The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-02-21. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

I believe the clause above "including founder of Wikipedia ..." should instead read "including co-founder of Wikipedia ...". What is the etiquette for such a revision to the main article? (please note, before the inevitable, that the designation of "co-founder" is the hard-won usage in many other articles) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to say "co-founder." Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, accuracy matters. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Major or substantive edits are usually not approved, but it's fine to fix typos and so on (particularly as the typo in this instance resulted in an meaning that was not desired or intended by the authors). Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course leaving the definite article out leaves wiggle room for those that want it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC).

• I do think Africa is one of the places where our coverage is indeed lacking, which is something that has been pointed out multiple times in the past few years. The issue does fall down to sources, which is where problems come in when you're talking about places that doesn't have as much extensive coverage as the west does. For example, a while back I was involved in an AfD on this article. After a little bit of searching, I discovered that he was one of the Great Six male leads in Nigerian film, each of which should almost certainly have an article on Wikipedia. However, the sources are still difficult to find, even for important people such as this. So, what's the best method in such a situation? Silverseren^C 23:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  Some thoughts:

  1. We can improve the way we invite people to share information about their own projects or organizations -- that is one obvious place to start -- we should actively encourage people to post links to external sources, including their own organization or film's website, and should help them find other editors to craft the text of an article.
  2. We can mine industry-standard databases for background information on what coverage we are missing. (Rather than challenging editors to defend the notability of subjects, we can make lists of topics we know are notable by our own standards but don't have articles.) We should reach out to third parties that track information about, say, Nigerian film stars, or major corporations on the global stock market; they are a bedrock on which articles can be built. However the people who work with that data may have little overlap with those interestedin writing narrative articles. So we should devise ways for people to share sources and basic information before anyone has formulated an argument about notability that satisfies our in-house deletionists.
  3. We can support slow article creation -- this may be the best and most lasting change we could make. For instance:
     • Allow the growth of talk-pages about articles that are not yet complete or notable. Today there is no clear way to slowly gather sources about a subject over time -- if you try to add material to the talk page of an article that has not yet been created, it will be speedily deleted (an unfortunate misinterpretation of G8). No other solution lets two people who don't know one another find eachother's draft work on a new article.
     • Give new articles a week to develop. First-effort drafts in article space are often made by people who have direct access to many sources (including paper sources). Right now they are usually swiftly deleted, rather than massaged into good articles. Instead, we could start recognizing the work of article-massagers (currently a thankless task, though "save articles for deletion" projects are occasionally popular). We can devise tools that monitor pages that are exactly 7 days old rather than the ones that monitor new pages, only deleting new pages for obvious spam or vandalism. We can use pure wiki deletion rather than hard deletion, to allow future editors to build on what has been tried before. And we can design more safe spaces for new editors to get help without trout-slaps... –SJ+ 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not familiar with Wikipedia:Notability. Africa is just not notable! (Asia is also not important, apart from Japan, which has Pokemon). The Deletionists are right - Wikipedia already has too many articles about non-notable subjects, like Africans. Delete new Africa articles on sight!! 219.89.229.239 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "the article reported claims by unnamed critics that [ Wikia ] "in effect piggybacks on the reputation built up by the legions of unpaid contributors to the encyclopedia, and thus ruthlessly exploits them" - hey, I resemble that remark :-). But the snippet garbles the point that Wikia is intended to "take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia," and "commercialize the hell out of it", phrases which come straight from a Trader Monthly interview on this topic, so are not easily dismissed. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We all give permission for our work on this project to be exploited, even commercialized. I'm cool with it, even though I don't particularly care for Wikia. Ntsimp (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure this is the place for a long debate on the topic, but legal isn't the same as laudable. To give an example, sweatshop labor is in some sense voluntary, but it's still typically exploitative. Or note the analysis of "No One Makes You Shop at Wal-Mart". There's a deep critique here that's often missed if one reduces considerations down to minimal aspects like permission or legality. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Africa problem is really a conjunction of two separate problems;

1. The interests of the people who edit wikipedia (ie. the "Why do we have better coverage of Pokemon than of Persian history?" problem). The Wikipedian community is still dominated by affluent anglophones in the Western world; with fewer editors in/from Africa there will naturally be less (but not zero) attention paid to such articles. Can we change that? How?
2. The availability of sources; we have a bit of a FUTON bias - a document on a shelf in Africa is far, far less likely to be referenced than something which is easily googled, and a lot of interesting African subjects have little reliable documentation online. Apart from the technical capacity issues in developing countries, the language barrier cuts both ways; somebody who does not speak one of the more common global languages may be less likely to engage with the internet, and even if they do put information up there, the average wikipedian is less likely to understand what they've written. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a rule - if something appears in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, it's notable. If it doesn't, it isn't. Sorry Africans!

Oh wait, we already have that rule. Delete new articles about Africa on sight! 219.89.229.239 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, either learn, or don't write about it.

In almost every other subject this is an accepted norm. If you don't understand how the (electoral college/cooking/the human body/etc.) works, either learn, or don't write about it. For some reason though, everyone from school newspapers all the way up through top tier national or international daily papers seem to ignore this common sense guideline when it comes to Wikipedia. The number of reports that inaccurately depict how Wikipedia works is substantial, and is one of the core reasons why academics and the public at large are so conflicted on Wikipedia.

Also, not getting facts wrong in your reporting is generally just considered good practice in journalism.

Now there are a number of ways to avoid such mistakes. First of all you could join in as an editor, spend some of your time working on articles and getting the Wikipedian experience firsthand. Secondly, you could send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that runs the hardware, plans events, does outreach, and oh yeah, gives interviews. Third, you could always ask a few Wikipedians about Wikipedia. I recommend talking to a few of them, not just one, as you'll get a bit more balance in the opinions you hear that way (that being said almost any of them would have caught and corrected your error on staff article reviewers.)

In the end, it comes down to putting in the effort and caring about getting the facts right, both of which should be in the core of the journalistic ethos, but sadly do not seem to be when it comes to Wikipedia. Perhaps in time this will stop happening, but until it does, I leave you with this: Wikipeida is a unique resource, which more and more people are recognizing and treasuring as such. For whatever its flaws, it's a beautiful thing. However, every time a story in the media misrepresents or distorts Wikipedia, it damages that beautiful thing, and it hurts many of us ordinary people that have devoted so much time to making it possible. Journalists should know better than to drop the ball with facts, but it's not just Wikipedia that suffers in the end, the dedicated editors as well as the millions of users that visit Wikipedia come off a little worse off each time as well.

Thank you for your time,
Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The graph on the history of the Swedish article on Michael Jackson is quite striking, but for a graph to be useful, people need to have a key, or some way of understanding what the graph means. After a bit of searching, I can now guess that the colors represent the amount of content contributed by an individual editor, with the x-axis representing different versions over time. Smallbones (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, didn't the note say "representing each revision by a vertical line and distinguishing the amount of text contributed by each author with different colors"? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't "overturn" anything. He reverted the action as a normal editor. The essay was and remains a pointy rant about a single content dispute, and in no way encapsulates a meaningful debate on a bigger picture issue. The definition of "hardcore" used is contrived so as to only include images of bukkake and little else. Gigs (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the decision regarding the appointment of a consultant rather than an employee was unrelated to the discussion about legal liabilities on the IRC chat. WMF didn't change our position on consultant vs. employee due to a heighten concern over legal liability. We have always been concerned about legal liability. We decided that the activities that we need fulfilled at the moment are best done via a consultancy. We might change this perspective as we move forward as we are still learning.Barry Newstead --BazaNews (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll note this has also been discussed on Wikimediaindia-l [1]. Sorry about not replying earlier and thanks for the useful clarification. The sentence in the story that you are referring to (which was clearly marked as an educated guess) was not just about the consultant vs. employee question, but also about dropping "the Wikimedia Foundation's chief representative in India" language.

There is of course nothing wrong with the Foundation changing job descriptions between putting out the ad and doing the actual hire. However, in previous cases where this happened, the original job description was mentioned and the change was explained (examples include your own hire last year, and you hiring Asaf and Moushira recently). It was a bit surprising to see neither here, despite a lot of other information about this hire and the new position, and other were left guessing about the reason too. (I am assuming that Hisham and the other applicants that you were referring to in your explanations originally applied for the National Director job opening - if I'm wrong about that and there was indeed a job opening published for the position in its current form, please correct me.) I had planned to ask you for comment about this, but I wasn't able to attend the IRC office hour on the topic, and didn't get around to contact you directly before writing the story. I'll try to do so next time in a similar situation. In the meantime, considering that we frequently cover the Foundation's India expansion in the Signpost, and that such legal risks are relevant for the whole community (which could soon be faced with the new situation that editorial decisions on Wikipedia might expose someone like Hisham to a personal risk), a question about your recent comment that "I have had some informal conversations about legal questions and WMF's new General Counsel Geoff Brigham has this as a priority as he gets started": Was the original job description from August vetted and endorsed by the then General Counsel?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What proportion of Usernames are visibly gender related (possibly also comparing different languages) - and what is the equivalent for other areas of the Wikiverse? WP is not an obvious first choice for looking for adult material per se (as distinct from 'what does this weird term mean?). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This really demands more explanation or another reference. Was it really "off-the-record"? Or was it "background" or "not for attribution"? There are differences among all these categories. It would certainly be news if The New York Times acceded to an off-the-record lunch for a Wikipedia person but not for one with President Obama (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/with-off-the-record-lunch-obama-extends-a-hand/) I hope to see this explained within this article as soon as possible. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a verbatim quote from Sue Gardner's statement. As a former journalist who has worked many years for a major news organization, she should be expected to be familiar with the precise meaning of these terms.

Still, you are raising an interesting point, but there might be more appropriate venues to seek and publish such a clarification (Signpost articles should not be modified significantly after publication without a pressing need).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is as good a place as any to make my point: "At the lunch, we talked with them about our gender gap. We knew it would stimulate a big, public conversation. And it did: immediately after the story was published, we were flooded with media inquiries and offers of help." Sounds like it was "not for attribution." Many journalists still don't know the distinction, even after All the President's Men. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly one would not expect wp:jargon to be used in News and notes. I refer here to the word userfied, which has absolutely no meaning in the English language. The internal link provided does not even go to a definition: Rather it goes here. I am a bit incensed at this in-groupism, but I remain sincerely yours, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is fairly common in Wikipedia parlance, though I think it should well have been parenthesised or linked. The correct link is Wikipedia:USERFY. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to attract neophytes to edit, don't put them off with in-groupish jargon, that's all I am saying. (It even puts me off, and I have been around for years.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of editing the section about how server load was cut in half to reflect the reality that only 4 servers had their load cut in half, not all of our 100+ Apaches as the wording suggested --Catrope (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for making the wording clear! It's still very impressive that this bug fix made such a big difference on resource loader server load. --Aude (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-21/Versailles

• Great interview, with some interesting perspectives on technicality. —innotata 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)