Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-11-19. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: To Canaan via Jordan (526 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-11-19

Discuss this story

There is another version of the Paulus Moreelse Self Portrait with Self Portrait, but it might be a little rude. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Who Killed Wikipedia?; NCAA editing (3,640 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-11-19

Discuss this story

I think the title "Who Killed Wikipedia" is alarmist and doesn't accurately sum up the article. The writer does not conclude that Wikipedia is dead, and does a good job discussing the strengths and some of the weaknesses of our project. It is well worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Who Killed Wikipedia" is the title of the article, so I would argue that the Pacific Standard is the entity that is alarmist & not Signpost. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nowhere did I say that the Signpost was alarmist or imply that anyone other than the Pacific Standard was responsible for the title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And nowhere did you specifically state that you were referring to the Pacific Standard's title, either. In the context of your comment, then, it was ambiguous as to whether you were referring to the the Signpost review of "Who Killed Wikipedia?" or the original article, "Who Killed Wikipedia?", as both share the same title. Please forgive me, Cullen³²⁸, if I thus unintentionally took it the wrong way. Peaceray (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have heard it mentioned occasionally, I do not think that there has been much discussion of the elephant in the room. Facebook has had a huge growth over the time period that the number of Wikipedia editors has slowly declined. Also of note is that most Facebook users are female in contrast to our editor base. I would suggest that many would-be & former editors spend their time instead on Facebook, where they seldom have to worry about reverts to their edits. I am in no way suggesting that we reduce reverts, but I would also suggest that we would need to develop something like the mutual support that social media provides --- in the non-article space, of course. Peaceray (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad analogy. Usage on Facebook is also declining. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Killed Wikipedia" rehashes some old news as punditry. I can't take Jemielniak seriously, having heard him talk at Wikimania in 2012 (bad historian, and very poor judgement). The "five pillars" are also not to be taken seriously now, being most relevant to what people thought some eight years ago was going on; and the trick of taking your baseline measurement (editor numbers at their peak seven years ago) is not a creditable one. Has anyone noticed how much better the encyclopedia is now than then? No comparison. Fundamentally, the work is easier to do now, with 20 million images on Commons, tools, templates, more reliable sources online and so on. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Interstellar traffic (684 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-11-19

Discuss this story

It's not 2019, Marvel. LonelyLaura (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is according to the page; Avengers Infinity War part 2 premieres on May 3, 2019, which, in a completely meaningless coincidence, is the year Blade Runner is set. Serendi ^pod ous 15:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: The interesting world of urban planning (1,410 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-11-19

Discuss this story

Sorry to have been slow to respond. I worked professionally in urban planning and remain deeply interested in it, but have also worked extensively on many US history articles, especially of the colonial era and 19th century. These are often related to or influenced by issues of urban development. I have worked to incorporate thinking about urban development into many history articles - for instance, in identifying how cities and towns well into the 19th century were generally developed primarily on rivers and other waters, as the main transportation networks until railroads and then improved highways supplanted them. Also, for contemporary roadways, I have changed wording so that content reflects that paths and roads have followed rivers, rather than that rivers "parallel such and such a road", as I have seen written more than once in these pages. I know what the editors meant, but it is up to us to provide the historical sense and show that development followed the rivers, not the other way around. Will also try to get more directly involved; have started working on a couple of articles related to St. Louis' Gateway Arch and Mall. Really need sources.Parkwells (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]