Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-01-01

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-01-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year (1,873 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

It would be interesting, as an annual report, to see some trends - how have the number of cases referred to ArbCom changed since the year before and how have the committee's actions affected the trends relating to editors following the behavioural policies that are in place. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested to see such numbers, but I don't know of anyone who keeps them. When I started doing the report last year, I started tracking clarification and amendment requests as well, but quickly found out it is a lot of work, especially tracking down the links when they are archived.

I would have liked to track the Arbitration Enforcement requests as well, especially in light of the proposal to update the Committee's "discretionary sanctions" procedures for arbitration enforcement. Based on some comments I've seen, it is my impression that users are trending towards the clarification request process, and away from arbitration enforcement. It would be interesting to see if the numbers bear this out.

FWIW, I have compiled a rough list of cases and requests in my user space at User talk:Neotarf/ArbCom 2013, for the purpose of writing this report. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this story - it's a useful summary of the main cases ArbCom handled. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's been a rough year. Nice to have my last report end with a compliment. —Neotarf (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2,266 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

. . . numerous democratic elements . . . incompatible with leadership of a dictator, constitutional monarch, or such - Surely the writer meant to say absolute monarch, not constitutional monarch? Democracy and constitutional monarchy have gone well together, in Europe at least, for the last couple of centuries, as the latter article makes clear. Textorus (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Textorus: I was comparing collaborative/participative decision making model with Jimbo's "constitutional monarchy" he wrote about. I did not make any comparisons to actual forms of organization of state. Pundit|utter 13:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• correction request could I kindly ask to switch the title of the book in the headline and throughout the article to "Common knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"? This is the original, the Polish edition is just a translation, although it went out earlier. Piotrus agreed but suggested requesting this through a comment. The Signpost audience in general won't read the Polish edition anyway Pundit|utter 12:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)  :) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
  • Good idea, but indeed the Signpost articles are not customarily moved. Maybe we can just change the displayed title? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I did think it was strange to use the Polish title. I'll try to change it. Tony (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer? (705 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

I'd just like to point out that MIT Technology Review (Edit Wars) misprinted the title of the fourth most controversial article. "List of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. employees" is a redlink - the correct title is List of WWE personnel. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

News and notes: The year in review (3,686 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

• Regarding the statement that VE "lacked support for references, templates..." This was not true at the time the RFC was run polling people about whether it should be opt-out or in, and it mostly certainly was not the case when VE was made opt-in again. Both those things had been in place for weeks. (Citation: the monthly engineering report for June and the following one in July.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's my fault. I condensed the text and moved the link to the RfC too early. Thanks for your comment! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

• 28bytes wrote a factual article about a computer game that he created. He wrote an enlightening article that was my gift end of 2012, 'tis the season. He has my trust. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• "increase in the traffic of volume" should presumably be "increase in the volume of traffic". -- Alarics (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for the report, but this thing wasn't quite right: the WMF let the Wikimedia Chapters Association use the "Wikimedia" trade mark, and it actually did all the time. Ziko (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  But the use of the name was contested by the WMF. Tony (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to the Swartz affair, the issue wasn't the downloading of "public domain" JSTOR articles, the issue was the uploading of copyrighted JSTOR articles, unless I am mistaken. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • He downloaded 4.8 million PFDs—I've fixed this now, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• The article mentions Cla68's block and Kevin's desysopping, but fails to mention that both actions were ultimately reversed. Also, the article mistakenly claims it was a result of him trying to get Sue to comment on a "Wikipediocracy thread" when it was actually a blog post where her statements about the gender gap were mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic (1,247 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

• It's been a good year. Thanks for all your work. I read just about every traffic report. I appreciate a nice curated list with commentary—even if the commentary sometimes comes off as a little jaded. I hope the report makes it through another year, but I have my doubts. That's fine with me, because I realize it might be more of a hassle for you than it's worth. Plus, I appreciate everything you've already done. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• You've done good work, and readers appreciate it. If it becomes too tedious to administer, a plain ranked list of the top N sites would still be worth including in Signpost, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I always read the Traffic Report first in Signpost. It gives a quick feel of the real time life of the project like no other approach. I also appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the data. Thank you for your efforts. Lumos3 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition (319 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-01-01

Discuss this story

Thanks for another great year of WikiProject Reports! the wub "?!" 16:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)