The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-10-16. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia truly is becoming more globalized, well, at least more European. We have a content-based speech discrimination now... I really don't see why Wikipedia just doesn't go the extra step and require real names in registration and mandatory reporting to national authorities of violations of freedom-of-speech-exception laws. I guess because that's not commonplace in Europe (yet). I see this as nothing but a bias against Asian speech restrictions norms (e.g., China, Russia) in favour of West European ones. Two wrongs don't make a right. Int21h (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• It really can't be emphasized enough that (1) ArbCom never had purview to settle the content dispute that was at the heart of the Private Manning case; (2) that the settlement of this dispute was delayed by two or three weeks due to their ridiculous decision to bureaucratically "chime in" on a matter that didn't really concern them; (3) that the community wasted 1.5 million bytes of text on the various pages and subpages arguing about this matter at ArbCom — the equivalent of 150 beefy 10k articles flushed... It was a huge waste of time and effort all because ArbCom didn't think things through before accepting the case. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can't say that Arb Com passed the buck back to the community now....can we. I don't fully understand the difference between discretionary sanctions and just handing out ridicule to those who's behavior was not to standards but I guess we get what we pay for, don't we. Having said that, let me be as clear as possible, this case is a social issue. We can't tell society how to react and to me, this comes very close to that.....and I am a gay activist in real life, have worked at the LA LGBT center and have been employed by controversial figures for their own activism against gay rights. Forgiveness, acceptance and just plain...getting over it and attempting education instead of criticism may work in the real world, but perhaps I need to understand that it doesn't in these virtual sites....and is not always the route people take....it's just the route I try to take....and in all honesty, I often fail. So others have failed in their expression of their own beliefs. I just see the above as outing behavior....if they were not sanctioned.....that is just pushing them further to the extreme. Can't say I am either happy or exactly unhappy with the decisions express above, but I will say this....I won't hold anything against any editor for expressing what they feel is right or wrong. We don't exactly have a policy to cover everything but we do need to be sure and let all of the editors who are criticized for their lack of sensitivity know that they are not being marked with a scarlet letter. Seriously, these issues need education not blame. I said my piece...and feel better.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Int21h, I don't think saying this is some Western European thing is a particularly accurate characterization because you're talking about governments while Wikipedia is a private entity. The United States, for example, doesn't have the sort of discriminatory speech laws that many European countries do, but a private entity in the United States (and I suspect the majority of countries without discriminatory speech laws) may forbid you from using discriminatory language within their domain. That's all that's happened here. Nothing out of the ordinary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And as for speech norms from Russia and China, I'm not sure about the former, but under the latter, large sections of Wikipedia are not even allowed, so I can't see that going that direction is compatible with Wikipedia's core mission. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I really hate Arbcom remedies that solve nothing. There is, apparently, no previous problematic behaviour by David Gerard related to transsexual articles; his actions were roughly in line with standard policy and practice of the time, and yet he now not only has a restriction, but an infinitely long restriction that can only be appealed once every six months. A disgracefully inappropriate and counterproductive remedy. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This remedy was far too heavy-handed, and is the kind of response that in the long run communicates to admins that they should be extra cautious rather than perhaps suffer being desysopped or hobbled by a topic ban for being bold in defense of policy. Steven Walling • talk 06:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what? We need a principle that bad decisions get immediately appealed. I've filed an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Great report as always. Thanks, Pine. I think the discussion report is one of the most important features of the Signpost as it keeps our volunteers informed as to what's going on around the project. Keep up the good work. 64.40.54.174 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment! The "Featured content" report has priority for getting done, but if someone else is handling it then I will usually get the "Discussion report" done on at least alternate weeks. --Pine^✉ 05:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The RfC about ArbCom elections appears twice; is that deliberate? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I made an exception for that one. Thanks for checking. --Pine^✉ 05:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• 33? How often does the Featured Picture change? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Once a day, but I suspect that all 20 Puck of Pook's Hill images will get shoved into a single day. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Picture of the Day (POTD) is different than FP (all POTDs must be FPs, but not all FPs will be POTDs). Featured pictures are those considered some of the best work by the community, whereas POTD is the image displayed on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a failure of mention that there was a new Featured Topic. The topic is of John Edward Brownlee so there will be some acknowledgment. GamerPro64 22:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gamer; I'm new at this and for some reason didn't check that. I've added it now. Cdtew (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sometimes the newsletter forgets about new Featured Topics which is very concerning to me. GamerPro64 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for letting us know, Gamer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You know part of me, a small part, wishes we could delete and salt the articles of all of the Wiki-PR's clients (just a few months or so) but I know that would be inappropriate.

No measures that Wikipedia could enforce or the vigilance of volunteer Editor has the same strength of Wiki-Pr acquiring a bad reputation for not delivering what was paid for. It only takes a few spectacular fails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I wasn't expecting to be quoted quite that extensively. As a note, Priceline's spokesperson seems to have confirmed they used Wiki-PR's services for all of their subsidiary brands. You can see a presumptive before/after diff on one of their brands here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Agoda was pure advert. I've stubbified it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• If you take a look at the other articles about Priceline.com subsidiaries, you'll find the same, if you feel like going on a stubbing spree.  :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in God's name would you pay someone else to work on Wikipedia article when you could spend a week or two doing it yourselves - correctly, the first time around - and save a four figure sum? Are people so damn lazy these days they can not even type anymore without hiring someone specifically inclined to do that? Sheesh... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Because WP editing—the rules, the policies, the culture, even the syntax—are daunting to outsiders. A particular specialisation lies in maximising the PR value of articles on companies et al. These commercial opportunities (temptations, if you like) arise from the way WP has evolved; ironically, the very enabling of effective crowd-sourcing requires complexity and impenetrability, restricting the freedom of crowd-sourcing.

These are good reasons to take the bull by the horns, as the German WP has done, and set up a system of open registration for company and professional PR editors. I believe de.WP has about 500 such accounts, and they are watched wherever they go. It's not ideal, but it's more practical than what we have now. Tony (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the latter paragraph (openly register them and keep an eye on them; not ideal but better than not): I believe that's where the future ought to lie for all WPs, regarding this topic. — ¾-10 16:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Good faith editing should be separated from propaganda lies. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't help comparing it to Prohibition. You have some human behavior that you'd like to prevent by simply declaring, "You're not allowed to do that." Well, that just drives it underground and puts criminally inclined shysters and cons in charge of it—but it doesn't prevent it. Perhaps better to get it out in the open and keep watch over it. I realize that this concept doesn't apply to everything in life, but so far it strikes me as aptly applying to paid editing of WP. — ¾-10 02:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding File:Emad Rahim.jpg: Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#File:Emad Rahim.jpg should mean that the file will either be transwikied to the Commons or deleted when the this file percolates to the top of the OTRS backlog, or sooner if someone decides to give it a priority boost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• How do we know Wiki-PR really is a multi-million dollar company? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• And I wonder why Vice thought Jimmy Wales was a likely customer. That sounds odd, but anything's possible. What's the evidence for that? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Malala Yousafzai was also profiled on primetime U.S. television at some point that week. That can prompt curiosity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that was on 8 October on the US' Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, she made the rounds of US television talk shows but, yes, I looked her up after seeing her charm Jon Stewart (and America) on TDS. - Dravecky (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think she was also on Dateline, 20/20 or 60 Minutes. I know I saw promos for the interview. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

She's also in the news specifically up north because she'll become the 6th person to receive an Honorary Canadian citizenship since that distinction was created in 1985. Circéus (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As always, the notes are what make this list worth reading :) Kaldari (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kaldari: Isn’t that the case with other papers as well? When I read a story on a newspaper website that has comments enabled, I always find some great tidbits in the comments, such as links to other articles on the same topic, or other info that I can then google. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Like good project to join!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)