a variety of accusations, ranging from good faith but misguided comments to outright vandalism and harassment.

This is a dynamic I frequently encounter in less dramatic examples, when helping friends, teaching students, and advising clients. Shaming is a powerful tool; it has great power to advance our goals when used with care, and great power to damage our social dynamics when used recklessly. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a certain truth in what you are saying: Naming and shaming, while necessary to set an example, adds more to the negative publicity that puts the accuracy of Wikipedia in question. The encyclopedia is already being lampooned by the serious newspapers and TV in the globally powerful and respected UK media. So, Peteforsyth, what do you suggest we do about it? Perhaps next on the Signpost agenda should be an article about what's been done, actually being done, what's being attempted, and what's deliberately being ignored and how the community is polarised and utterly divisive about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't assume good faith when it comes to the editors employed by Banc De Binary. I stand behind my decision to name and shame Banc De Binary. There very well may be better ways to deal with others, but we are not using them. For the "mom and pop" coffee trucks that have articles on Wikipedia, I think a clearly stated publicity campaign would do the trick. For those in between these two extremes other methods should be used. We just have to get off our duffs and do it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, yes, I think that is obvious -- so much so that I neglected to say so explicitly :) I agree, your story offers a clear illustration of a case where "naming and shaming" is appropriate. My comment was intended to inspire caution around the idea of generalizing that the approach is a good core strategy for dealing with undisclosed -- or, especially, disclosed -- paid editors.

To Kudpung, I think the general approach has to be that we continually encourage each other to take care and exercise good judgment in specific cases, rather than trying to find a "one size fits all" approach. I would hypothesize that part of the problem is, when a highly prominent figure like Wales advocates naming and shaming, perhaps some of our younger or less experienced Wikipedians hasten to find instances where they can take part. Whether conscious or unconscious, the idea that we can gain social status by accusing and embarrassing other users is IMO something we ought to be very cautious about encouraging. I believe the stance Wales takes frequently and prominently around COI editors is at odds with Wikipedia policy and works against our parallel efforts to improve our social dynamics and reduce harassment and hounding.

I don't think there's a simple answer, but I do think the right answer includes acknowledging that these situations are rarely as simple as they might have been with BDB. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• When you find something boring or unnecessarily time consuming, just walk away. We are volunteers, no one forces you to investigate or patrol anything.--Catlemur (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. You seem to say that when you see a Wikipedia article turned into an advert for a company that intentionally rips off at least $100 million a year from innocent people, we should just walk away. If that's what you are saying, I'll suggest that you should just walk away from Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Well I have an idea that I keep thinking about but it would not solve everything. Just make all (good) edits paid edits is my idea. Make it micro-payments that add up, and then editors could keep the payments or donate them back to the project. Maybe trying this as an experiment on a small scale to see if doing something like this would divert editors, paid editors from competing with each other for higher paying requests? Even though it has been talked to death, with the advent of "fake news", (which is a very real problem), new vigilance is needed to protect Wikipedia. At some point it is going to get ugly and astroturfing/spam is going to probably become a legal problem where it is not clearly disclosed. I think that WP needs to get on top of it by forcing disclousure as-if that time was already here.TeeVeeed (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • One problem here is that BDB and other scam artists can pay much more than micropayments. Reports by the UK police put the average loss to individual customers at 20,000 pounds. For all language versions there were about 300 page views per day. If only 1 victim per day bit on BDB pitch on Wikipedia ... well, I'll let you do the math. Clearly they can put a lot of money into manipulating the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • On this point, I think the software should let editors collect public donations for our work through the site, or at least have an explicit policy for allowing external links for such. If volunteer software developers can do this, why can't we? Oftentimes our work is plenty complex, and that work (sometimes) deserves more than 'thanks' or barnstars. I don't think this would directly solve the "paid editors" problem, though, but it might generate more volunteer editing that would work against them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a few reasons why offering paid editing for all productive editing would have an advantage over BDB-types. Obviously if someone is asking you to do something sneaky or risky they cannot be trusted to fulfill any bargins. Someone who is looking to make $$ editing WP, if given a choice between working for bad actors or working for the project, might be more inclined to devote their efforts to the project.TeeVeeed (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Weird how this article made no mention of the Wikimedia Foundation's clumsy financial support of paid promotional editing when the Stanton Foundation director was assisted by the WMF in sending money to a paid editor in support of the director's husband at the Belfer Center. That was a $50,000 project, if I recall -- very few paid editors on Wikipedia ever make that kind of money; yet, with the Wikimedia Foundation's backing, it's entirely doable! Initial attempts to "name and shame" the Foundation for that disaster were silenced by Wikipedia admins and WMF staff. - 108.216.213.21 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it weird that anybody could possibly equate the Belfer Center, a unit of Harvard University, with Banc De Binary, a broker that's been accused of scamming innocent people out of their pensions. One of the most obnoxious things that paid editors do is harass other editors. Checking your recent edit history it looks like you are harassing Jimbo Wales. May I ask if you are the guy who was banned 10 years ago for paid editing by Jimbo, and who has been harassing him ever since? Are you still running an advert on your own website for paid editing services? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No, what IP 108 suggests is absolutely off base in its implications, even if some of the facts are accurate. I was, over time, the most consistent and vocal critic of the WMF on this 2013-14 incident, and was centrally involved in it -- I know this episode well. A few points:

• We're talking about disclosure, so the choice to post anonymously is more than a little ironic.
• The Wikimedia Foundation did not intend for the position to be a paid editing position; that happened due to a lack of oversight and some naive decisions, not due to a desire to "send money to a paid editor." That's an oversimplification, and a significant one.
• Neither the WMF nor admins "silenced" anyone (nor could they have); in fact, they did the opposite. The first public posting about the issue was from odder on his personal blog (which he has since deleted). Following some open and candid email list discussion, the WMF's then-executive director Sue Gardner and her deputy Eloquence proactively created a thorough report on the incident, on a public wiki, inviting input and feedback. And afterwards, KLove (WMF) elaborated on what lessons the WMF had learned from the episode, and how it has adapted its grant programs accordingly.

This is an example of a fairly isolated mistake that was handled with care, and in order to interpret it as indicative of the WMF's disposition in 2017, you'd have to ignore a lot of important stuff. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Readers of this article might also be interested in Wikipedia vs. Banc De Binary: A 3-year battle against binary options ‘fake news’

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A couple of clarifications, it was probably my fault not to express them clearly when I was asked. There are about 20 English Wikipedia core mediawiki replicas (the number is not fixed, newer servers are continuously being added/upgraded and others decomissioned). There are around 130 core db server in total for all projects serving wiki traffic, to maximize high availability and performance, and its topology can be seen at: https://dbtree.wikimedia.org/ Some auxiliary (non-core) servers are hidden for clarity. Should a meteorite hit the west cost of US, we could have all wiki projects running on the secondary datacenter in 30 minutes (?)- we are trying to get faster and better there. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/04/11/wikimedia-failover-test/ https://www.mediawiki.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikimedia_Engineering/2016-17_Q3_Goals#Technical_Operations

Also, there is 2 (not 1) db servers delayed 24 hours, one per main datacenter, one just happens to be temporarily (for a few weeks) under maintenance and it is up but not "delayed" after hardware renewal (redundancy helps, not only a recovery method, but also for easier maintenance and less user impact).

In general, backups is something that one never stops working on- there is always room for faster backups, faster recovery, more backups, better verification, more redundancy, etc.

--jynus (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really excited to learn that better PDF rendering is on the way -- this will be enormously helpful to many projects. I'm curious, will the rendering respect little customizations, e.g. whether one has chosen to show or hide the Table of Contents or collapsed text, or the sort order chosen in sortable tables? Also, is there any related progress on ODT or ePub output? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It will render exactly the same as a printout of page would look like, if you would be an anonymous user (basically, it works just like "Print to PDF on any modern OS's print dialog). There is no progress on ODT or ePub output (as a matter of fact, it could be argued that we will be further from such a solution, by choosing for maintainable simplicity over unmaintainable complexity). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

TheDJ, currently, "print to PDF" does respect whether or not the TOC is expanded. But if the browser engine doing the rendering is on the server side, will that still be the case? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the rendering is serverside, so it has no idea about the context that your browser keeps. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. As I suspected...and unfortunate, but difficult to change, I'd imagine. Thanks for the clarification! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see the ability to have proper tables in PDFs is now likely. Quite a lot of my work on recent years has been tables and lists, and its been as real pain not to be able to render them. It means WP readers can't access them easily for study off web. I have had to place the texts in my word processor and format them there for my private use. Apwoolrich (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I too am looking forward to see the glorious PDF function restored to its glory! Can't wait for books to be a thing again! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• I frequently enjoy The Signpost's content, especially the Traffic Report but I think I like the report with less political axe-grinding. Typically the writing is good on the report but there's a very fine line between witty snark and pathetic bitterness. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris, I am interested to hear what comments you found unfavorable. E.g., we are finding a split of opinion over Trump where there are almost no non-U.S. readers who don't want us to flay Trump alive (which we try not to do), and where in the U.S. there are some people who have expressed dislike for comments about Trump that are negative even when factual. That's why I tried to play it light in the Trump entry in the topmost top 10. We are in interesting times where politics are dominating the chart more than usual.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree these are difficult times and I know there's a wide variety of opinion but I noticed comments like "the United States doesn't seem to have a system for dealing with botched elections", "literal rape", and "everybody seems to be talking about how successful his administration has been" miss the mark. I don't mind Maplestrip registering her opinion. I balk when that opinion is presented as fact. I understand these are divisive issues; I just think Signpost can do better since it usually does. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As for "everybody seems to be talking about how successful his administration has been", I was actually referring to people criticizing the Obama administration for various reasons. At the time of writing, I saw a lot of posts and articles in my feed related to how Obama would be remembered compared to other US presidents. That was not intended to be a compliment. The "literal rape" comment may have been a bit on the nose, but per various dictionary definitions ("unlawful sexual activity ... carried out forcibly ... incapable of valid consent ..."), any kind of sexual assault can also be referred to as rape. I'm sorry if this word usage has been uncomfortable. As for the first statement regarding botched elections: that was indeed a somewhat personal statement, or even a personal frustration as someone who follows international news. Clearly, the United States election was messed up, right? Even the president has said that voter fraud has taken place. Whether or not this means that there should be a "do-over" is subjective, but I found it odd that the US doesn't even seem to have a system in place for such a situation. I never read anything along the lines of "if this Russian hack is confirmed, we should do X." I hope I manage to justify my use of language somewhat. I agree with the fact that adding me to the traffic report group wouldn't exactly result in more political diversity here, which has been an issue for a while now... ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, to clarify, I did not state that tax invasion, rape, or illegal usage of a private mailing server actually took place. I just stated that the election happened while investigations and court cases regarding these situations were still ongoing. Surely that is an issue worth addressing? ~Mable (chat) 10:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As I've said, our current situation leads to difficult editorial decisions. I won't argue the facts of what has been in the news because I don't want to derail this discussion nor do I deny we're in some really odd political territory. I'd certainly shy away from coverage that can be divisive although I guess that perception of what's divisive depends on what communities you interact with. I'm a student in Pittsburgh so I see both ends of the US spectrum here. Serendipodous has continually been on the money with his writing so I'd only suggest you follow his lead for where to draw the line. I value Traffic Report and I'd hate to have editors like me become alienated by a descent into the filthy world of wholesale politics. I totally understand where you're coming from, though. I'm just not where you are. Having international voices in The Signpost is important so I encourage you to continue. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to do better next time - thank you for the criticism! ~Mable (chat) 11:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Slipping in with my Editor in Chief hat on, I'm glad to see this discussed. As we do for almost every edition (since politics are a running theme), we considered the extent and nature of the political commentary prior to publication; while we may have reached a different conclusion than you did, Chris troutman, I want to assure you it was not out of a lack of consideration, or a lack of sensitivity to the issues you raise. As far as I'm concerned, one of the important and valuable aspects of the Traffic Report -- which distinguishes it from the Top 25 reports that are its basis -- is the voice of the author. (And the voice of the writers is one of the core assets of the Signpost, going back to 2005.) One way of addressing your concerns that I'm very open to is recruiting more people, of more backgrounds, to offer their own analyses -- and this is a good time for that. But I'm not inclined to ask our contributors to tone down their views, at least not in this case. I consider the quality of research and writing to be the determining factors in what we publish here, not the "slant" of the author's views. Chris, thank you for articulating your position. Maplestrip, thank you for your work on this, and for taking the criticism in stride -- and {{u|Milowent]] and Serendipodous, thanks as always for your leadership on this section! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• The Week of January 8 to 14, 2017 section seems to either have the wrong view count numbers for Donald Trump article or have it in the wrong place in the list. Mm? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 09:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

P. S.: Personally, I enjoyed getting to hear the author's commentary. I assume NPOV doesn't apply to this, so IDK what the fuss is about; it certainly gives a nice change of pace from reading article content. Just my 2¢. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 09:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Goldenshimmer, thanks for the note re Trump viewcount, I have put the correct number - the old one probably was an artifact from a prior report that we forgot to update, he was still #5 that week. And thanks for weighing in on our commentary as well.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel it should be officially noted here that plenty of men also lust after Ryan Gosling. --Roisterer (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if the title was inspired by the number one hit single Cool It Now and recent series The New Edition Story... but if it was I approve!--- Eartha78 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's been a while since there was a report on a WikiProject. Thanks for covering WikiProject Birds! - kosboot (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)