Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-09-18

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-09-18. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

News and notes: Third time's the charm: the FDC's newest round of funding requests (1,734 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-18

Discuss this story

• I wrote to the Kickstarting Chopin people when they started their campaign and they are Wikipedia friendly. If their Kickstarter passes they are interested in using Wikipedia as a platform to promote interest in Chopin. If anyone would like to join me in following up with this then get in touch with me and also consider posting support for them and Wikipedia on their Kickstarter comments page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• For those curious about the team renames, I've revamped my team's documentation here. It's at Wikipedia:Growth (team). The 2013-14 Goals linked to above tell quite a bit about what our high-level plans are, but expect more detail and consultation with the community in the weeks to come. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• WMF should stop funding local user groups, by which I mean the various pseudo-national entities such as Wikimedia UK, et al. Funds should be centrally allocated, with a view to building useful stuff that works, like a WYSIWYG editor, and improving storage and distribution of the database. Leftover funds? Bank them and start building and endowment... Carrite (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia? (8,984 bytes · 💬)

Link to Wikidata

I'm surprised there didn't appear to be a link to the project before the one I just added.--Rockfang (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This was a bit late in getting finished this week, so the editing was rushed. My fault. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

I have a new-found respect for VE after watching that video. That's a lot of stuff they have to deal with! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the video stopped at 13 minutes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiData and vandalism

I have long wondered how vandalism is fought at wikidata. Christian75 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Same way it's fought here. We still have some issues with things slipping through the cracks for a few weeks/months, but we do a pretty good job reverting, warning, and blocking vandals. We have 69 rollbackers and 91 sysops (plus global sysops), and, just like on Wikipedia, the more high-profile a page is, the less likely someone is to get away with it. Feel free to try RCP there yourself, if you're interested!

Once you start talking about the effects of vandalism on Wikidata-client integration, the big game-changer is the Watchlist feature: This means that if you're monitoring an article for vandalism, you don't have to worry about someone being able to sneak by you by doing it on Wikidata. Of course, Wikipedia isn't the only site that can use Wikidata, but vandalism is just something other products will have to factor in to their designs. For instance, an effective Wikidata AI would probably have to have some sort of "report error" option. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the watchlist feature, which I have turned on on Wikivoyage, is that all changes to a linked data item show up, even if they're irrelevant to the local article. Powers ^T 15:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata proposal

I have been talking with an economics student - @Mcnabber091: - who has put a lot of effort into planning how to integrate huge amounts of economic data into Wikipedia articles through Wikidata or otherwise. He drafted a proposal at the new Idea Lab on meta - meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Global_Economic_Map. I would love to see World Bank databases well integrated into Wikipedia, especially since that organization has recently made a commitment to make all their publications Creative Commons licensed and since access to economic data is, I feel, fundamental to better citizenship. If anyone would like to review or comment on a proposal for a Wikidata project then your comments would be welcome at IdeaLab for this. Also, people should check out Idea Lab proposals in general and make their own proposals. meta:Grants:IdeaLab Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

An article opposing the transformation of knowledge into data

See User:Riggr Mortis. Thought provoking. --Surturz (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I figure he's worrying too much. I still add prose, more often repair prose, and don't worry much about infobox templates except a few that are relevant to my concerns. But the other things I do are tighten our loose locations of buildings and go out and photograph them. This kind of activity is generating a big sloppy geographical and pictorial database willy-nilly, only slightly regularized by putting some info into boxes and other templates. There ought to be some way to make it neat and properly connected to related articles so when I update the building's own article the linked landmark lists and other articles also get corrected. I have no idea how to do this, nor am aware of whether Wikidata is looking into it yet, but that's one thing I hope can eventually come. So, I'm going with hope. Instead of worrying a lot about how such a big construction project will inevitably spread some sort of havoc somewhere, I'm hoping the disruptions will be small and brief, and the benefits large and enduring. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And I don't see a problem with Google making money out of Wikipedia, we are commercial-friendly. In fact, I wish Google would do more Wikipedia integration, the recent Google Map Wikipedia layer issue is quite annoying. (No, I am not a Google fanboy, but I find Google+Wikipedia a useful combo - that's all). Anyway, retiring is a lame and useless protest. The avalanche has already started, it's too late for pebbles to vote - but those which keep on rolling can at least try to steer it. Those who fall off can only rant uselessly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It provokes disappointed thoughts, certainly. There are Wikipedians who don't understand the implications of "Wikipedia is free"? There are Wikipedians who think that it's more important to visit a web site than to benefit from the knowledge contained in it (sounds too much like the values of the commercial sector)? People write such fallacious arguments with a straight face? Even the title of this talk page section seems to promote the false dichotomy that Wikidata's contents have to be either data or knowledge. Also, what Piotr said. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants to write about the benefits of free data, I'd welcome the contribution to the Tech report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has invested lots of time and some money into Wikidata, I'm glad companies like Google are taking advantage of it. The whole point is that the data is free. Free as in anyone can use it, for whatever purpose they want to. If you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be here either. Legoktm (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Should we find a better venue? As for commercial exploitation of free data, perhaps a bit of vice versa can be done. Bing Maps has a dozen or more apps, covering such topics as roadside sculptures, parking spaces, and traffic cams for travelers. These serve some of the purposes that would be served by a privately made layer for Google Maps. So, make a Wikimedia app for all Wikipedia articles about anything having a location, one for all the monument list articles that show coords, and one for tagged Commons photos? Or one for all the above as the user selects? It won't work nicely on my Android phone as Google Maps does, thus can't be a live photo target guide in the field, but it would be pleasant and useful on the home screen. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think competing with free-to-use (but privately owned) apps is going to be viable, since they can always use our data but not the other way around. If Encyclopedia Brittanica's content has been available online for free in 2001 I doubt WP would have succeeded. --Surturz (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

But, the problem is, they're not using our geographical data. I see faint hope in the misfortunes of Blackberry and Nokia whose map operations might be interested in showing Commons and Wikipedia locations. Brighter hope lies in the possibility of the current Wikimedia apps gaining a stablemate, if writing a Bing app is easier than a whole new stand alone mapping program. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV (2,616 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-18

Discuss this story

Looks like the Now You See Me (film) Blu-ray is an extended version of the film, featuring 16 additional minutes (plus 30 more minutes of deleted scenes) which is a lot of additional material that could influence the plot development. Haven't seen the original cut or this one but thanks to WP for bringing it to my attention. As for Cyrus, there were rumors that her engagement had broken up so people were probably checking WP to see if there was information about it here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said last time, I suspect Facebook is artificially boosted through fake (bot) access hits... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my response last time? Serendi^podous 04:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Missed it, read it - good points, but still not fully convinced that it applies to us. People mistype google and facebook for searchers, sure, but not on Wikipedia...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. When you type something into the web address bar, you usually get a Google search list. Since Wikipedia pages are often high on Google search lists, sometimes even higher than the site they're describing, people could very easily click on the wiki page instead of the site itself. Problem is, how do we distinguish such mistakes from genuine Wiki searches? Serendi^podous 06:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall (12,318 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-18

Discuss this story

• Ankit Maity states that "No article ever gets FA status without crossing the GA threshold", but I quite often take articles directly to FAC, as do others I know. GA isn't a step to anything, and it's quite often a waste of time. Eric Corbett 21:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume that what is meant is that any FA must be definition meet and exceed the GA criteria (rather than that an FAC must already be a GA). Ben MacDui 11:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia, playing golf and other voluntary activities are often considered to be a "waste of time" by others not so motivated. I am not sure why GAN needs to be singled out for such criticism. It generally takes less time, wasted or otherwise, than the nit-picking that sometimes goes on at FAC. Let's try and encourage one another to produce a higher quality of article, however achieved. Ben MacDui 11:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm saying it's a waste of both reviewers' and nominators' time if an article already meets the FA criteria. Eric Corbett 12:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - I can't disagree with that, assuming the nom intends to take it to FA anyway and isn't interested in the Four award. Ben MacDui 15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Leaving the award, tell me how many articles get across to FA without crossing GA. The current no. of GAs is 18640 approx. The current no. of FAs is 4201 approx. Now, tell me how many of these FAs have not crossed GA threshold. I bet it's less than 300. Now, divide the no. of articles which are a FA without being a GA by total no. of FAs and multiply it with 100. It's a mere 7.1%. And with this percentage you are trying to argue that I said, "No article ever gets FA status without crossing the GA threshold". And it's not a waste of time. People are working so hard for articles to meet GA standards, for e.g. Spinningspark, Dr. Blofeld, Mediran, etc. And you call it a "waste of time". Reaching GA class, I believe is the most important and happiest milestone earned by an user. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't counted how many FAs never went through GAN, and obviously neither have you, but off the top of my head I can think of Sunbeam Tiger, Green children of Woolpit, Gropecunt Lane, Halifax Gibbet and The Man in the Moone. Eric Corbett 13:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: And believe me, that isn't enough to put you point across. And you are right that even I can't count them. But tell me is it more than 200? Obviously, no. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that's obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Eric Corbett 12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I am very sorry but I fail in my task of making you understand some sensible knowledge related to GAs. I am very sorry. There's no use telling you anything. Just cut the crap. You are the one who starts this damn topic and you try attracting attention to yourself and at the end you are just blabbering. And believe me, I love your "Flattery (of a kind)" section. It's so you. You may tell that I am retreating and believe me I actually am (from an imprudent fool). I won't respond any more to this fruitless idiotic discussion. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• What's also been overlooked is that when a GA is promoted to FA it loses its GA status. It would have been good if someone who actually understood the GA project and its history had been included in the interviewees. Eric Corbett 21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: My colleagues and I responded to the questions asked. The minor point that FA's lose their GA status isn't germane. Furthermore, I have yet to see a GA nom that meets FA standards. Most of the articles nominated for review need tightening and correction, so passing the GA threshold is a significant emotional event. In conclusion, your off-the-mark comments sound odd coming from someone who purports to believe the GA WikiProject is "potentially one of the best initiatives in Wikipedia". Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's germaine, as it impacts on the number of GAs. And of course you don't see GA noms that meet FA standards, because they're not nominated at GAN, they go straight to FAC. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. Also, don't ignore that word "potentially". Eric Corbett 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Seems you all are quite into a heated conversation. But I am a bit late. Still let me explain. It doesn't lose it's GA status. The FA you are talking about is nothing but the fruit of the GA review. When it passed GA status, you improved it to the GA standard. So, what you are trying to say is GA class becomes FA class. But tell me, the improvements from the review. Do you remove those and then work separately to make it an FA? Obviously, no. They are the foundation for your FA. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If an article loses its FA status at FAR it does not revert back to GA, assuming that it was a GA before being promoted. Eric Corbett 13:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Seems you didn't understand. What I was saying is if the article was a GA before being a FA then the article is a fruit of the GA review. I have written nothing about a FA losing its status or something. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like it's you who doesn't understand. Eric Corbett 12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I am very sorry but I fail in my task of making you understand some sensible knowledge related to GAs. I am very sorry. There's no use telling you anything. Just cut the crap. You are the one who starts this damn topic and you try attracting attention to yourself and at the end you are just blabbering. And believe me, I love your "Flattery (of a kind)" section. It's so you. You may tell that I am retreating and believe me I actually am (from an imprudent fool). I won't respond any more to this fruitless idiotic discussion. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the comments posted here and from looking at the fate of some of the prolific contributors to this project (one of which was blocked as a sockpuppeteer after more than 75,000 edits) it appears like a very contentious area. Too bad -- this appeared like an interesting wikiproject to participate in at first glance. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I commend the GA project and the excellent job its reviewers do to improve the standard of Wikipedia articles—well done and thank you all for your work. However (there's always one, isn't there?), I sometimes find myself feeling annoyed that occasionally, articles listed as having attained GA standard—which sometimes show up at the Guild of Copy Editors—clearly haven't. I've seen it several times when we're asked to copy-edit; I trawl through the text—noting the GA template at the top—then I find poor grammar, poor compliance with words to watch (particularly WP:SAY), inaccurately-quoted material from sources and other faux pas. Often I'll read the GA review and see that the article has been waved through with nary a quibble from the reviewer. IMO, reviewers that do this waving through are cheating the editors they're supposed to be helping and they're cheating WP readers. There's probably not much you can do to stop this kind of (probably very infrequent) behaviour, but you and the wider WP community should know that it occurs. After all, both our products are in the same game; improving the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @Baffle gab1978: interesting. I thought that this problem affected only articles "below grade" where after an initial assessment is conducted the articles are not reviewed again for years and years. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)