The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2021-07-25. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
"Contact your nearest math professor for a simple description of how the method works." I love that part XD
But really, this is good to know; I wasn't even aware there were elections upcoming. Thanks for compiling the info, will read through (and watch). --LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize Watercolor is running. She's got my vote! :D –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 04:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request for place holder images to be placed for those candidates who do not have a video[edit]
I happen to be a candidate for WMF Bot Community seats 2021 election. I would like to convey a perspective.
A number of candidates may not have had the time to make videos because of their work and life commitments, large number of community questions (total 61), the number of regional community interactions which most of us preferred to attend in person, and in the case of Global South nations like India, the necessary interaction with the numerous communities that comprise the Wikimedians of their country; in my country's case, 27 language communities.
I request that images of such candidates be placed as placeholders against their names where others have videos against them.
@AshLin: Thanks for your request. I'm quite busy today, but I'll see what I can do over the weekend, Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The voting period for the Board of Trustees election has been delayed to 18th August through 31st August. Shouldn't the Signpost page be updated accordingly? Strobilomyces (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding us of the value of an IP with only one edit. Wikipedia attracts so many anonymous editors that one minor edit each adds up to a major improvement. The reward of seeing a change go live instantly (which few other sites offer) drives many IPs to make hundreds of edits, and significant numbers to register and make thousands of contributions year after year. I took that journey; perhaps you did too. The world needs an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Certes (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%, very well-said! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a former IP editor (who technically did have an account all along but chose to not use it till recently), I completely agree with the second poem. I have also noticed that while most editors treat IPs with the same level of respect, there are a few who seem to be more impolite towards IPs, so I suppose we still need to drum the "IPs can also be good editors" idea into some editors' heads. As for the one on Sanger, was it really necessary? I don't see any good in poking fun at him (not saying that the poem should be redacted, I just don't see why a poem poking fun at someone who hates Wikipedia is completely okay). Tube·of·Light 13:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those who do hardcore anti-vandalism work often have a more jaded view of IPs, understandably, but we all started somewhere! As to Sanger, I think a little poking fun is harmless, if not strictly necessary. The poem doesn't say anything about him he hasn't said himself, after all. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tube of Light: I would argue that the limerick (...that's a limerick, right? Or, two of them?) isn't really poking fun at Sanger at all. Rather, it's mocking Sanger's hatred of Wikipedia, specifically and exclusively. Which in my view makes it, as they say in the land of Oz, "fair dinkum." It's only a personal attack inasmuch as his opposition to the project seems like it's weirdly personal. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Liked both poems. -Nizil (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quatrain made me laugh and laugh again as it sank in. My family looked at me puzzled, so I read it for them. They looked at me puzzled again. -Jeff the quiet (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i dont like the the first one nudepedia sounds odd
@Smallbones: the lack of self-awareness is precious. As you yourself said, It's about how right-wing media covers how Wikipedia deals with the right-wing news coverage. You seem to not be aware of your own bias in your own words. You say "we cover right-wing media badly" yet you somehow fail to admit that makes you de facto a left-wing media extension. If all the activists on the left would understand that the exact same standards are NOT applied on the left and on the right BECAUSE of your own implicit biases, then there might be some ground to collaborate and agree on. Yet all the leftwing wikiactivists don't understand their own biases, and eve try to drive centrists out of this website. Good job with this liftwing machine, keep mocking those who are on the other side of the isle. 82.137.47.215 (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop giving this guy attention. He has not been a representation of what Wikipedia is for almost two decades now. – The Grid (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's inevitable that he'll always be sought out for comment, since he lends the impression of an authoritative voice to the existing suspicions of large numbers of people. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, something that has nothing to do with what I stated. I acknowledge Wikipedia's criticisms but this person has not been a representative of Wikipedia for almost 20 years. – The Grid (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't get to click the link, it's a quote of Larry Sanger himself, from a moment more than eight years ago where he perhaps felt himself that he had passed his shelf life as Wikipedia critic with special status. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If not for his citizenship, Sanger could pursue a political career in India. Our Prime Minister went from "free vaccines" to "pay for your vaccines" and began giving free vaccines only after our Supreme Court showed some spine (but the government spent taxpayers' money on the vaccines and still insists on printing the PM's picture on every certificate). All in 3 months. Tube·of·Light 13:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tube of Light: Please don't bring up random political disputes unrelated to the topic of discussion. It makes having productive discussion more difficult. --Yair rand (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff with Sanger is just nuts considering that a) he hasn't been part of Wikipedia for, what, 19 years now and b) this "left-wing bias" charge acts like all English Wikipedia editors are from the U.S. which isn't true (anyone have the numbers?). Some of the most active editors on American politics articles are from other countries where I'm not sure this right-left distinction fits. I think this debate in U.S. right-wing media probably involves a handful of articles that present summaries of subjects they take issue with. It's ridiculous to state that there is a political bias in 6M+ articles unless suddenly science, civility and information verifiability are a political stance. LizRead!Talk! 23:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Here's the numbers: [1] Note that "active editors" is defined as having made more than 5 edits in the last month. US-based editors make up a plurality, but not the majority. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that was given in percentages but it's definitely less than 50% of active editors are from the U.S. LizRead!Talk! 03:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was 42% not too long ago. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The right-left distinction fits in most places. The right-wing media may take issue with it for good reason if it is left-wing but pretends to be neutral. What is more dangerous than news organisations which spout blatantly political dogma is organisations which spout it but claim it to be neutral which is done by much of left-wing publications such as this one. DukeLondon (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the 190 portuguese listed on that list of active users. I stay away from US politics articles, quite frankly, one, I don't care much about US politics, and two, surely not enough for the trouble it takes. I bet some (many?) non-US editors do the same, more than US editors. Meaning that it is likely that editors involved in US politics' articles probably are a (clear?) majority from the US. I do feel WP has some US-left bias, we even actively campaigned for one side (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative). - Nabla (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think SOPA was a left-right issue. X-Editor (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting our article on it: Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed opposition to the bill, as well as Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), who joined nine Democrats to sign a letter to other House members warning that the bill would cause "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation". If it brought together Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul, it's not a left-right issue in any obvious way. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't care about US politics :-) so I might got it wrong (but I definetely do not want WP - with all its non US editors and users - dragged into US politics, left or right). But I note that just because someone "from the left (or right)" oppose some law, it does not prove the law is right (or left) wing. The same if they support. - Nabla (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When has Wikipedia ever claimed that it is unbiased and neutral? We do have NPOV, but it only says Wikipedia tries to be neutral and unbiased and not that it is neutral and unbiased. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of anyone referring to Wikipedia as a "publication", I usually think of that applying to media like newspapers, magazines and books, not user-generated content websites. LizRead!Talk! 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While there exist downloadable snapshots and sometimes curated derived products that are released, usually by third parties, WP is indeed more always in flux versus a published product. —PaleoNeonate – 06:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find the section about link rot to be particularly interesting.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos, InternetArchiveBot has just been approved for global bot status, meaning that it will be able to combat link rot on 250 smaller wikis beyond the 65 projects where it had been enabled so far. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We tried unsuccessfully to persuade Wikimedia to acquire the Internet Archive. As it is, it falls well short of our needs. In Rio in 2016 I tried to get the IOC to keep the Rio2016 site, but the domain registration was paid for only until 2017. It was archived and sent to the IOC, but what happened to it then I don't know. We tried to grab everything we could for Wikipedia; our experience of London 2012 was that the Internet Archive would not correctly or completely archive the site. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Did you see the story about the NTV (Russia) archive at News and notes? If I'm not mistaken this is a hugely important archive of 1+ million news stories that was uploaded (with proper licensing) by a pretty small project Russian Wikinews. If they can do that, why can't Wikisource, Commons, or just about any other project? Unfortunately there are many news outlets that are in danger of closing with there archives in danger of being lost. We may have just lost Apple Daily's archive in Hong Kong - and there may be other papers in HK soon to be in a similar position. I've got my eye on another newspaper in Russia that may be in a similar position - but how would I even approach them to ask for permission to upload 150,000 articles?
Yes I did. Russian Wikinews is a surprisingly active project - far more so than its moribund English-language counterpart. I once wrote an article on a dam opening in Australia, and it was quickly translated into Russian. Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locomotive207, yes, it was a fascinating piece. The other comments about newspaper archiving make me think - I've heard that some archivists are now encouraging the creation and storage of certain types of long lasting microfilm. The big advantage to microfilm, evidently, is that it's not very technologically difficult to rig up a projector to read it, so we can be confident that future generations won't be scuppered by a lack of VCRs or DVD players or whatever technological gizmos they've long since left behind. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the US there are lots of newspapers closing down. What would happen if the Podunk (Iowa) Press came to us and said "please save our archive". I can give you one example of this type of thing (details are sketchy - from memory) An important big city newspaper, The Chicago Daily News closed about 1980 and donated their huge archive (starting about 1890 - with photos) to the Chicago Historical Society stipulating that they be open to the public. They digitized much of it in a joint project with the Library of Congress and the archive was tempotarily on the LOC website. But the CHS withdrew them after a few years. Why? Copyright problems? Too many people copied the photos? Don't kmow. So is there anything Wikipedia. WMF, Wayback Machine can do to help out in this type of situation? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is at war with the Jews? That is the most hyperbolic nonsense I’ve ever heard about this site aside from Sanger’s recent comments. X-Editor (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to both sides but unfortunately smelled the obvious BS reading the Jewish Press blog post. I'm sure WP abuse by antisemites exists but this overgeneralization and those accusations are over the top... And calling theocratic Islamists hard-left? Or I guess it generalizes academia as "Islamists", since it also accuses academia. —PaleoNeonate – 05:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The author makes it pretty clear that you need to assume "Muslim" and "left-wing" are two subtypes of antisemitism. There's also a distinct lack of understanding of Verifiability and other editorial policies and guidelines (we don't just make up descriptors like "right-wing website" from nowhere—we're repeating what those small blue brackets say). — Bilorv (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it very sad that Larry Sanger has gone down this path of far-right nonsense. X-Editor (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed (and rather surprised) that a newspaper I view so highly (The Independent) decided to publish an entire article regurgitating that nutter's views – there's not even meaningful journalism accompanying it, it's just quotes or paraphrasing. Jr8825 • Talk 01:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was also surprised by The Independent’s article. Very lazy journalism for a publication that’s usually very good. X-Editor (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not about things where reasonable people can disagree, e.g. whether the Biden article should give more room to Ukraine etc. (although I think Sanger is wrong there too), or criticism of English Wikipedia's handling of the lab leak theory (which some editors clearly went too far in dismissing outright). Rather, Larry Sanger has
And while these are recent quotes, it had become evident years ago that Sanger's strong belief in his own epistemological supremacy would set him up for such failure modes. See for example Rationalwiki's detailed description of how Citizendium (the Wikipedia competitor Sanger launched in 2006) devolved into promoting pseudoscience and becoming a "crank magnet", thanks in large part to Sanger's leadership.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He may has not explicitly state that he's alt-right but he sure keep using dogwhistles related to it because it gives attention to him -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 13:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very disappointed that David Collier has failed to take notice of some of the great work being done on Holocaust-related articles at the moment. Also Sanger is full of garbage and speaks from an incredibly narrow point of view (which I guess is the NPOV he's looking for) by painting all of Eng Wikipedia with the brush of the standards of what right-wing American political media thinks is fair. And what evil indoctrination machine hosts its own page dedicated to highlighting all of its flaws? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that article also seems to equate anti-semitism with opposition to the present government of the State of Israel. All of the instances he give are those dealing with recent politics, not with coverage of any other aspect of Jew or Judaism. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not... quite. He claims the Balad al-Shaykh massacre ~70 years ago (not really recent politics) is "fake history", but this is a position so bizarre I don't even see anyone speaking up for it on the talk page. (And as usual, even if his homebrew history was actually correct, then the WP article still properly covers the "wrong but mainstream" view, verifiability not truth etc.) SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't we have any better pictures of Larry Sanger? Ones that make him look like he's not a serial killer? Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: - I wouldn't have picked that photo if I thought anybody would think that he looks like a serial-killer. This photo (or various cropped versions) is about the only Sanger photo used on-Wiki. Please check commons:Category:Larry Sanger to see if you can find a better one. If you post it here I might put it in thr article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He looks more like your stereotypical middle-aged uncle who is into or works with computers -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 18:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source of this photo was Sanger's own website, so the above concerns seem a bit exaggerated. (It is quite dated though; I would suggest to include a caption like "Larry Sanger in 2006" next time.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the magazine includes "satire". Is that what they have treated Sanger's claims as? Tube·of·Light 13:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Private Eye is a very interesting publication, part satire, part exceptionally high quality investigative journalism. I presume it's in one of the latter columns. Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's times like this that make me wish we could obtain gag orders against Sanger and some anti-Wikipedia news sites (or at least make a press release publicly disowning Sanger just for the sake of it). I am aware that it could mean stifling one's freedom of speech, but there should be a limit to even that right. Criticising real issues like incomplete articles? Sure, that's sensible. Exaggerating things clearly for entertainment? Hey, Hamilton exaggerates some things (and makes other things up) and I love it. Yapping about a non-existent global conspiracy to make Wikipedia leftist? That's not sensible. Tube·of·Light 13:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sanger has also boosted QAnon, calling the Q drops an "information source" [2] rather than, you know, garbage. Yesterday he was retweeting PragerU and yammering about a massive left-wing and mainstream media movement to cancel the Bible[3]. The day before that, he called Tucker Carlson, noted employer of white supremacists, election-fraud conspiracist and anti-vaccination activist, one of the most effective bulwarks against the insanities and evil of the left[4]. A few days before that, he was dismissing the delta variant by sharing a story from the New York Post. I could keep scrolling, but I think I'll content myself by quoting the advice I formulated for a hypothetical journalist last summer: It is against our policy to indulge in speculation that Larry Sanger has been desperately grasping for relevance since the year of Super Troopers,Star Trek: Nemesis, and Blade II. However, if you make that comparison, we are allowed to report that he has, according to reliable sources, been trying to ice-skate uphill. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A story in The Wall Street Journal did not reference Sanger specifically but said in "How Science Lost the Public’s Trust" that science writer Matt Ridley held "Wikipedia long banned any mention" of heterodox topics like the Wuhan lab leak theory. It's a bit awkward, then, that the article COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis exists. To be scrupulously honest, I should note that I argued for deleting that page, but only because it looked like a disruption magnet that would be redundant with pages like Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, COVID-19 misinformation, Wuhan Institute of Virology ... XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's really only existed as anything other than a redirect for less than 10 days. Prior to that, editwarring that was allowed to result in the redirect to another topic. Even a draft of a new article was deleted in February. I'd say Sanger Ridley has a point on this one. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other articles have discussed the topic for over a year. (For example, when COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was a redirect, the section it redirected to was 500+ words long, not including references. And Wuhan Institute of Virology already had content on the subject in February 2020.) The draft was deleted because it was a POV fork of content that already existed in mainspace. Not having an article dedicated to something is a far cry from banning "any mention" of it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to discuss this WSJ opinion source: it appears to be a press release for a book that is more about advocacy than science... —PaleoNeonate – 04:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier presentations about the lab leak hypothesis presented it as a fringe conspiracy theory, which might not be NPOV coverage for something discussed extensively in the most reliable general sources and is a political as well as medical issue. Personally I think we're in danger of looking as silly as we did with Donna Strickland. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that. I was trying to think of a way to put my thoughts into words on this. It seems like we've swatted some things aside as redirects to "things only obvious idiots believe in". Allowing the heterodox to be presented only as something worthy of derision is constructively banning any mention of it, and is likely to drive away tons of GF editors. As described in the now-defunct WP:WikiProject Alternative Views, alternative views [are] at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. Preventing development of a neutral article in draft space seems like the icing on the cake to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat what I wrote on the "Wikipedia Weekly" Facebook page: He (Sanger) was very influential in the first year of Wikipedia and that's his little claim to fame. Then he slunk away nursing his wounds (an anarchist was mean to him!), and has spent the last 19 years being consistently and spectacularly wrong about every single issue related to online free encyclopedias. Now, this "philosopher" has gone over to the MAGA cult and Qanon. So sad. He and The Devil's Advocate will spend years interviewing each other. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This Russian Wikinews upload actitity, since the Signpost publication yesterday, today has been reported to cause mass outage of all Wikimedia sites. This is a known issue with server software, a plugin to MediaWiki, called DymanicPageList or DPL. This DPL is a very outdated and badly-made piece and is known long ago to cause high server load if actively used. Russian Wikinews use it actively, but other projects also use it, particularly Wiktionary. During previous incidents, DPL was coined a "time bomb" that "might explode", and this time, it has "exploded". This is now being discussed at Phabricator and there is a new separate thread Decide on the future of DPL. --ssr (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Russian Wikinews has multilingual versions, including English section: n:ru:English Main Page --ssr (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: TS stands for The Signpost? Yes I think I can write on it, but I need assistance in proof-reading and maybe fact-checking (and time: I see there is enough time until next issue). Krassotkin has already prepared a Wikinews publication in English: n:ru:The Wikimedia Foundation broke Russian Wikinews again — but I did not participate in its writing and I am not totally agree with Krassotkin, I believe he makes a number of mistakes (I am an admin at RWN longer than him). --ssr (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can volunteer to proofread the final article; is there any way you and User:Krassotkin could work together to present something as a compromise? If not, maybe the final article can contain both of your explanation of what is it that you disagree on? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is as you wish: I will make my initial version of article, and Krassotkin will be free to add to it, and then the Signpost crew will be able to edit it for publication. Just point me to the place where I should start. --ssr (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Sergey. But I am also ready to discuss with him in advance and read the final version. --sasha (krassotkin) 10:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Were the NTV articles originally written under open license? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. The copyright holder did this after our request and after the approval of his US lawyers. --sasha (krassotkin) 22:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't help but wonder if this piece is a reply to last month's Forum article raising questions about WMF fundraising --Dutchy45 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. As Smallbones notes in the lede, the interview was published on the 24th and we'd been working on the series of posts well before then. Ckoerner (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read Tripodi's paper, but I did listen to her interview and it did seem like she was interpreting her findings farther than the data might have warranted. I think one thing that needs to be taken into account is that the WiR edit-a-thons attract a lot of novice editors who are likely to be frustrated by much more mundane things than sexism—simply the difficulties of Wikipedia's mechanics. Also, since so much of the new women material is being churned out by novice editors, it may be more likely that their quality isn't as good, or they aren't written in a way that obviously establishes the topic's notability, thus more women articles are shipped off to AfD for further inspection. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since so much of the new women material is being churned out by novice editors, it may be more likely that their quality isn't as good This is very true. I actually find it highly problematic that there is such a drive for novices to churn out biographies on women, particularly academics: the inevitable result is a flurry of AfDs on women, which is bad for the subjects and bad for our reputation. A large proportion of the articles created through the UW WikiEd course that seemed to focus on "uncommon STEM leaders" are/were on women with no evidence of meeting BASIC, let alone NPROF, with many or most seemingly chosen either by scanning the UW people directory for minority names (there was at least one page made on a Latina with an entirely non-academic administrative position in one of the UW STEM schools--someone who by every indication is a low-profile private citizen and would be mortified to see a biography on herself), or by choosing obscure subjects who were very likely connected to the student editor (like an article on a current grad student at an east coast university who was name-dropped in two news pieces covering local activism). BLPs are the trickiest pages to create PAG-wise, and NPROF is probably the most opaque/complex SNG; throwing students who almost certainly aren't even interested in the subject into navigating this area is bad enough, but adding in the constraint of profiling a demographic (an intersectional one at that!) whose presence and treatment on/by Wikipedia is already lambasted by the (wiki-policy-ignorant) media just seems like a swiss cheese recipe that starts out with more holes than cheese. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it is problematic for there being a drive for said novices to churn out these biographies. I used to think of the WiR activist model as a good method for procuring content on under-covered areas, but not anymore. Either experienced editors need to be encouraged to write more about women (which is not likely to happen, as no one is obligated to write about something they don't want to) or novices who want to create new articles about women should be encouraged to practice more by doing regular editing before creating an entirely new page (especially a BLP) by themselves. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice to see a response from Tripodi to the accusations leveled here. I'm also shocked by the abysmal retention of new editors who joined through edit-a-thons. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shocked in the slightest. The bureaucracy and standards are significantly more difficult than they used to be. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shocked about the retention, but it's a somewhat different reason, Low editathon retention has been reported in "The Signpost" before. But the overall retention is also incredibly low. We might want tp start with the hypothesis that only 1 in 100 people in the world are attracted to writing encyclopedia articles for a hobby. There's nothing really strange about that idea anyway. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Smallbones for the article. I would also like to add my lack of shock. I've only ever attended one edit-a-thon, and it was a rather unremarkable affair. I was the only dedicated Wikipedia editor there aside from the organisers, and all the other people who showed up were students eager to get the extra credit one of their professors had attached to their participation in the event. They all seemed relatively disinterested in what they were doing and quite confused by Wikipedia's mechanics. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote to Ms Tripodi on 28 June, pointing out factual errors in her paper (different to those detailed above), regarding her analysis of the biography of Lois K. Alexander Lane, saying, in part:
You wrote:
"According to edit history, her biography was pushed out of the main space by a Wikipedian who deemed Lane 'a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines'."
At the time of that edit, the article had never been in main space; it was in the Article for Creation process, and a request to move it to main space was rejected.
Also at that point, the article contained only two sources, used in seven citations, not the seven sources claimed.
While the volunteer making that rejection could have been more proactive in improving and then publishing the draft, they were correct that notability (in Wikipedia terms) had not been established *in the draft as submitted*. It is significant that the comment says "a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines", as opposed to, say "a person who does not meet notability guidelines"
As a result, the article was improved so that notability was shown to exist, by the addition of a third source, the Adam Bernstein article "Lois Alexander Lane; Founder Of Harlem Institute of Fashion".
At the time of writing I have not had a reply (other than an automated out-of-office acknowledgement saying she would return on 6 July). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced Wikipedians running editathons know to guide people to work on improving existing articles, rather than starting new ones. For new articles, it's necessary to very carefully verify the likely notability for any list of potential new articles, ensure that new contributors do not try to make articles on themselves or their relatives, and inspect the work as it is being done before it goes live. Just like writing articles, running editing sessions takes experience. . It's my impression that some editathons to add coverage of under-represented groups have not at first done this vetting adequately--and this is not to blame them, because they need time to learn; and, from what I see, they have been learning. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I count as an experienced Wikipedian. I run editathons, and many of the participants have success in writing a new article, with virtually zero subsequent deletions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did / am doing a survey of (so far) 350 articles of all types from the "random article" button. Including that was exploring the mix of male vs. female, recent (active in the last 15 years) vs non-recent, and also, because sports bios are by far the most prevalent category, sports vs. non-sports. The breakdowns are:
Sports on individual people: 32% All other articles on individual people 68%
Non-recent sports: Male 100% Female 0%
Recent sports: Male 83% Female 17%
Non sports, non recent: Male: 85% Female 15%
Non sports, recent: Male 47% Female 53%
IMO the last split best dials out the realities of history and sports and best addresses any Wikipedia systemic bias question regarding article topics. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
December 2015, proportion of articles by general type Some old data along the same line. There's some description at User:Smallbones/1000 random results with a link to the data. This is from the time we just hit 5 million articles. It might give you something to compare to. Are we making progress? There were 278 bios (out of 1001 randomly selected articles), with only 41 bios of women. "BDP,F (sports)" has obviously not made any progress: 0% in 2015, compared to your "Non-recent sports: Male 100% Female 0%". Contact me if you have any questions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even remotely shocking how many non-recent sports figures are men vs women. Women's sports prior to 1900, beyond a trivial nature, are a relatively unknown. That doesn't mean we can't have them, but there is scant information on them. If you want more, you need to produce more. I see no barriers to that other than history. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting: From January 2017 to February 2020, the number of biographies about women on English-language Wikipedia rose from 16.83% to 18.25%,
Some time ago I started the following table in my user page, to see how I am doing well with women compared to the rest of Wikipedia :-)
27/07/2021 60:(60+107) = 0.35928 (cf. 0.1899 in wp)
From the above I have an impression that Wikipedia is "underperforming" in terms of the relative growth rate of women's bio share despite all its editathons. I am wondering whether someone is skilled in presentations and can draw a timeline curve to see how well this ratio is doing?
P.S. I started tracking this, because one of my wikignoming jobs was the creation of surname articles. In doing this I've been consulting non-en-wikis and was unpleasantly surprized with big numbers of clearly notable foreign "women in red", so I started creating reasonable stubs for them in order to "protect" their entries in the {{surname}} lists I created. Lembit Staan (talk)
My own conclusions from the limited work I did are that
History has a bias - historically women has been less involved in the things that sources write about. And Wikipedia goes by sources
Sports dominates anything numerical in Wikipedia, and the low "did it for a living for one day" sports SNG criteria means that professional sports bios are heavily influential on any bio numbers. And professional sports is still numerically dominated by males, doubly sso if viewed over history.
So the real world, looked at over history, has a male bias. You could call going by sources a Wikipedia "systemic bias" but other than that I don't think that Wikipedia introduces any gender bias.
BTW IMHO the fact that Wikipedia is such a mean and vicious battleground environment for editors does introduce a systemic bias against female editors. But that's a different question. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the comments above are really interesting, and I don't have much to add on the statistics or gender bias lines, but this sentence really stuck out to me: Most had attended the event in the hopes of adding hundreds of women. They were dismayed to learn that adding just part of an article had taken the entire day. The reason people have these expectations is because Wikipedians are invisible. Most readers do not know how the site is written. Most readers who know have this fictitious impression that a small number of people can simply mash a few keys and pop out an article, rather than understanding that every segment of content that takes a minute to read took 10 minutes or an hour or ten hours of community action to build. Most readers don't understand how much upkeep there is and how much necessary logistical work behind the scenes there is. So it's no wonder that people are put off by the realisation of reality. And it explains so many other phenomena on this site, such as people's readiness to vandalism—they don't understand how long we spend on fixing it—or people's reluctance to contribute—"how many people do they need, I'm sure they've got enough". — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt others have commented on this elsewhere, and it is alluded to in some of the comments above, but to what extent does Wikipedia replicate systemic gender bias versus to what extent does it exacerbate that bias? I suspect for many (most?) editors the first is a sort of natural, shrug of the shoulders, that's obvious, response. However, to my mind, there are ways in which the nature of contributing to Wikipedia in a long term, consistent manner, provides far more opportunity for men, in particular older, professionally educated men, the opportunity to contribute. Our culture/principle of volunteerism (which is venerated and defended with as close to complete consensus of any principle here) per se provides more opportunity for men; every single study shows a gender inequality with regard to access to free time. Access to technology, wages, income in retirement; all these mean men are more likely to have time and means to contribute. The more one moves away from the Euro-American world, the more stark these differences become. So, I find this response somewhat missing the forest for the trees; I'm not saying there's a simple solution, but I think we should welcome attempts which try to understand how Wikipedia processes exacerbate gender inequality, rather than simply dismiss the problem as beyond our capacities to confront (or worse, deny there is a problem). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made a key point but in a way that hides your point. IMO Wikipedia is systemically biased against female EDITORS which is a different topic than the one being discussed here.North8000 (talk) 12:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If my point was not clear, my apologies. To clarify: this review criticises and claims to refute a paper about gender bias in Wikipedia, it includes claims that other research has not shown gender bias to exist (or not to be as bad as claimed) and makes no comment otherwise. For me, this reads as a defence of the status quo; ie, Wikipedia simply reflects the world's gender bias (inter alia), rather than also containing structures and processes which exacerbate that bias (eg the vast over-representation of military and sports related material, the variability of the SNG, are a reflection of Wikipedia's own built bias not simply a broader social bias). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I did / am doing a survey of (so far) 500 articles of all types from the "random article" button. Including that was exploring the mix of male vs. female, recent (active in the last 15 years) vs non-recent, and also, because sports bios are by far the most prevalent category, sports vs. non-sports. The breakdowns are:
Sports on individual people: 33% All other articles on individual people 67%. So sports is heavily influential on all biography numbers
Non-recent sports: Male 100% Female 0%
Recent sports: Male 82% Female 18%
Non sports, non recent: Male: 87% Female 13%
Non sports, recent: Male 52% Female 48%
IMO the last split best dials out the realities of history and sports and best addresses any Wikipedia systemic bias question regarding article topics. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It always amazes me when people mess up the first part of the Donna Strickland fiasco. It takes all of literally two seconds of reading the deletion log, and even if you're unregistered and the log doesn't show up when you click on the red link, the link to it is right there to click on. Some crack reporting there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is Walter Grassroot even an administrator? The local and meta user rights logs appear to say otherwise. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch @AntiCompositeNumber:. In my defense I'll say that we had occasional difficulty communicating in Englsh - and I don't speak Chinese. Possibly somebody mentioned something similar to an admin (as below) and I misinterpreted it. Sorry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to speak Chinese to use Special:CentralAuth. This was probably the easiest fact to check in the entire report, and the fact that no one did so reflects poorly on the Signpost's editorial standards. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is the administrator of other social media discussion groups managed by the Chinese user group.--Cwek (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an old story with a long history. The current Chinese user group has a certain connection with the former Shanghai user group. And a long time ago, a user mentioned in a screenshot of a discussion group that threatened other users through the Communist Party. At first, he was permanently blocked through the off-site threat and UserCheck's information association. Later, other user who shared the same idea with him argued for him, but was eventually banned for disrupting and other reasons. The point is that these users also believe that the screenshots are fake. This is some news that I have heard, and I don't want to be the chief dig up the past, so I won't have any comment on this, or more directly, it's none of my business.--Cwek (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Grassroot is autopatroller, rollbacker, IP block exempted on zh.WP. He is also a former AWB user (revoked due to abuse), and current Wikipedia Library Librarian. Note that he is currently banned to promote any event hosted by him for 1 year. Milky·Defer >Please ping me while replying to me... 02:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, genuinely interesting stuff overall the fact he WG, states "I am a member of the CCP" and then follows with "I am not a member of the CCP" makes him a liar, maybe he is not a member of the CCP but then he did lie when he stated he did. On the other hand I have little knowledge of ZH Wikipedia, so I know I don't know the full situation. I can speak from experience towards various POV editors particularly dealing with editors with articles relating to the Balkans, and the middle east broadly. Anyway all around amazing reporting, extremely interesting, and an excellent read! Des Vallee (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that flaunting membership in/close relationship with an authoritarian party that is wont to prosecute people breaching the Great Firewall would have, as the Indian Supreme Court often says, a "chilling effect on free speech". At best, the statements are an expression of toxic groupism; at worst, they are intimidation tactics. Additionally, knowing the nature of the CCP, legal threats of reporting users to the government are more credible than most. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVIconverse | fings wot i hav dun 03:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So uh, WG either has a serious problem with English or with contradicting themselves. How can a person go from saying "I am delighted to observe the current chaos in Hong Kong, and expact the prospective widening gap between Shenzhen and Hong Kong in next fiscal year and future. Thanks to their night efforts in streets and subways, the HK is sinking inevitably." (a comment which in itself looks sanctionable as clear NOTHERE behaviour (even considering it's in Signpost comments) and expression of schadenfreude on a serious issue) to "I am a neutral to neither support or oppose any side"and then back again to"despite most of my friends at Zhwiki naively hope HK returns to normal ASAP.", all within the same message? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVIconverse | fings wot i hav dun 02:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda makes sense when you read the messages in the context that, for hardline CCP supporters, "normal" means "all hail whoever's in charge of the Party today". Deryck C. 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The CCP's ideals and modes of governance are directly at odds with WMF and Wikipedia's mission of promoting free access to knowledge. Flaunting "membership" in such an organisation while apparently acting as authoritarian tattle tale should be grounds for indef global block. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting story, but frankly, the part about "WG" is not very interesting or relevant. Half of the article is about one editor who may or may not be related to... not sure what, exactly. I'd rather Signpost wrote more about this theory of "overt inauthentic networks that it's been deploying across social media platforms–-Facebook,Twitter and Reddit for sure, and likely Wikipedia too". Now that's something that the community should investigate promptly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is just my personal opinion and not representing any other people or groups: In my view it is absolutely unacceptable to use a legal threat or even consider or joke about reporting users to authorities over purely political matters. In my personal opinion it does not matter if the other person was not careful with their personal information, and that behavior has no place on this project. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am a new page patroler and I am obliged to check whether the new page meets the retention requirements. Once, there are a video game article had only a bunch of plot information and no reference source footnotes, so I marked "Notability". After that, WG just marked a source from an offline book (even including the page number) to want to solve it. Fortunately, I successfully found the online version of this book in the online library, and found that the source only mentioned the name of the game (if I remember correctly, just the name of the game series), huh. In addition, if the article needs to be improved, it only needs to translate one or two sentences of the comment corresponding to the English version article and add a small amount of reference source footnotes to meet the requirements. Therefore, I always feel a little bit skeptical about the offline book reference sources in the entries he write. Another time, this was an inspection question about a group of character articles created in batches (these entries were written by another user). I marked "Notability" and "Single Source" in batches. Not only did WG refuse to communicate with me, but also Defining this as sabotage and let an administrator block me. (Incidentally, the administrator often unblocked WG when he was blocked due to a dispute, and the activities before the unblocking act were not active.) Therefore, although there have been incidents of forged screenshots, I doubt whether WG's threatening behavior is true. Even if it is real, it is not surprising. After all, his personality makes me think that it is also possible. --Cwek (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a double-edged sword. Hongkongers have always used multiple IPs and the presence of political threats means that there is widespread use of proxies on top of that. These technical factors, plus the mass revocation of zh.wp CheckUser rights, has made Stewards' jobs rather ineffective and often distrusted by the zh.wp community. Deryck C. 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Latest update I guess zh:维基百科:2021年基金會針對中文維基百科的行動[5][6]. Surprisingly couldn't find any discussion of this anywhere on en although it's been a few days (well the BBC article is new). I know stuff largely happening on the Chinese Wikipedia and given it was the WMF taking action isn't perhaps something we can discuss much here on en, still I'm surprised I couldn't find any discussion anywhere until now. I'm hoping given the WMF's involvement it isn't outing or something. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A Secretary of State for Health and Social Care breaking social distancing rules, [...]"first time? -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 15:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
