The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-12-16. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• It took just under three years for the community to impose discretionary sanctions in the GMO topic area. During that time, many administrators failed to act responsibility and allowed the disputes to get worse. This is unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We'll be getting new Arbitrators next month. 2016 is gonna be a new year with new cases. Who knows the results? GamerPro64 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • It should be an interesting year. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I know it's been done before, but one thing I'd be interested in seeing again is an interview with incumbent and outgoing arbitrators: What was/is it like behind-the-scenes on the committee? Is it a mostly collegial body, or are there heated internal disputes that the public eye doesn't necessarily see? What is the hardest part of arbitrating? The easiest? Do the arbitrators themselves feel like they're doing a good job? Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I do have plans to interview the incumbent arbitrators. Didn't think about interviewing the outgoing members. I'll look into that more. GamerPro64 03:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• It’s not that incumbent arbitrators (who ought to have joined many of their colleagues in resigning in the wake of this disastrous year) should be interviewed, but that ArbCom needs some way to communicate, either in its decisions or elsewhere, what it imagines it is trying to do. On many points this year, not even the closest study could reveal what the committee was thinking. Is vicious off-wiki harassment a useful tool for Wikipedia editors? Read the tea leaves, because nothing in GenderGap, GamerGate, or Lightbreather will tell you. Is sexual harassment OK if you're a Valued Contributor or have powerful friends? Read the tea leaves. In the GMO case, is the committee trying to side with Science, with Corporations, with the Media, or just trying to ban a bunch of unpopular editors and hoping that everyone else will get the hell off their lawn? Read the tea leaves. As to what the committee is trying to say in the still-open AE2 case, we’ll have to hope that the Shadow knows because it’s pretty clear that the committee does not. Next year’s committee either needs to explain cases in their decisions or in the Signpost, or in some other place. Repeating this circus is insanity. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• The featured pictures ought to have captions describing what they depict.--A bit iffy (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-16/Gallery

• Nicely written! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• A good article about a timely topic, but it avoids any discussion about safety. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• An excellent point. This article is only the beginning of the discussion. As an aside to US editors thinking about getting a drone this holiday season, you will now be required to register them with the FAA. Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is a pleasure to see these wonderful photographs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Great quote from Giles Coren. It would be interesting to see more of a discussion about the dynamic between knowledge and education and what Wikipedia can do to bridge the gap in the future. Knowledge without education is just data, which is useless. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• And even a greater quote from Chinese .translation of Wales. I say it was not a distortion, but rather a Freudian slip :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Kazakh premier Karim Massimov, who attended the conference in China, also makes an appearance in this ongoing discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. This goes back to the jaw-dropping episode where Wales awarded the inaugural "Wikipedian of the Year" award to the functionary running Wikibilim's Kazakh Wikipedia project, which, "under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov", completely overhauled the Kazakh Wikipedia and imported the state-published Kazakh National Encyclopedia's content into it. Wales said at Wikimania 2012 that he would go to Kazakhstan, a country labouring under one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world, to "give the award in the presence of the President and Prime Minister" ( https://en.wikinews.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-12-16&sq=&lang=&file=File:Wikimania2012-Opening2.ogg time code 23:45 onward). The present discussion was sparked by Kazakhstan's efforts to replicate China's Great Firewall, as discussed in the New York Times. Andreas JN466 21:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Regarding Jimmy Wales in China. Result as expected, but is boycot the answer? I can not see that much has come out of various boycots over the years. So I don't support shaming of people for going this or that place, the important thing is that they support freedom of speech, as Jimmy Wales clearly do. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo even going to the conference is naivete and delusion in the extreme. Nothing will change, with or without Jimbo. He just let himself be exploited by the Chinese government for their own ends.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC) (edited 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please remember that the translation was made on-site by a simultaneous translator while Jimbo was speaking, not after the conference. In the official video I have cited in the article, the simultaneous interpreter clearly stuck for a moment thinking how to translate the the comment. To AGF, I'd say that the translator may have missed what Jimbo said and attempted to deduce his meaning from what she had heard. By the way, feel free to edit my reference if it doesn't meet Signpost's house style. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for finding the video and adding the reference, Zhaofeng Li. Andreas JN466 09:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jayen466: Now the headline is kind of debatable, as apparently the translation has been wrong right from the beginning. Either it was a honest mistake (possibly under the influence of a Freudian slip), or it was intended (i.e. the interpreter may be "quite experienced" ). But anyway, it wasn't "edited for the Internet". Perhaps the headline and the article should be changed to reflect this? Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 14:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Zhaofeng Li, does the written version on the internet, as shown in the WSJ article, exactly follow the conference interpreter's version? Andreas JN466 14:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
        • @Jayen466: Yes, the translated version on WSJ matches the interpreter's one. However, this does not rule out the possibility of the government editing both the video and the transcript (i.e. asking the interpreter to record again after the conference), if we seriously need to assume bad faith. I have not watched the live stream, but such allegation is unfounded, at least for now. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 15:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Zhaofeng Li. I've changed the headline to "edited for public consumption". Andreas JN466 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Jayen466: Thank you for making the change. However, I still think the current headline implies that the translation has been changed ("edited") since the conference was over, which is not true (or at least unproven). Maybe something like Wales' comments on censorship in China mistranslated is more neutral? Additionally, the body content may also need editing to be reflect this. Zhaofeng Li [talk ♦ contribs] 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Editing" is also used to describe what an interpreter does when they are not relaying all of what the speaker said, so I think the word is okay here. Andreas JN466 00:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• The notes should be more concise, and although I agree with the sentiments about Trump, there is no need for a mini editorial here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I don't follow thing IRL so providing more context is better. Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• The next Traffic Report (see WP:TOP25) will have a similar-length commentary on the new Star Wars film. Trump is a more controversial topic to handle, but we always try our best to capture the realities of article popularity.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikimedia España and Amical Wikimedia held an edit-a-thon in Valencia, Spain about women in architecture, in collaboration with ETS de Arquitectura of Polytechnic University of Valencia. Gender gap is a problem that requires attention. One of the most worrying facts is that the percentage of women in our presential activities usually reaches 60% or more while the number of editors claiming to be women are less than 20% at best. When people hide data it usually means something is wrong. B25es (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "No one expects the gap to go away entirely—that would be a false representation of history—but it can be lessened" — Not if male chauvinist pigs start the wikiProject Men in Red. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Great article providing all the essentials. But the article's author fails to highlight her own vital contribution to the exercise, namely providing an excellent support page of red-linked names of women in science and technology which served as a basis for article creation. All the blue-linked names have now been deleted but those interested in progress can look at the page history. Together with other members of the project, she has also been developing pages of red-linked women in a wide variety of fields. Amazing work!--Ipigott (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well done on the project, but this annoys me. "Some articles were nominated for deletion; however, most survived the articles for deletion (AfD) process. These articles, created by newer editors unfamiliar with the notability guidelines, were improved by adding references that proved notability." This should be lesson 2 in any edit-a-thon. "Reliable references aren't optional & notability isn't what you think it is." (lesson 1 I assume is "yes, you - and anyone else - can really edit almost anything"). I'm sure nothing demoralises a new editor more than the threat of deletion of "their" article. If that problem with edit-a-thons is addressed, then they are essential to fixing holes in our coverage, as natural attrition doesn't work, and the only other way is a single editor/project on a crusade, and there aren't many of those around. The-Pope (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)