Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-05-07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-05-07. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum (455 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

I was fortunate enough to visit this museum many years ago. It is fantastic that we can now share its treasures with the world. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

In focus: Foundation announces long-awaited new executive director (2,243 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • "Can anyone ban anyone else here?" Have to admit it, he's no fool. Straight to the sensitive area. Much wagon-circling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just undid the edit removing "related news" that I have joined the Wikipediocracy community as well as the Wikipedia community. I hope this isn't seen as a COI. It was removed for the reason: "we can't actualy be sure its him." Hopefully, the removal by my known Wikipedia user will clear this up. I submit that "predictable" is not a word that is typically used in unbiased news reports. It is factually correct, but I emphasize here- as I have done on the Wikipediocracy site- that my presence in their forums or anywhere else does not constitute agreement with any statements appearing therein. For what it's worth, I consider my participation on any forum I choose a matter of free speech, and Lila's appointment should not encroach on that freedom in any way whatsoever. I do try to practice discretion and constructivism in all my communications. Wllm (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comment, Wil. I used "predictable" because it's accurate, but you're right in that it has a very non-neutral connotation. I've reworded it. I should also note that I personally don't think you would pressure Lila into anything based on the word of anonymous posters on a random forum on the Internet, and it wouldn't have been included except for the topical story that we were already doing this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I applaud anyone that will give ear to their critics, even when abusive or deranged. Willingness to listen to differing opinions makes circumspect decision-making possible. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne (944 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Typo: overwheliming--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sturm! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Data of this nature should be extrapolated and analyzed only by medical professionals" - I rather think that, were the data sufficiently anonymised, we should encourage anyone to analyse it. Certainly research academics are likely to make a better fist of it than a random person with a spreadsheet, but there is nothing in this data that requires knowledge of the difference between gram positive and gram negative antibiotics. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

News and notes: New system of discretionary sanctions; Buchenwald; is Pirelli 'Cracking Wikipedia'? (12,072 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Pirelli video[edit]

  • I am afraid that the sentence 'Pirelli: A suspicious video titled "Cracking Wikipedia" has appeared Ads of the World' needs the word 'in' in it, to read 'Pirelli: A suspicious video titled "Cracking Wikipedia" has appeared in Ads of the World'. Thanks, Matty.007 20:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

&&&&Someone's apparently noticed this Signpost article, because the video is now marked as private. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing we saved it beforehand, then. ;-) We're working out if it is possible to upload it somewhere and link to it from this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

  • Two points about discretionary sanctions. Under the old system, any editor could post a DS warning on another user's talk page, it didn't need to be an admin. In fact, this new system is trying to address problems that occurred when an editor involved in a dispute on a topic covered by DS would post warnings on the talk pages of editors who held opposing points of view. These notices would often be accompanied with words like "Continue editing as you have and you could be facing a block". So, these warnings could be used to intimidate. Now, as I understand it, you can post only the alert and editors can't add in additional comments which might sound threatening.
  • Secondly, you don't mention that an editor can only receive one DS notice for any subject covered by DS within a year's time. The new system is supposed to keep track of all this. In the past, I have seen some user pages that might contain 3 or 4 DS warnings that had been posted just within a month or so. The notices are just intended to "last" 12 months and so new alerts would need to be given to editors still working on these topics. Giving periodic reminders helps editors on all sides of a dispute remember that their editing on these subjects must be careful and not confrontational. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, thank you; I've tweaked the text. Tony (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive images[edit]

For fuck's sake, WP:NOTCENSORED. Sometimes, flipping through an encyclopedia, you'll find images of the Holocaust or other atrocities. An encyclopedia isn't meant to be safe and friendly all the time. I really don't like the attitude that a picture of dead bodies (with a caption clearly explaining what they are) is somehow a shocking thing that must never repeat. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a while ago I came across this TV preacher's website talking about how evil Wikipedia is. A few examples: David Lee Roth fails to mention how he led millions away from God; this preacher changed some of the stuff to make articles about religious people shine a better light on them, then talks about how bad the reverters are; and how Jimbo should be held accountable for all the character assassinations Wikipedia carries out just for profits. There's just no getting through to some people about censorship, NPOV, or anything.... Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree it ought to be avoided; it takes a lot of different kinds of people to make Wikipedia work and though some of us may automatically be able to process that as not altogether abnormal given the encyclopedic context, others of us will certainly be made uncomfortable and put off by the experience. And I tend to view invoking WP:NOTCENSORED to be a bit of a non-sequitur in this case; we adapted that policy, as I understand it, because we view the interest of the insight to be derived from sometimes disturbing content to outweigh the less appealing traits, not because we are obtuse to the distress such content can cause in the first place. Stripped of appropriate context, such as an article, a category, or a search conducted by a user looking for such content and insight, that argument has much less weight. That why the WMF adopted the principle of least astonishment, I presume. And one doesn't "flip through" Wikipedia in the manner of a book; we're a different medium with a different format and means of navigation and expectations are accordingly different. We spend a great deal of time refining the methodology of allowing our users to get straight the content they need, in fact. Snow talk 06:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit puzzled that people who are hardly active on Commons, come to complain when they see something they don't like... Yann (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that one of the purposes of Commons is to provide an image repository for other projects to use, it's entirely possible that a constructive editor could be visiting the main page of Commons ten times a day to search for appropriate images in the course of their article work, without ever making any edits on Commons at all. So being "hardly active on Commons" is pretty much meaningless. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone should be subjected to offensive images on any "main page". When they get to the article about the topic where an offensive image would be appropriate, then it should be expected.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you have better suggestions, come to Commons and participate! Launching critics, but not doing anything won't go very far... Yann (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't your initial comment meant to express disapproval (or at least puzzlement) at dilettante/singular-purpose comments there? Personally I'm not surprised that these circumstances would pull attention from editors who don't normally comment in venues at commons. not just because of the content in question but because it is, afterall, the front page we're talking about; it's a bit of a numbers game in that regard. Snow talk 06:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academics vandalizing Wikipedia[edit]

Regarding the "Academics Vandalizes Wikipedia" part - I remember my business teacher told my class a little story.... *gets popcorn out* He was at a Teacher's College or something, can't remember, and the teacher instructing the lesson opened up a Wikipedia article about Ancient Egypt or something, said in a very blunt voice, "I am going to show you why Wikipedia is not reliable", then started vandalizing the article. The class oohed and aahed about how Thoth had teeth in his brain, or Tutu wore a ballet tutu, or how Ra got raped. Then the teacher hit "Save page" and grinned to the class about how Wikipedia was stupid in allowing people to edit its content. If she had reloaded the page and checked the page history, she would've found out that it was reverted the very moment the edit was made. Just saying that, even if academics disapprove of Wikipedia, vandalizing it is just... ridiculous. Wikipedia's a source of knowledge, and instead of helping out, they just complain, whine and bitch about, and then replace articles with "poopyface". It almost seems like we have a bunch of uneducated idiots trying to educate students. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many professionals decry any DIY efforts because it hurts their business and offends their sense of skilled labor. Accordingly, many academics see Wikipedia as a heresy that endangers their collective role as high priests of their lauded cult. After the all, who the hell as we the unwashed masses, to write articles about subjects of academic import? I welcome this sort of hatred as it underlines how effective Wikipedia must be if so-called educators feel threatened. I am further pleased by the academics participating with the Wikimedia Education Foundation that have come to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles[edit]

  • The person who wrote the "super-spreader" blog (Meghan Duffy) has another blog post where she (and others) discuss missing women ecologist articles. I have created a wiki-version of this list currently at meta, with a place-holder at User:Rich_Farmbrough/wanted/ecologists. Should anyone wish to copy that page to en: either in the missing articles project or to the place holder in my userspace, or elsewhere, they are welcome to do so. It would be nice to be able to reach out to the readers of Megha's blog with this list, but as things stand I need assistance to get the list on-wiki before I can do that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
    • One does wish they'd prioritize them, or at least state one of their major achievements or some dates. I'd love to help, but given a list of names, with nothing more to go on but that, it's very hard to even know where to start. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: TMZedia (4,654 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Now, now, this isn't tabloidish. I'm sure that more weighty articles about space travel, Ukrainian politics, hurricanes or Jane Austen get more views if measured over a longer span of time, like a year. I doubt many readers will check out Sterling's article two months from now. These are just intense bursts of interest so, of course, they will be, in large part, headline news and recent movie releases. But do you think many people will be reading about Spiderman 2 in July? Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well no; but I guess our relationship with readers plays out on a number of temporal levels, from day-to-day to longer-term patterns. Both aspects seem important. Tony (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last year's aggregate was pretty tabloid heavy. Be interesting to see if the pattern holds true this year. Serendipodous 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these views per day, or per week? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Per week. Serendipodous 18:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I want to know what happened on a particular TV series on a particular date, Wikipedia is where I go. No sense wondering where to go and looking through Google or Bing results that may or may not work.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. I might work on policy pages, categories or articles while editing but if I want to read a TV show episode recap, I come to WP first and if there is nothing here, Wikia or other sites. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this is that Wikipedia isn't designed to work as a TV listings guide; the main page isn't likely to remind readers when to catch the season finale of Game of Thrones. Perhaps this is something that should be created, designed with TV watchers, rather than college students in mind. Serendipodous 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recaps exist elsewhere, in abundance. That's the problem, fan sites going over-the-top with detail. Synopsis of TV shows on Wikipedia are between 1 and 4 sentences, usually. Just the main facts. I'm not arguing that they should or should not be in an encyclopedia, the fact is that they are here and so people check them out. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the title of this article... — foxj 14:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference to TMZ. Serendipodous 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three (1,471 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Good to see ChrisGualtieri's Great Captain Island Light article which I reviewed. Keep the good work up Chris! Acalycine(talk/contribs) 10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to rejoin the real world in an hour, so I don't have time for these. The longer I wait, the more I have to delay watching shows on two TiVos. And the longer I wait, the more I risk losing something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today I had already finished up on Wikipedia, and I was able to do other stuff while waiting for these to load. Good photos!— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision (458 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Project membership activity[edit]

@Wesley Mouse: I am curious about your Project membership activity. Your wikiproject page says under statistics: "69.2% of our members are active" but does not explain what active means/ what time period/how often it's is updated/ how this info is obtained. Would you be kind enough to elaborate. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-05-07&oldid=1125229940"