The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-12-11. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-11/Featured content

Why is it news that Jimbo said this about Snowden now? As I recall he said pretty much the same thing in his Wikimedia keynote in Hong Kong, at which there was the usual media presence. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the German court judgment it says the Foundation will have to pay a fine (Ordungsgeld) of €250,000 each time the statement in question is reintroduced into the article (which, by the way, was only semi-protected last time I looked). Andreas JN466 01:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

One source says the Foundation was held to be liable; another says it was not. Which is it? Powers ^T 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Powers, as I read the German text of the judgment, linked above, each time the material reappears, the Foundation is liable for a fine. It says,

Auf die Berufung der Beklagten wird das Urteil des Landgerichts Stuttgart vom 26.03.2013 (Az. 17 O 814/11) teilweise abgeändert und in Ziff. 1 seines Tenors wie folgt neu gefasst: Die Beklagte wird verurteilt, es bei Meidung eines für jeden Fall der Zuwiderhandlung fälligen Ordnungsgeldes bis zu 250.000,00 EUR, ersatzweise Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, oder Ordnungshaft bis zu sechs Monaten, im Wiederholungsfall Ordnungshaft bis zu zwei Jahren, zu unterlassen, wörtlich oder sinngemäß zu verbreiten: a) Nachdem der Sitz des Senders (des Klägers) nach W. verlegt worden war, ging auch bei der Medienaufsicht in Ö. eine Beschwerde ein, dass H. in einem Beratungsgespräch Sex mit Kindern verharmlost habe; b) Zudem gab es Beschwerden, er habe in einer Sendung den Hitlergruß gezeigt;

The German media have stated that once a complaint has been received, Wikimedia has to check the content and remove it if the complaint has merit. If they don't remove defamatory material in response to a justified complaint, they're liable. See e.g. Heise, or for an English summary to the same effect, PCWorld. Another important point was that Wikipedia will not be treated as an online press archive. An online press archive may host outdated articles implying guilt where later none was found to exist. Wikipedia does not have that privilege, as its articles have a significantly greater reach than those hidden in a press archive; in other words, Wikipedia articles have to be up to date. (I am not a lawyer.) Andreas JN466 22:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve you, but that doesn't jive with what the WMF Legal blog post says. Powers ^T 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Powers, I think that's a problem with the WMF Legal blog post. It seems to be very selective in what it reports. You could always ask for clarification there. Andreas JN466 06:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the image need a fair use rationale for use in this interview? It only has one for the original article czar ♔ 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the shout out, and congratulations, Wehwalt, on your century! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We thank you, Brianboulton, for quality questions, and you, Wehwalt, for what you stand for, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful photos. Congratulations to everyone. Dalliance (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny that the top 12 countries were mentioned, but not us. :) Uruguay ranked 13th with 7615 pictures out of a population of 3 million. We uploaded more pictures than Mexico and China! --NaBUru38 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I saw Uruguay next on the list, but I had to stop somewhere—and someone has complained already that the article is too long. Given more time, all of the country uploads (and that of their top three people) would have been interesting. Tony (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-11/Technology report

Glad you provided the explanation as to why Walker beat Mandela, so it doesn't prove that my son's urgent mention of Walker dying when I tried to tell him about Mandela, is not representative.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Echo the thanks for the explanation. Adjust the deadline a day or two and you'd have different results, clearly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• An interesting insight into winery articles on Wikipedia. One part that particularly caught my attention was the issue of notability – I didn't know Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics) even existed, though since I don't work in wine articles, I suppose that's not surprising. I see that the guideline has never achieved official Wikipedia guideline status and I'm rather pleased that it hasn't given some rather dubious claims. For instance there has never been any community wide consensus that "local sources" (a term which can be difficult to define) are blanket banned from counting towards notability, per WP:ITSLOCAL and the continued absence of any such language in WP:N. I found the suggestion that local sources give undue weight (a term more associated with neutrality of viewpoints, not notability) to local issue to be somewhat comical to be honest, as that argument fails the reductio ad absurdum test. Yes "local sources" are biased to local issues, that's obvious. I suppose since "regional sources" are biased to regional issues, they should be banned too, as should "national sources" for being biased to national issues, and "global sources" for being biased to global issues. A third-party really needs to give that page a good look over. CT Cooper · talk 02:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)