The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2022-02-27. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/Arbitration report

• It might be interesting to consider the results if all biographies covered by a sport-related wiki-project are excluded, as I believe those may distort the numbers due to the different standards of inclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  You're right BilledMammal. This notebook provides further results with statistics by occupation (P106 in Wikidata). There are many football players and sport professionals. It still not clear to me what would be relevant as a good filter. PAC2 (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• This is interesting! I looked at a similar question for higher education institutions and found similarly stark disparities. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• In many professions 47 is a bit young to get a Wikipedia page, or at least the data only going back 47 years makes a big difference, whilst few sportspeople are going to become notable at or after that age. It would be interesting to see this redone in a decade or five when a lot more non sports people will be in. My guess is that there will then be a positive correlation with the proportion of people in that department with degrees. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers You're right. This is a big shortcoming. I'd be happy to find longer birth series. Do you know countries with long birth statistics at the local level? PAC2 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is like the education and the professionals, or the lack of reliable sources that makes up the difference. In Africa there are not so many reliable sources and news. Thingofme (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a great idea! I am mainly active in topic areas/processes where the average article quality is very low, so it's nice to have a reason to read comprehensive and well-written stuff for a change. 15 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Glad you are enjoying it! Let me know if there are any further hints needed. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm a numbers and charts person but I love lists like this. It catches me up on subjects generating a lot of discussions of which I was unaware. It also satisfies my curiosity to know what topics are current under dispute (not that I want to jump in, I'm just curious!). I only recently heard about this debate about sports notability and I think more editors who work outside the sports field would be interested in this discussion about notability criteria and how much influence WikiProjects should have over setting standards since that question cuts across a lot of other subjects. I'm not sure how you get a hold of this data but I hope this will become a regularly monthly feature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think they get it from a tool they made: User:JPxG/Oracle. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Liz Perhaps I'm the opposite of a numbers-and-charts person (applying that very differently than your original sense, admittedly) but what frustrates me about sports articles isn't so much the subjects and/or their notability: it's the content.

Nailing down WP:NSPORTS rules is all well and good, but no matter what they end up being, every one of the articles that meets them ends up a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK nightmare. Whether it's about some kid who plays junior high basketball, or James Harden, the article doesn't need to be edited every single time they score a basket. But that's exactly what we can expect to happen; never once with any citations to back it up. (Worse, tons of those articles are under pending-changes protection, and that just ends up wasting even more of the community's time.) FeRDNYC (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Liz. I also think it's safe to say that many discussions would turn out differently if the participants were drawn at random from the experienced editor base rather than from those heavily invested in the content area. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Like last time, very well written and fun to read! (Although it's also a bit depressing to think about how much editor time goes into some of these discussions...) 15 (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• These are quite clever. Kudos to the writer(s).--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Deletion discussions are a splendid spectator sport, at least as described by a spirited analyst, but no, I don't want to see a biography of any of our highest-scoring deletionists or inclusionists (Sis, boom, bah! Delete them all!) Jim.henderson (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• A list of articles promoted to featured status in 2021 can be found here - Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2021 . Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Just wanted to say I'm really happy to see featured content back in the Signpost. Than you to the authors for compiling it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Smallbones has done a wonderful job, I hope he enjoys retirement! -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Agree. Smallbones has done a great job and is to be thanked. He should probably be an administrator but I doubt very much that someone of his integrity would get through the vetting process. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• A very good job, indeed. I publish a monthly newsletter on the French Wikipedia, where I usually write/translate over 90 % of its content (a wikijob I did for over 10 years). I know how hard it is when you find nothing of interest, but feel the pressure of the deadline. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Great job, Smallbones! Best wishes in the future. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Who will join this prestigious list? Smallbones was a welcome addition to the list and has done an awesome job! I've loved reading this news for more than ten years, and I hope to love it for another ten. Thank you, Smallbones, for your great work as EIC! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 23:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• He's doing great. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 04:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you, Smallbones, for your professional approach to managing The Signpost. I enjoyed working with you on the two articles I submitted, and I appreciated your input and editorial oversight. — Newslinger talk 08:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Piling on the praises. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• An illustrious tenure, for certain. And the second-longest of all the EiCs! That's no mean feat either. (Although... you know, Smallbones, if you stick it out until July, you'll surpass Ral315 and officially become The Longest-Serving Signpost Editor Of All Time™! #JustSayin) FeRDNYC (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• I have only been reading the signpost for three months, but Smallbones will be missed! --FactMaster007 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thumbs up from me to Mr. bones.-Nizil (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• How about brief quotes from significant past articles from the pen of Smallbones as a recurring featurette? Added bonus—each new issue begins with a few lines already written. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 07:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC) —
• Enjoy semi-retirement, Smallbones! I would say take some extra time to kick your feet up, but you're still gonna be working as an editor & writer, so I guess don't take too much time for that! XFalcon2004x (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some gorgeous ones here, thanks for picking them out! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• There are two versions of the Barnum & Bailey poster. Is that intentional?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I removed the top one. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Well! A lot of these look familiar! Nice trip into Featured pictures NostalgiaAdam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 12:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your great contributions @Adam Cuerden! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  Probably Crisco 1492. His contributions to Indonesian film articles, especially restoring the posters, were one of its kind Wikipedia effort. GeraldWL 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  He did a lot, aye. I remember a lot of these nominations. Pity Indonesia let him down in the end. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 20:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  As an Indonesian editor (relatively new), I am surprised by the amount of work he has done; I can say that I've learned a lot about my country because of him. I'm aware he's retired but I don't know why, but what I know is that he's awesome and down-to-earth. Learned a lot from his edits, too. GeraldWL 06:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Long story, not really mine to share. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 00:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Stunning film posters!--Vulp❯❯❯here! 08:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Great humor, Skdb! Your spoof of the notability policy is quite funny, because mailboxes are obviously not notable. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:1D99:1D92:284A:9F7D (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

See also User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You can help! The page at On the Diameter of the Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house welcomes your additions. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "A non-mailbox-related article (NMRA) is defined variously as either an article not related to mailboxes or an article related to something that is not mailboxes." I should not have read this at work, as I had to explain to coworkers why I was laughing. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Who posted this nonsense? It needs stamping on. Clear Notability guidelines are part and parcel of our work here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see the resemblance to Mario. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Wiki Unseen image, for the interested: Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Wiki unseen image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd never considered the creation of portraits to fill the gap left by a lack of free images, but it makes so much sense, and it's a wonderful way of seeing artists funded for their contributions towards filling out Wikipedia.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Molly, if you ever see this, I didn't know you were the Molly White from twitter who first started the investigation and scrunity on the Cryptoland project. Nobody ever mentioned your wikipedia credentials (which I assumed would be a point for criticism from the organizers) -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 14:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping to @GorillaWarfare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Didn't want to bother her over a trivial thing such as me realizing "oh that's the wikipedia admin, didn't know she was involved in this funny internet drama" -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's part of the job of a wiki-godess. ;-) She can block me for a nano-second if she wants to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

😂 It's been a busy few months! Thanks for the shout-out, Signpost! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2022 is supposed to be ongoing right now. And right now most of the content being written about Ukraine and most of the images and videos being uploaded concern how missiles are being launched, homes are being destroyed, and people are dying. Awful. I was skeptical about the nature of the diplomacy month last year, but my worries about the Ukrainian government influencing the process pales in comparison to Russia invading a sovereign country without reason. Fuck Putin, best of luck to our Ukrainian community members. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A lot of editors wanted to put in more about the diplomacy editing initiative. I figure that Ukrainians have other priorities right now, but finally relented at the Serendipity article. I've been surprised that we haven't seen anything about this article so far. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Worth noting the statement by the organizational team, clarifying that "The fact that [the CentralNotice banner] appeared to be the start of active invasion is cruel coincidence", with the chapter's project manager promising that "I, personally, will continue supporting this contest till the end". Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Truly terrible. From time to time I'll look at warzone photos on milhist pages; the one's labled "own work" always give me pause. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• The Oversight group was renamed globally to "suppress" after 6 years of discussion and implementation. Haha now that describes a Phabricator ticket if I ever saw one! *sighs* {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• It would be good to have a summary about both Ukrainian and Russian language Wikipedias (idewally from those communities themselves). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Turns out there is such an article in Slate. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Seems like our article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine may lead to Wikipedia being blocked again in Russia by Roskomnadzor. The unreliable source doesn't say if this is only the en or ru versions or all. There were about 8.7 million views of the main article (itself a controversial WP:SPLIT, in fact) in five days. In Wikipedia terms, this seems to me very much like COVID-19 2.0. Don't expect just a single wave... Boud (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not to be that guy, but... incivility? In my Wikipedia? Get it outta here! On a more serious note, remember to smile, everyone. Even though times look like they're bad (which, yeah, they kinda are), it's gonna get better. If it doesn't, I claim full responsibility for jinxing the future. XFalcon2004x (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Has there been an alternate selected in case Anton Protsiuk gets drafted? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 22:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Have done some lobbying to hold a live (virtual is so 2020) North American WikiConference in Las Vegas to celebrate the return of live meetings with all things Vegas. VivaLasNorthAmericaWikimania (on the strip please, downtown is so 1950s) calls us in our sleep. Bring on the showgirls and showboys (ah, of course I mean articles about showgirls and showboys)! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Bit early to be worrying about Wikimania 2023 (the earliest possible year that live could be safe to do) right now... Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 16:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Here's a radical idea: just once, publish a complete and detailed accounting of what a Wikimania costs so the donors can see where their contrabutions are being spent. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for writing this article. Following the discussion last month, I was unconvinced that the problem lay with WikiEd, but instead was inherent to Wikipedia more broadly. I am consistently impressed by the work of student editors. Being a newbie on Wikipedia is intimidating at the best of times - when your class grade depends on you contributing substantially, whether to new or existing content, that only ups the pressure! Whether student editors stick around or not, it's clear that they add a lot of value to the encyclopedia. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• I think that there needs to be more attention to directing student editors to articles where their contributions would be most helpful. I've had both great and disappointing experiences with student editors. IMO they do their best work when an article is short and needs more development, but should be steered away from articles that are assessed GA or higher. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. We encourage them to focus on Stub or Start class articles. If a student assigns themselves a GA or FA, both them and their instructor gets an email pointing them away from it, and I try to follow up with these to make sure they happen. In the past this was less structures: originally students were just strongly discouraged from editing them in the training material. Then it was a notification to us, which I used to discourage them. Over the last year (or so) it's an email to them and their instructor. This seems to be more effective, but can still require follow-up to explain why this matters. In a few cases there have been students or instructors who tell me [x] is missing from this GA, and we want to add that section. I'm fine with that. Guettarda (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• There's no doubt students can be a tremendous potential resource for Wikipedia—my university years are certainly when I was the most productive, with easy research database/free ILL access and no "adult responsibilities" in the way, and that's when I wrote the lion's share of my featured work. But the clear problem that has been exposed is that WikiEd has some clear organizational deficiencies, none of which I see addressed in the above piece. The WikiEd fiasco of last month was notable primarily for the fact that the person involved clearly had no notion of how Wikipedia's policies on notability and consensus work, sandwiched with a blasé attitude from organizers who clearly viewed sacrificing current editors to a Twitter mob as an acceptable price to pay for bringing in new editors. I don't see how that could have happened if the oversight and training procedures as outlined above exist. Maybe the large pot of money Wiki-Ed is working with should go into making sure that someone overseeing these editors has been better prepared? Otherwise it's just adding more work to an overworked existing corpus of editors, and making sure that edits under the program are going to be treated warily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  +1 (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  blasé attitude from organizers who clearly viewed sacrificing current editors to a Twitter mob as an acceptable price to pay for bringing in new editors The people responsible here would be me, and Helaine. I don't feel like that's a fair characterisation of either our actions or attitudes toward Wikipedians. It's easy to ascribe motive, I but I don't honestly feel like what you're doing is fair. Guettarda (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Well, ignoring what just happened within this article while highlighting the project's successes (which do have merit of their own right) does seem tantamount to viewing "sacrificing current editors to a Twitter mob as an acceptable price to pay for bringing in new editors". But to Wiki-Ed's credit, some reforms were taken during the process (are they enough, guess we'll find out) and were mentioned here in the comments Guettarda made in response to my own. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure Ian's job relies on Wiki Education continuing to exist in its current form, so we should consider taking this COI editor's opinions here with a grain of salt.

In all honesty though the problems with student assignments aren't with the Wiki Education Foundation. It's the overwhelmingly decline in academic standards at many North American universities and in academia as a whole. Credentialism and an overemphasis on university degrees has meant that a 4 year program is the minimum to get a wide variety of jobs. Standards are lower now to accomodate this and universities focus not on training students to critically think/evaluate sources, but on learning how to write cookie cutter essays in grievance studies or wherever else. As a result, students try to do the same thing on Wikipedia but fail abysmally, since grievance studies do not allow for neutrality, assignments have loose citation requirements, and generally have low standards. On Wikipedia, however, people actually check your citations and will tell you that your work sucks.

On that note, I'd like to remind editors that the only person who suffered any consequences for the fiasco prompting this was the volunteer 15 year old that was harassed for knowing how to write an encyclopedia article better than an actual university professor. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That 15-year-old knew nothing about how to write a Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Excuse me? I didn't want to continue talking about this situation, but I want to have you know that I have wrote two articles that went to DYK (Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) and Slutty Vegan). If I "don't know anything", then how have I wrote multiple articles, two of which were at DYK? Please reconsider this comment. wizzito | say hello! 05:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Reconsidered. Minimum standard for DYK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we move on from discussing Wizzito? Please? What happened to them on Twitter was awful. Continuing to discuss their actions like this on-wiki just compounds it. Guettarda (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I am 16 and has already made 7 articles GA, several DYKs, and two FLs. Soon to make an article FAC. Age does not matter in editing, I have seen adults that do more mistakes than younger editors do. Correlating an editor's mistake (sorry, a newbie's mistake) with their age is messed up. Instead, a civil teaching is needed; as others noted, encourage them to edit only Stub/Start articles. If it wasn't for the amazing editors helping 14-year-old me without judgment, I wouldn't be experiencing this massive improvement. It's the same basis as no discrimination based on gender, sexuality, ethnicity, political beliefs. GeraldWL 07:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerald, I could not agree with you more. Look forward to seeing you at FAC. Best of luck. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: This is an entirely gratuitous and inappropriate snipe to make, regardless of how you feel about the underlying merits of the dispute that triggered the original wave of harassment. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chess:: My original draft was over 1,000 words longer, and one of the people reviewing it suggested I cut this because it sounded too defensive. But FWIW: For me, it comes down to the fact that I’m a Wikipedian first, and if I didn’t think that what Wiki Education did was a large net positive for Wikipedia, I wouldn’t be doing this job. If I didn't believe in what I was doing, I'd be hunting for another job. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Beautiful piece! I enjoyed viewing all of the student work you linked and mentioned! I had no idea WikiEd had this impact. Please keep doing what you're doing. This inspires me to build tools for normal editors like WikiEd students are given so that we can have even more high-quality contributions! Lectrician1 (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think that all WikiEdu contributions are bad, quite a lot of them are good, it's just that I see quite a bit of problems, ranging from minor ones like how quite a lot of students don't title their sections in sentence case (MOS:SECTION) to more serious ones such as copyvio and the creation of articles on non-notable subjects. TBH, a lot of the problems happen in areas such as politics, LGBTQ+/racial history, etc. Topics like science have much less or no problems. wizzito | say hello! 05:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate that we only notice when something's gone wrong. XOR'easter (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Minors do not find it easy to edit Wikipedia. Recent examples include theleekycauldron RfA, the topic ban of CycoMa1 and the comment of a 9–10 year old encouraged to edit Wikipedia. Note that there is now an official Age Appropriate Design Code which is having a significant effect on the way that internet services handle children. See the NYT for details... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: The second person you mentioned isn't a minor. They're 20 according to their user page.[1] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  The age of majority goes up to 21 in some locations. In any case, they say that they are in school and so are a student. They have been criticised for their immaturity and lack of competence and so seem to be a relevant example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Many college students in the United States are in the 19/20 year old range. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think minors and children are sometimes hard to edit Wikipedia, and now I only edit in some limited parts of this wiki (it's hard for me to understand notability/find reliable sources) Thingofme (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bravo, Ian. It's quite impressive that there have been so few incidents with WikiEd classes over the years. It speaks quite highly to your and your colleague's work. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, mostly we notice the explosions. Which are more likely in contentious topics. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• While younger and less experienced editors will no doubt pose some challenges, they already do so as unregistered or independently registered editors. At least under the Wiki Education banner they are more visible and have resources to help them. I for one think this is a great endeavor, not only with the aim of improving Wikipedia; I'm of the opinion that Wiki editing should be part of every English class as early as secondary school. The majority of the English speaking world, and beyond, use Wikipedia as an information resource on a regular basis, but very few understand how it works and that it truly is a collective of self-directed and (mostly) independent editors. In addition, many do not understand the importance of properly sourced information and that, when reading Wikipedia, it is therefore just as important to note if there is a citation, and to check it for yourself to see that A) it is "reliable" and B) whether the cited work actually supports the sentence it is supposed to be supporting. This is an important lesson when ingesting any type of media. Keep up the good work Helaine and Guettarda! One cannot grow without some growing pains. Marchije•^speak/_peek 15:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@HaeB: When I was copyediting it, I started by going over the grammar and punctuation, so I had already had a lot of time to think about that "anger and sadness" paper by the time I got to your analysis of it. I'm fairly pleased that we came up with the exact same caveats -- "they're just going to be measuring what newspapers say in our quotations"! I am glad you took the piss out of it a little, because it doesn't seem like it is producing many interesting results. Now, the other papers, they seem like they could go somewhere. I have often thought it was strange that our hyperlinking process depended entirely on human effort with virtually no ability to augment it with software... jp×g 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention" Does this take into account popups, that allow the reader to view a summary of the linked article, without opening it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be possible, for example, to highlight certain emotional passages by the computer system while people are writing a text, so that Wikipedia users are aware of emotional expressions. Other Wikipedia authors, administrators, and bots could flag content that needs correction also with respect to emotional wording. This is just a suggestion of more busy work, I'm afraid, which we do not need more of on Wikipedia. The use of the word "administrators" demonstrates a certain unfamiliarity of the community (admins have no additional power over cleanup tags or content). I don't think this research really has a point. I'm not sure how or why we would rewrite the sentence "He had a history of violence, including an arrest in July 2009 for assaulting his girlfriend" to avoid the words "violence" and "assault". — Bilorv (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The premise is wrong. In fact, it's the kind of thing that's been labelled as a symptom of racism and other forms of oppression: if someone expresses appropriate emotions, then they're "irrational" or anti-intellectual or inferior and need to calm down right now, because they and their emotions are the problem – and not, you know, the fact that real people died, which is the kind of thing that humans have emotions about. Humans who are not emotionally crippled feel sadness when they think about sad events, anger when they think about enraging events, and fear when they think about frightening things. Their proposal that Wikipedia should manipulate people's emotions so that readers don't have a congruent mood is an appalling recommendation for self-censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the facts unveiled by these researchers may be true (higher use of certain words in certain articles due to editors' emotions). On the other hand, I strongly disagree with their prescriptions.

I was one of those who edited the article Attentats du 13 novembre 2015 en France as the events unfolded. I had lived in Paris earlier in my life and still had friends there. I remember having tears in my eyes as I wrote that the terrorists who had entered the Bataclan Theatre were killing everyone inside. When I quit editing late that night, I was shaken and it took me a while to recover. Did my emotions impact my writing? Maybe. I tried to be as Wikipedia-neutral as possible but I am human. What would have been my reaction to some message making me "aware of emotional expressions"? I would have sent it to hell. --Hispalois (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the researchers would say the same about professional journalists and scholars. We often take our words straight out of the sources we're reading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Fantastic, what a great read Vysotsky! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Steller. scope_creep^Talk 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks for posting. It does inspire me to poke around other war images, whether photographs or prints and paintings. Is there any reason for just including these wars? So many war photos are on Commons with lousy metadata and some have been used for entirely different conflicts!

• 
  Case in point: check the global usage on this one! 1880s or 1922?
• 
  Still in Bulgaria, 1876
• 
  Still in Bulgaria, ossuary of 1877 massacre? Or just a 1902 ossuary of the town?

I am going to assume you picked undisputed ones. It would be interesting to do the same exercise for paintings, which are often painted well after the fact, with a particular slant by the commissioner. I did do some work at some point on artist depictions of WWI and especially artists that died in WWI (sorry, can't remember who or which country now). The images of Ukraine are refreshing to have, we so rarely have secure images of breaking news though articles tend to grow quickly. I was got curious about an image that has become iconic for the Ukrainian struggle, and discovered it was already popular during the Crimean crisis of 2014. Digging around, still no closure on the work of the artist, which appears incomplete for the more graphic depictions.

• 
  Impaled heads on poles in Samarkand
• 
  Same artist, used today in Ukraine-flag-memes. Apparently the pile of skulls refers to the brutal practices witnessed by the artist himself and the cityscape is Samarkand

I was going to update The Apotheosis of War article but then I realized we should have the whole series. It would be nice to track those down, but also to find other war works by artists reused for pacifism in later conflicts. Jane (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of war art - I've certainly done a lot of it for, offhand, The Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War (the 19th century one), American Civil War, and First World War. Could be interesting to discuss the rise of the illustrated newspapers (Illustrated London News, Harper's Weekly, etc) and artists like Thure de Thulstrup, David Roberts, Alfred Waud, etc. Maybe leave propoganda posters for a seperate go, though, as they might over-dominate. I really don't have an international knowledge, however. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 12:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

After posting this it occurred to me that something may have already been done by WP:Milhist, a project that I have come to rely on over the years, especially for things like historical ships. I will drop a note on their talkpage. It would be nice to be able to see how wars are covered historically over time (I am going to assume most works on Commons are images of paintings commissioned either directly by the victor in battles, or made years after the fact to commemorate something. Jane (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jane023: It varies. If you want some more immediate war footage, a large archive of soldier-artists and Newsparer correspondant sketches exist for the American Civil war. Alfred Waud is a good starting place on that account. The Franco-Prussian and Crimean Wars each had their own Special Artistic Correspondents - I think that's roughly the term they used - for The Illustrated London News and the other illustrated newspapers of the era, and that continues until photos took over fully, who h didn't fully happen until after WWI. After that, your best source is the soldiers in the ground. Bruce Bairnsfather is a famous artist of WWI, and he was there, and there's plenty of illustrated letters and artworks made by soldiers from the World Wars and I believe at least some for later conflicts, though we start to hit copyright issues at this point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 15:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh there are much older examples of battle painters, and sometimes there are multiple copies of popular battle paintings (consider the Armada paintings and tapestries). It would be nice to somehow consider a category tree to collect these on Commons so you can browse them over time. Jane (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jane023: People painting them at the battle itself? I'm intrigued. I'm sure they exist, but people going around and drawing things as they happened (as opposed to paintings being done after the fact), only became a business with the rise of the illustrated newspapers, so those rarer artistically-inclined soldiers or whatever must be rather special documents for the earlier battles. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 19:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No, "en plein air" painting wasn't possible until the invention of tube paints in the 19th century. Oil painting was definitely done in a studio. That said, artists were commissioned to accompany rulers in observation posts and make prepatatory sketches and afterwards, battle paintings ensued based on said sketches. See e.g. Willem van de Velde the Younger. Painting for the enemy was socially acceptable for itinerant artists. Jane (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jane023: That's actually quite fascinating. D'ye want to just... collaborate on an article in that line? I know the 19th century, you know the older stuff... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I am reading this on 8 March, and have been busy trying to untangle Rubens paintings on Commons, so for International Women's Day I am looking at the Marie de' Medici cycle. Having categorized multiple Dutch art catalogs from the 17th century onwards, I can only assure you that battle paintings were included in all art cabinets of self-respecting rulers of Europe. This includes the aforementioned cycle. If you are curious about the battles that were painted, it may be possible to run a Wikidata query (never tried it). Let me know which part of my previous comments you found most fascinating and I can help point you in the right direction. Certainly there are tons of illustrations on Commons, if you want to dive into anything in this genre. These days I am most active on Wikidata, to be honest. Jane (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Great work to those who uncovered this! It's always hard to tell how many other instances like this there are that never come to light. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for the report. It's very clear. We still need to see if they have artificially improve the pageviews of the article which is really high compared to other politicians. PAC2 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@PAC2: Well, that's a Catch-22, now. The attention brought by coverage of this manipulation — even this article we're reading right now — will itself have the effect of further inflating those pages' view counts. Fortunately, Wikipedia article views don't translate into anything beyond what they are at face value. It's not as though we're multiplying the campaign's advertising dollars or anything. FeRDNYC (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice investigation and thanks for sharing! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wow! Good job!! Atsme 💬 📧 14:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The publisher wanted to meet about 'a political team that coordinates to direct several Wikipedia pages about its candidate and circumvent the rules of the encyclopedia', which he was investigating with Bresson (the author of the book)." What book? It has not been mentioned before, has it? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• This text: "According to the book At the Heart of Z by Bresson. The Discord channel" should IMHO be replaced with "According to the book Au Cœur du Z ("At the Heart of Z") by Bresson, the Discord channel". Apokrif (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the note about the Community Wishlist Survey. As a member of Community Tech responsible for the community relations, I appreciate your help in spreading the word.

I'd like to point out that the sentences Community Tech committed to investigating and addressing the top 10 wishes and Out of the top 10 winning proposals, Community Tech has completed two of them [...], and is currently working on one, leaving 7 that are incomplete are only in line with our past practices. We write about the current ones in the FAQ and, in detail, on Community Wishlist Survey/Prioritization as well as Diff.

Last year and this year, we didn't commit to work on 10 or any other given number of proposals. Instead, we are working on as many as it gets in light of the results of the prioritization process and external factors we can't change. (Last year, the latter was namely: COVID and prolonged unavailability of some engineers.)

I offer help with any texts about the Survey and Desktop Improvements. I think my colleagues will also collaborate if you're interested in other projects of the Product department at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thank you for this note again! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I apologize for the inaccuracy in the report. I have clarified that Comm Tech didn't commit to completing all of the top 10 wishes, but I have left the part regarding 7 wishes that are incomplete in, as I feel it is relevant to the community's perspectives. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would honestly only recommend dark mode for phone/tablet. The desktop dark mode looks horrendous. GeraldWL 13:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a bit odd, but I like Dark Mode on desktop; for one thing it makes my ENWP watchlist look very different from my various other watchlists. I don't like it so much on Mobile Site. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

looks fine to me. it's better than nothing, anyway. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure I shouldn't really be advocating using Dark Mode on a mobile at 2:30am whilst tucked up under the bedsheets next to one's adorable sleeping wife, but I do tend to find the momentary brilliant white flashes experienced when switching between pages and sections does rather detract from the otherwise gently-soporific experience of late-night, horizontal Wikipedia viewing. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

why are you using wikipedia at 2:30 am? 晚安 (トークページ) 08:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-02-27/Traffic report

• Thank you for the great interview, and to all the Teahouse hosts! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• A very nice interview about one of the best parts of Wikipedia. I cannot believe that I am hearing for the first time that [[Door (song)|]] produces Door. Has this always been around? I knew about [[Wikipedia:Door|]] producing Door. I guess everyone has a huge gap in their knowledge somewhere. (I'll leave people to test out [[Wikipedia:Door (song)|]] for themselves.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: It also works with commas! You can use e.g. [[Manchester, New Hampshire|]] to produce Manchester. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unbelievable! I see Help:Pipe trick has the full details. I wonder what else I use every day without understanding the full power of... — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am finally catching up on reading this. What a delightful report and insightful comments from everyone! WP:TH is undoubtedly one of my favorite ways to contribute and learn from others on Wikipedia ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)