Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-08-27

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 2014-08-27. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Cheats at Featured Pictures! (4,950 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Really nice page... full of featured information CutestPenguin discuss 10:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of George Formby is grammatically incorrect and seems to be missing a word. I'm not being picky because it currently makes no sense.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what do you think is incorrect about it? - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's grammatically correct in the UK, but to me it should be saying "The producer reckoned without the cheeky grin and the ingrained need of the British to have double entendre and smut in its cultural output" followed by a complete sentence, which never happens. And the rest of it isn't a complete sentence either. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you've identified: it's in British English, and therefore may use differing grammatical rules than you're used to; having re-read it, it is grammatically correct, and isn't missing any words. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind: if you can't understand something as basic as that, then you'll not understand the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just tried to diagram that sentence and it is at best a terrible run-on, or a bunch of comma splices, but probably is missing some subjects. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... another American voice: are there any British English speakers who would care to comment? - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence says that the producer reckoned without (i) grin, (ii) need for smut, and (iii) ukulele, played well. It is grammatically impeccable, certainly; it is also, I should have thought, incapable of being misunderstood by anybody who has a working knowledge of English, but evidently I'd have thought wrongly, unless one inclines to the view that anyone who imagines "to diagram a sentence" is good English is ipso facto not in that category. (To be fair, I've just looked up the word in the OED, which mentions its use as a verb, as an Americanism.) I think we'd better stick to the English language written by an English writer for this English subject. Tim riley talk 07:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*I think my mistake was in assuming Southern United States usage (there may be another article about our way of talking) but that use of "reckon" would never be used on Wikipedia without quoting. I would still have to go the article to find out what the heck is being said there. But for now I won't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I chuckled at that. All is now clear. Yes, two nations divided by a common language, yet again! Tim riley talk 20:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shame, Vchimpanzee, it really is very good article about a very accomplished—and much adored—entertainer. – SchroCat (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Plagiarism and vandalism dominate Wikipedia news (5,014 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Seeing myself quoted in the story on the Lynton Crosby was a bit scary, though the story was generally accurate (I don't think that it's accurate to say that "entire Crosby Textor computer networks" were blocked though, and when commenting on and subsequently blocking accounts involved in this matter I was at pains to stress that the conflict of interest was apparent given that I had, and have, no way of confirming whether or not it actually was linked to the firm). The journalist did a pretty solid job of digging through article histories, talk page histories and the SPI report when compiling the story - it's a very Wikipedia-literate piece. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists often make overly broad or outright incorrect claims about blocks, even in otherwise good articles about Wikipedia. In shorter pieces I just ignore those claims, sometimes I try to correct journalistic misconceptions in longer ones. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since womyn is an actual word, are we sure the [sic] is warranted? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed it, but I don't think it will last --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of "sic" is to point out that the word was really the one used - it does not distinguish between unusual words, unusual usage and typographical errors. However on Wikipedia we often have the option of using a link, as Nikkimaria did, which indicates an unusual, but correctly spelled word. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC).
  • My intent was to highlight the editor's obviously sarcastic use of the word, but it's now clear that it seemed I was implying it was not an actual word. Rich has the right idea, and I see someone's already implemented it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not possible (in an inversion of Poe's law) to presume that the editor was being sarcastic. There exists within the feminist movement some rejection of transgender people - to the extent that a term has been created to describe certain people holding these views, and of course a controversy over the use of the term. See Radical feminism#Radical feminism and transgenderism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
  • There should be a "sic" because the correct usage is "wimyn". "Womyn" is singular and the plural would be correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plagarism Appendix E: Historical Budget Data (PDF). p. 143. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) - the cited source, in table E11, Deficits, Surpluses, Debt, and Related Series, 1971 to 2010, refers to "Debt held by the public." There are many ways of counting governmental debt, for different purposes (and not just depending whether you are in government or not!) - but "debt held by the public" is defined by the US treasury as all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, Federal Reserve Banks, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government less Federal Financing Bank securities. - equivalent to most definitions of "public debt" The only other top-level government debt figures I am aware of are internal and external debt, and total debt or "total public debt", which includes intra-governmental debt - this is sometimes known as "national debt" (See for example Economicshelo.or). Therefore Zakaria would appear to be wrong, both in his original article, and certainly in his criticism of Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

News and notes: Media Viewer—Wikimedia's emotional roller-coaster (19,353 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

There's a malformed URL at the end of the first paragraph which is missing a question mark; the correct link is Diskussion mit DaB. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. NE Ent 13:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Michael, and NE Ent, who beat me to it. Tony (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read sentences like "The Signpost understands that many German Wikipedia editors agree with DaB.'s actions, although there is evidence that this is not a unanimously held opinion." now a few times in those discussions, and it leaves me always again flabbergasted: Sure there are different opions, after all the German Wikipedia is not North Korea. His act that i don't fully agree upon since it was not setting the Meinungsbild result properly, but approve since it was an act against the abuse of the power of the WMF, was and is debated. As it was the initial poll and everything further. And i have read of other editors who agree that much of the support for DaB. came as reaction of a feeling to be putted in a group together who gets surpressed by the Foundation, not by pure joy of what and how he did. But back to my point: One of Möller's favourite things to state on the Mailinglist is that there also would be people voting against the Meinungsbild proposel and against the disabling of Superprotect in the Umfrage and so on. That is naturally true, since those are not votes like in the German Democratic Republic or in other dictatorships, but democratic votes where also the opposition can take her position freely. What is striking to see is that there is no willingness to see that those polls had normal and then big numbers of participation and a pretty high majority of votes against the WMF position. Möller's mentioning of the small opposition while ignoring the democratic voiced position of a large majority is intolerable to me. And this denial of recognition for the democratic vote of the editor community is what makes me so angry. I find it in Möller's staments, i find it on Jimbo who doesn't see that the Foundation without votes in the communities is not able to produce good software so the democratic element of Wikipedia won't make that so much worse ... And the surprise about disagreement and opposing voters in a democratic project takes me by a surprise that feels not really good to me. But anyway, thanks for the article. The coverage of this topic is needed since the underlying conflict is crucial. --Julius1990 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting for me is always, that the WMF really thinks they act for a mayority of users and the authors who vote against the MV are a minority that understands nothing. Maybe - but these users said what they think, said what they want. Clearly. With a clear mayority opinion (my personal opinion was not by the mayority! But in a democraic system I have to respect the mayority!). But where is the RfC of the WMF? They say, they act for others - but did the really do? Where I can read what they said? What they want? The WMF only states things without any proof. The authors at de:WP had a proof. A democratic proof! I know, that the WMF thinks, we authors act childish. But at the end - this time it is definetly the WMF, that acts very childish. "We know better, because we know, what others want and think, others, we never aked about it...". It would by fine, when the Board and the Office would understand one thing: We, the authors, photographers, volunteers, are Wikimedia!. The WMF is here for us. Not we for the WMF. Without us you all in Frisco would be nothing. And nobody of you would have this job. We are the people who work out with our unsalaried work your paycheck! We don't need to be ruled by the WMF. But you people in the office have to understand, that you are here to support us! Or we don't need you! Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Why I should be interested in what "Jimmy doesn't support" - he is not the person who has to decide this! The en:WP should start a Jimmy emancipation.[reply]
It's more of a two-way street than that. Without the computing resources that the WMF provides, there would be no Wikipedia, and we editors would not be able to accomplish anything. Also, most of the money that supports the WMF comes from readers, not from editors. The MV was specifically designed to give a better experience for readers, who don't participate in votes. Looie496 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What generates the big amount of donations is the content of Wikipedia, not the software. Without the content, noone would take notice of the work of the WMF. So of course the power is not one-sided. It would be enough, to inform the donators about a disconnect between the organization, they are supporting, and the editors, that build all the content, and the donations will decrease. So it is in both parties interest, that there is not such a disconnect: The Foundation will earn enough money to produce good software for editors and readers, and the editors can work happily with tools, that are fulfilling their urgent needs (which are quite a lot). --Magiers (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that the Wikimedia Foundation's disrespect for community consensus together with the introduction of an exclusive right to overrule local elected administrators in the influential German blog netzpolitik.org has been compared to the authoritarian thought of Carl Schmitt who once said that only he is souvereign that decides on the state of emergency. I also hold that this was a reactionary move by the Foundation that does not fit into a world where people increasingly claim the right to rule themselves, not to be ruled by someone somewhere from "above" without democratic legitimation. I agree to most of my fellow editors that the WMF exists for the sole purpose of assisting the editors and providing a platform we can work on. We are Wikipedia. It has often been said by Wikimedia officials that this is a movement. It is now up to them to make this happen, as a movement is always ruled from its base, or else it moves on to another framework that better serves its purpose. This dispute is not about software, but about self-determination.--Aschmidt (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We are Wikipedia"? No. Wikipedia is a stool that stands on three legs: (1) the editors, who provide the content; (2) the WMF, who provide the software and servers; (3) the readers, who provide money, motivation, and new editors. All of those legs need to be solid in order for Wikipedia to stand, and all of them need to be balanced. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Looie496. Referred to the first two legs, I'm confident that the CE(P) team is able to improve the situation. It's a challenge though, as mentioned in the news article. --Patkenel (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck by one bit of dialogue on Wales' talk page (my emphases):

Another journalist who is dead wrong (according to Jimbo/WMF) [1] I'm sure. And another: "The Foundation has a miserable cost/benefit ratio and for years now has spent millions on software development without producing anything that actually works. The feeling is that the whole operation is held together with the goodwill of its volunteers and the more stupid Foundation managers are seriously hacking them off." JMP EAX (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than the extreme nature of the comment ("without producing ANYTHING" is too strong) why do you think I would disagree with that? This is precisely the point of the new CEO and new direction - to radically improve the software development process. That statement, while too strong, is indeed an accurate depiction of what has gone wrong. I've been frustrated as well about the endless controversies about the rollout of inadequate software not developed with sufficient community consultation and without proper incremental rollout to catch showstopping bugs.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're looking for reasons for the current situation, this is where most of them are to be found. And there is as yet little indication that things will really be any different with the elephant in the room, Flow. Andreas JN466 21:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

I have made statistics of from where the signatures on the petition list come from.m:Talk:Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer#Statistics and when you take the number of active editors into account you find that it is actaulla Italians that is second most acticve on the list even if the absolute number from Enlish is bigger.--Anders Wennersten (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics of both the original Media Viewer RfC and the Superprotect RfC held in the German-language Wikipedia are available in English translation here on Meta. What is remarkable about the Superprotect RfC is the high level of participation: the vote on the main proposal (requesting revocation of superprotect) had 664 people voting in support, with 103 opposed and 32 abstentions, for a total number of participants of 767. I believe this is a higher participation than any other RfC in Wikimedia history, with the exception of the SOPA protest vote held on the English Wikipedia in 2012, which had a slightly higher participation (but included more IPs and single-purpose accounts). It's also worthwhile viewing these numbers in relation to the size of the German Wikipedia community. In June 2014, the last month for which figures are available, the German Wikipedia had 843 editors making more than 100 edits a month (compared to about 3,000 in en:WP). Moreover, the yes-voters in the Superprotect RfC supporting the request to lift superprotection included 98 de:WP users with admin privileges or other advanced permissions vs. just 4 such users among the no-voters. (The total number of admin accounts on the German Wikipedia is 252, vs. 1,400 in en:WP.) Given the greater size of the en:WP community, the German Superprotect RfC result is equivalent to an en:WP RfC with 2,365 votes in support (including 544 administrators) and 366 (including 22 admins) opposed. Perhaps this may help communicate an idea of the strength of feeling. Andreas JN466 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The high participation can be easily explained: this RfC and related discussions have been canvassed like nothing else I've seen in my Wikipedia history. I saw one announcement at VP, and got several talk page messages about it. SOPA was never advertised so widely (through user talk page mass messages). Nor was any other vote I am aware of. In other words, it's a fallacy to say that people care about this more than about other issues; it's simply that the (mostly) German editors who organized this campaign ignored WP:CANVASS and related policies to a degree much higher than is usually a custom here. To be frank, I find it problematic. The SOPA issue was IMHO much more vital, yet the community couldn't reach consensus on whether to advertise it, prevented WMF from doing so (by saying "no consensus"), and overall ensured that very few people know about it. Whereas here, an issue of lesser importance is being canvassed the hell out of, and the reason for it? SOPA was supported by WMF and WMF tried to play by the book; this anti-WMF MF hate campaign is organized by individuals who don't operate under the same restrictions. I am not fond of MF myself, but I find abuse of statistics to show fake support for this issue annoying. Most people don't care about MF much; they are just canvassed to express their view about it on a scale mostly unprecedented in the history of the WMF movement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The German Superprotect RfC was advertised through a site notice for a few hours, and was then downgraded to a watchlist notice for the remainder of the seven days it ran. I somehow doubt you could organise an RfC on anything on en:WP that would have similar percentage participation, and a similarly clear result. Andreas JN466 19:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beside that the critic on canvassing is pretty pointless since the WMF didn't want to accept the normal not canvassed vote on German Wikipedia because it wasn't canvassed out to as many people as possible. --Julius1990 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we know. The terrible germans. Nothing more need to say. We are all bad. Very bad... It is in our blood. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's important that there be an article on this issue, but I do object to you writing twice that DaB "hacked" the software. That word has a negative image, due to the press presenting programming as something criminal. It would be sufficient to write "changed". I also object to the statement that WMF provides the software – this, too, is often contributed by the community or by other communities (MediaWiki). I agree with MarcusCyron, even if not quite as emotional, that it is important that the people who work for the foundation understand their position. They are here to serve the community. And the community is not the readers, but the editors and admins. That we happen to have millions of readers is very cool, and it is great that they pay so much money to keep the project afloat. But without the community, Wikipedia would be just another advertising platform filled with garbage. I feel that every person working for the Foundation needs to have a goal of producing 100 (or 50 or whatever) edits a year in their own "free" time, in order to understand how much WORK this is, but also how proud one is to be contributing. And that is what gets the emotions churning. Lila needs to understand that there are many issues boiling under the surface of the community, soon to break out like Bárðarbunga at the slightest tremor in some question. Superprotect was NOT a good idea. And all software rolled out must be opt-in by default, especially given the track record of the WMF. Learn to discuss, to grow slowly, and above all, to listen to the community – the community of editors and admins, not what some opinion poll or such has determined to be the will of the readers. WiseWoman (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wisewoman, ok, my US Encarta dictionary says: 2 [ no obj. ] gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer: they hacked into the bank's computer. [ with obj. ]: someone hacked his computer from another location. (as noun, hacking): outlawing hacking has not stopped it. Also "program quickly and roughly."

      I do increasingly hear it used non-pejoratively, by hackers themselves. But I'll replace it with "changed". Tony (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed, Wisewoman. Terribly biased article in usual en.wiki Signpost style. --Nemo 07:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I am astounded by all the drama around this minor thing. I could not care less whether new software features are opt-in or opt-out. --Hispalois (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's really quite astounding. I can't fathom why the WMF invented and deployed this weapon af mass alianation superputsch in a hurried cloak and dagger manner against the german community. It was just about opt-in/opt-out, and some slightly botched js-programming to implement the MB(RfC), if they had just made the right programming, or waited a few hours until some other german admin would have done it, there would not have been this buzz about it. But no, MV, some superficial bling-thing, was treated by WMF like a matter of life or death, and it had to be deployed asap to all, even if it couldn't read a lot of attribution and licence data, didn't fit in the expected handling of WP pages etc. It was obviously someones pet project in the WMF that had to be implemented, come what may. And regarding "hack": Superprotect was definitely a malicious hack, DaB.s actions were mere a bit botched programming, like the MV itself. --♫ Sänger, superputsch must go (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Dean Inge said, "There are two kinds of fools: one says, 'This is old, therefore it is good'; the other says, 'This is new, therefore it is better.'"

    I was particularly struck by LilaTretikov's remark that "MV is such peanuts, we should really not be spending our joint mental cycles on."[2] I am not sure which is more astounding: the amount of anguish occasioned by the rollout, or the amount of resources committed to developing it. Nuts! ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Viral (2,401 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Just a picky copyediting comment:

"one of the few (paintings) that the legendarily distractable Leonardo da Vinci completed in his lifetime," might suggest that da Vinci completed some paintings after his lifetime. I doubt that's what the author intended to say. Also, my spellchecker suggests "distractible". Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That second sentence about the ISIS article HAS to be re-written, since as written it states Obama executed Foley! Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence bothered me; thanks for pointing it out. Serendipodous 15:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-08-27&oldid=1125230179"