Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/Exclusive



← Back to Exclusive

Discuss this story

Maybe I'm an idiot, but could the article please clarify what "CIO" means? CIO#Titles lists a variety of options. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear; I've added [clarification]. Tony (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a great interview! I know everyone at the Signpost is overworked and I happened to have some time, so I went ahead and transcribed it for all the people who can't listen to .ogg files or are deaf or are on phones or whatever. I hope that's helpful and saves somebody some work! :-) Of course, I did a pretty quick job so anyone should feel free to fix it or mess with the formatting if I made mistakes. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 15:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Tony and Lila both.
Thanks for the transcription, Keilana, I have boldly moved your transcript to the end of the article. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone through the recording in detail and added some minor tweaks.—Neotarf (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Neotarf, I appreciate it! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such nonsense. I just got done reading about Quora's misogyny problem. It would seem that the best way to make online communities more female friendly is to block the troublemakers. No amount of encouragement and mentorship is going to overcome the awkward teen boys flirting with female Wikipedians or the prolific editors with long histories of offensive comments. We already have a means to fix the problem and that is for admins to block offenders on site and for WMF to pursue the ISPs of the inevitable sockpuppets. I'm disappointed that the new outsider management's solution is to reinvent the wheel. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the transcript has been removed, I have moved it to my userspace here should anyone wish to read it. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I know of deaf editors who would not be able to access it otherwise. I *never* listen to interviews, and would not have heard it if you had not started the transcription. The ideas are complex and are easier to study when you can see them written out. And these ideas deserve a wide currency.
But one thing I learned from working with Tony is the importance of sound. You really have to listen to an interview to catch the nuance. When it comes to framing issues, Tony really understands the foundation backwards and forwards. For instance, the idea of spending in the Global South being about travel to conferences--this is an issue that deserves to be considered, and would be hard to pick up on by just skimming the transcript. So please listen to the tape as well, if for no other reason than to be reminded that all Australians do not sound like Crocodile Dundee. —Neotarf (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, why did you remove the transcript? — Scott • talk 13:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was originally an audio interview, Tony was attempting to put the focus on the audio rather than the traditional text-based medium. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it is an audio interview. And that is central to its meanings. I don't understand the feverish insistence on instantly degrading it into other modes. We are very happy to make available a transcript for the hearing-impaired. Otherwise, you'll need to wait at least a few days. Tony (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is "central to its meanings" supposed to mean? Frankly, it sounds like pretentious babble. It's disappointing that you prioritize your creative stylings above everything else. — Scott • talk 15:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could try being less personally offensive. If you want to acquaint yourself with the basics, Halliday's short book, Written and spoken English (1986, I think), is a revelation. But I'd have thought my previous point was obvious. Tony (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, no, I shan't be reading a book because you can't answer a simple question. Pretentious babble it is. — Scott • talk 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, no, I shan't be providing you with an answer just because you can't understand a simple clause. And your attacks are breaches of the civility policy. Mind that. Tony (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utter codswallop. You wouldn't know an "attack" if it hit you in the backside. — Scott • talk 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott: Please do me this favor: Show Tony the respect you'd like him to show you for the time being. I'm not asking you to be anything but yourself, but I'd really appreciate it if you gave me a chance to talk to Tony about his concerns without any distractions from the edits on this page. If you can't do this for Tony, please do it for me; you know I'm asking this in good faith as your friend. -wʃʃʍ- 02:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it far easier to read a transcript than to fiddle about with audio format. And I suspect I'm not alone in this opinion. If you insist on some "central to its meaning" rubbish, you'll find you have a much smaller audience. -- llywrch (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to listen to it, that's just fine by me. It is also a breach of the civility policy to call what someone says "rubbish". You need to re-acquaint yourself with the policy. Tony (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First thing I did when I saw it was an audio interview was look to see if there was a transcript. I read Signpost in the single page display, so I wasn't able to view the comments. I actually came here to comment and see if anyone could put together a transcript. I'm going to go ahead and link to @Keilana:'s transcript on the file page on Commons. Zell Faze (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem, glass houses and all that. On offensive editors being blocked and cleaning up the atmosphere: of course, overdue (by about seven years), as a few of us have been saying, and the community at large has to see that. On the WMF and value for money, of course "lean" is good; but "lean and mean" is a neat formulation there of what overcorrection looks like. The volunteers themselves deserve better than stick-and-carrot as an underlying management strategy. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, they're about 20 years apart, and a whole hell of a lot of testosterone in between. :) -wʃʃʍ- 00:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a convenience link to the transcript to the body of the article. Not only hearing impaired-users, but also those reading Wikipedia on the go, among others, can more conveniently access the transcript than the audio version. The objections above to including or linking to the transcript are completely unpersuasive. The alternative to the link is posting the entire transcript here in the comments section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and I see that my addition has been removed, for no comprehensible reason. I have re-added. If it is removed again, I will not restore it a third time, but I would ask others to comment on the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have resigned from my position as a Signpost writer because it has now been locked the way you want it. It's disgusting. I'm outa here. Tony (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my capacity as the Signpost's editor, I've locked the page (as Tony notes above). I'm not going to comment on anything else for the time being. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to state the obvious, none of that is what I wanted or expected to happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, NYB. I'm certainly not blaming you; I'm simply caught between a rock and a hard place, and probably will continue to be for the time being. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the "right" version.
Comment has been invited, so here is comment. Even though it appears that the Signpost is published under CC BY-SA license, this edit summary here makes it look like Tony expected to release the copyright for the interview in exchange for an agreement that a transcript would not be published: "no transcript here, or links, for the moment. That was the deal in my releasing copyright". But according to what was put in plain view for the public, which can be viewed in this version, a transcript was planned specifically: "The Signpost will release a transcript of the interview next week." This makes it look like the Signpost staff is merely busy as usual and did not have time to do the transcription. This is exactly what the individual who posted the transcript stated as a reason for doing it--to help out an overstretched staff.
But what was the real intention? As can be seen from this example of traffic statistics from a previous edition of News and Notes, the page views for this weekly feature decline rapidly after only a few days. So was the intention to publish the transcript only after interest in the piece had died down? It seems like this might only serve to bury and marginalize Lila's words.
As it ended up, there was a series of rapid reversions, bordering on an edit war, and as usual, the piece ended up getting protected at the Wrong Version. The only thing left to do in a case like this is to affix a Wrong Version tag to the article, except that it is protected, so no one can affix anything. —Neotarf (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: I'd like to hear about your concerns. I'm an audio guy myself, and I appreciate how much communication can be lost in every step from visual->audio->text. How bout we take it off-wiki for now? You can email me at [email protected]. I'd be honored if you dropped me a note. -wʃʃʍ- 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If NYB's edit-warred version remains, I'm likely to vanish from all WMF sites for good. Tony (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I really don't care about this as much as Tony seems to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, I enjoyed listening to this great interview with Lila. One clarifying point: In my experience, the majority of editathons in North America have actually cost $0 to the Wikimedia movement, with a few covering snacks that might go up to $100. So, this is not at all a drain on global resources, but rather a creative use of local Wikimedian volunteer effort.--Pharos (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The_ed17, you've now taken to fighting back the addition of the transcript link. Your latest change gives the justification that you "now believe that a talk page link is sufficient". As I pointed out to you in the edit summary for the edit you reverted, it is not, because talk page comments do not appear on the single-page edition. I also commented that "Either provide accessibility correctly across the board, or admit that you aren't interested" - that stands. If you genuinely believe in providing for our hearing-impaired readers, or indeed alternatives to visual content for our sight-impaired readers, you will ferociously seek out every possible location where you can do that, and ensure that you do. But you're not. What you're doing here is, for lack of a better phrase, paying lip service to accessibility, because the alternative is your project buddy going off in a huff. It's sad to see that respectable Wikipedia editors can be taken hostage by such behavior - doubly so when the only people that are really inconvenienced are the ones with special needs that we need to put extra work in to cater for. And since I haven't said it already, Keilana deserves a commendation for her fast work in putting that transcript together. That's what it looks like when somebody actually cares.

I'm not going to edit the page again, it's clear how the deck is stacked around here. — Scott • talk 15:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, just in case you didn't read my comments above, I'm going to quote myself—"I'm simply caught between a rock and a hard place, and probably will continue to be for the time being"—and note that I, too, have thanked Keilana for her transcript work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one of those two outweighs the other by several orders of magnitude. I've said all I'm going to say. — Scott • talk 15:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, you have discredited yourself to such an egregious extent by your abusiveness on this page (not to mention your abuse at Wikipediocracy) that you can expect no one to treat you seriously as an editor or a Wikipedian—and certainly not as an administrator, oddly a position you still have. Tony (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this cryptically hostile exchange is really upsetting to me, as an experienced editor for five years, married for 33 years to a deaf woman, mother of my two sons, who edits Wikipedia occasionally, but wants better accessibility for the hearing impaired. Why in hell would anyone belittle the needs of hearing impaired editors? Why the threats to resign and the locking of pages? I am a literal kind of guy. What in the hell is going on here? Can't you all just grow up? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts, your questions, or some of them, would be well put at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen328. Getting some input on this from people who are personally affected is immensely valuable. — Scott • talk 08:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an answer to that too. In the last 4 hours, I have received 13 consecutive emails from Tony. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure your device hasn't gone haywire? Charles, anyone who wants to can access the link to the transcript, which has been here high on the talkpage since shortly after publication. Why would you bother people at the Wikiproject accessibility? Tony (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My device is working fine, Tony1. Why is it , again, that you are battling and threatening to resign? Please restate the "principle" that overrides the needs our hearing-impaired editors. Because I completely fail to understand the point you are trying to make. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: Well, a good friend of mine is involved in the accessibility Wikiproject, for one thing; and also, faced with a distressed editor, I like to be able to offer something helpful. Accessibility here is usually framed in terms of articles being read by screen-readers for those who need those. I don't have an informed view of other aspects, but that would be a forum in which to raise such points. "Adjourning" discussions of points of principle is one of the better ways to deal with them, I find. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, you're right, Charles. But I'm puzzled as to why a link on the talk page in one of the first few posts, which has been there almost from the start, wasn't sufficient. (It has now been boosted by the addition of a yet more prominent "link" through further edit-warring by this abusive Scott person, who is still an admin, which should be a concern to all of us.) I expected the audio version to be the primary mode. That was the design and motivation in the first place. So the arrangement was that a link not be provided on the actual article page. If people don't like audio, don't listen. Hearing-impaired: see link on this page. End of story, as far as I'm concerned, except for the wanton personal abuse. Tony (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: Such things are and remain editorial decisions; but the discussion here should surely carry some weight. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, absolutely no weight, I'm afraid. I don't engage in that kind of discussion with abusers like Scott Martin—nor adult editors who are shrill. Tony (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some general comments on the transcript issue here. Comments on that would probably be best made there rather than here. In an attempt to return discussion here to the actual interview, I've re-read the transcript and the point about results-orientated assessments and funding was well made. At one point, Lila Tretikov said: "This is one of our top priorities: to ensure that we actually have good, consistent, clear, and monitorable measurements across our organizations". It will be interesting to see what those measurements will be and how it will be decided what to measure. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Find some other mug to do it—and who's willing to cop large-scale abuse. Tony (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All drama aside, I'd like to point out that a lot of non-native English speakers are much more confortable reading a transcript than listening some audio-only version of an interview. José Luiz talk 00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you make an extraordinary presumption that second-language speakers might prefer written to audio. Speak for your individual self rather than generalising to a billion people, thanks. Second, the link to a transcript has been on this talkpage almost from the start. What are you complaining about? Third, the transcript itself was just appallingly done. Mistakes all over the place. False renderings of both what Lila Tretikov and I said; even a spelling mistake, just fixed. Bad punctuation (rendering it ungrammatical in a few places). Bad typography. Failure to use square brackets where appropriate. Failure to remove stammerings (e.g. "of, of") per standard practice (but ahs and ums were not transcribed—got that one right). It has since largely been fixed through my prompting, although I'm not touching that burning carcass myself. It was even slightly damaged recently. Tony (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’m really surprised with the tone of your answer to something I merely pointed out as a feedback. I’m not “presuming” anything because I’ve been working in non-english or multi-lingual projects here for four years now and I’m sure most people outside Europe struggle to write and do not speak or understand spoken English at all (read anything in steward elections on meta, for instance – votes, presentations etc. – really bad English all around). My feedback is that for many volunteers English is not even a “second language”, but only a language they have to deal to be informed or to better interact with others. I applaud the “appalling” as much, much better than nothing and here’s my thanks to whoever did it. Finally, if you took my comments as presumptuous or personal, my sincerest apologies. I know English well enough to understand the interview, but I really think an “official” transcript accompanying the audio would have been better in this particular case. Thank you and I really hope you can snap out of this “angry state of mind” you’re in right now and read this only for what it is… José Luiz talk 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was an offensive post. Which bit of "Second, the link to a transcript has been on this talkpage almost from the start. What are you complaining about?" don't you understand? Tony (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally prefer transcripts for languages I am not as familiar with, it gives me a text to plug into translation programs.
Not everyone who reaches a different conclusion does so because they are an "enemy". Different opinions are expected and should be encouraged. That is the whole purpose of discourse, as tool for learning and a reality check for any unexplained assumptions. When your rationale for every assertion is "because I say so", it's time to step away from the keyboard.—Neotarf (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neotarf, as one of the chief abusers, you should step away from the keyboard yourself. Delusional. Tony (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is working on the production of a transcription "abusive"? Are you forgetting your own extensive transcription of the WMF Metrics meeting less than a year ago? —Neotarf (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did the transcript in less than an hour - good is the enemy of perfect and I figured that, since it's Wikipedia, someone would come along and fix minor errors. I'm really glad to see that people have fixed the minor errors and hope that people continue to do so. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drama aside, Wikipedia's handling of sound files is garbage and without a transcription there is about 0% chance I would have absorbed the information created by Tony's excellent interview with Ms. Tretikov. He clearly feels disrespected about something and really shouldn't. See WP:OWN. I think Scott needlessly tossed petrol on the fire and deserves a whack of a fat trout for that. So: can the drama and can the personal meanness. Nice interview, Tony. Put aside your preconceptions about the superiority of an audio file to a transcription. Thanks for your efforts; take a short break to cool off and get back to work with renewed enthusiasm... Carrite (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry to say that I find it deeply ironic that this type of alpha male chest-beating is exactly what drives women editors away. I enjoyed reading the transcript by the way, as my time is limited and I am blessed with a fast reading speed. Jusdafax 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]