User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 29

Another barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your efforts to rehabilitate the 9/11 article into something the wider community could be proud of. John (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John, but the process has barely begun. It needs good will, honesty and a very enlightened understanding of the meaning of "consensus" to take the progress made so far forwards. Lets hope we can do it. Geometry guy 01:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good show

I don't do the barnstar thing, but your comment "Any analysis which treats Wikipedia's readers as customers - or its unpaid editors as a labor force whose efforts need to be managed and optimized - is fundamentally flawed" should be engraved on a bronze plaque and hand-delivered to the Executive Director of a certain nonprofit web project. I swear, the more I hear from the WMF the more they remind me of a certain management style. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also not particularly into barnstars, and only keep them in my talk archives. I prefer editors to judge me by my current contributions than my track record, even if they occasionally get the wrong end of the stick as a consequence! However, I greatly appreciate when editors take the time to comment on a contribution of mine, as you have done so kindly here, and many others do when they leave barnstars.

I would encourage any editor who believes that Wikipedia's principles are fundamental to its success to articulate and defend those principles whenever they can. Geometry guy 01:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well said

For the past week I've been trying to deny that what someone I don't know has said about the hours I've spent contributing here hurt me. When I read this I realized how very upset, hurt, and angry I am. I'm glad you articulated it so well, and it needs to be said. Thanks. Btw - we've never interacted but obviously pass each other on various talk pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and see also the post immediately above and my posts at User talk:TCO. I'm glad you have realized how upset you were and have let out the anger. In my view, the important thing is to go back the principles that inspired you to edit Wikipedia, and articulate and defend those principles at every opportunity. Wikipedia once had a figurehead whose role that was, but I find myself wondering where is he now? Geometry guy 02:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I remember when I started and it was a wonderful experience. For someone who loves to read, write and research, this was like a candy-store for a child. That feeling was taken away in such a big way. Sometimes I find myself lost in very esoteric subjects that interest me and are encyclopedic (something like The Diary of Lady Murasaki) and I don't want to have to start worrying about page views. I have plenty of pages that have never been reviewed - many I've forgotten about - and I've spent a fair bit of time copy-editing in the dusty recesses of pages to copy-edited. My idea of this place is that everyone gives whatever skill they have to offer, without being scorned. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It may prove, ironically, that the current effort to coerce editors into making more hit-worthy contributions has the opposite effect and drives them to contribute to more obscure areas and withdraw from review processes. Why subject yourself to hassle and the critical spotlight, when you are contributing your knowledge for fun? Geometry guy 02:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Like Truthkeeper, I was initially stung by being labelled a star chaser, even though I've written loads of articles that get more than the cut off number of 3000 views per month. I think for all of us the important thing is that the article has survived the most rigorous review process that Wikipedia has to offer. It's about the article, not the editors; I don't have the bronze star, the article does. Will the current brouhaha encourage me to work on one of the so-called vital topics? Absolutely not, more likely to ignore them even more than I have done in the past. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your fix of the peer review problem, and for all you do here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that it got sorted out. It is always a pleasure to support the invaluable work that takes place at WP:PR. I encourage all editors, and administrators in particular, to appreciate the work you do, and the stress points that you regularly face. You should never feel in a position where you cannot ask other administrators to intervene on your behalf. Geometry guy 02:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bringing a math article to GA status

Hi, there is a mathematics article I want to bring to GA status and CRGreathouse said you once managed to bring a math article through the GA process. The article I am talking about is Wieferich prime. Now I am aware of WP:WIAGA, but perhaps if you have worked a lot on an article, it may be possible you develop some kind of "blindness" for some issues, as might be the case with me and the Wieferich prime article. Therefore, if you have any suggestions on how to further improve the article, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. CRGreathouse may be mistaking me for Jakob Scholbach, a comparison which honors me, as Jakob has brought several mathematics articles to GA (and FA).

However, I took a look at Wieferich prime anyway, and I think you have made a good start, but there is still much work to be done. My advice, before considering criteria, is to make the article the most readable and accessible treatment of Wieferich primes you have ever seen. One GA criterion which may help you is WP:LEAD, which requires that the lead is both a summary of the article and an introduction to the topic. It is not easy to write a lead which does both unless the article itself is really good. At the moment the lead the gives the definition, touches on a little motivation and history, then summarizes the current status. The body of the article does not give the definition, but then covers much more material, sometimes in a different order.

I suggest leaving improvements to the lead itself for later, and working on the body of the article first. In doing so, consider how to reach as wide an audience as possible: this article is not particularly advanced mathematics, and should be accessible to a smart high school student. I suggest to start with the history and connection with Fermat's little theorem as a warm-up to more sophisticated ideas.

I hope that helps. Geometry guy 00:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. That is helpful. I will focus on the body of the article for now and follow your suggestions. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not very helpful

I am surprised, this is not the line of debate I would expect from you. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also surprised... by the support such a poorly thought-through proposal has attracted, including from a number of editors I greatly respect (e.g. Maria, DanaBoomer, Jezhotwells and Casliber). It was proposed in response to a particular problem, but has wide ranging ramifications. Indeed some supports give quite different reasons than the problem of missing reviewers.

There are many ways to be helpful. When editors are not thinking things through, surprise is one of them. Geometry guy 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't support it either and agree that it seems to be knee-jerk reaction to one editors reviews. If it does pass it will create a few minor issues without dealing with one of the main problems at GAN (which is the backlog in my opinion). It was just that I am more used to reading well thought out reasonings from you rather than sarcastic misdirection. As you say above some good editors have commented so they may change there mind if presented with compelling arguments. I don't think your current approach will accomplish that, but you never know (some have already refactored there comments). AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you are more used to well thought out reasonings from me - I shall take that as a compliment :) and am sorry if my input disappointed on this occasion. I don't have a single approach, nor am I the only editor on Wikipedia with an opinion. It is up to all of us collectively to accomplish things that will improve the encyclopedia.

The main difficulty I have with GAN discussions like these is that I completely disagree with the premise that The Backlog is The Problem. And I always have.

I view the popularity of GAN as a measure of its success. I accept that long wait times from nomination to the start of the review are frustrating for nominators, but that is a subtly different issue, and it is better to wait for a decent review than to receive a poor quality one or none at all. Conditions on nominations (quotas, forcing nominators to wait before nominating, requiring them to review etc.) do not make the nominating experience a better one either.

By contrast, the volume of articles at GAN is a good thing, as it provides reviewers with more choice, hence making it easier to review. And the way to reduce wait times is to increase reviewing capacity by making it easier and more rewarding to review frequently and review well, attracting more reviewers and more reviews. In that respect it is better to have a reviewer take a long time over a review than not review at all.

A review can stall for many reasons: the reviewer may be too demanding, or the nominators may run out of energy, for instance. The fairest way to address the issue of review mismanagement is not to punish the article, but to void the review, and reinsert the article back in the nominations list with the original reviewer recused, so that the article may find a reviewer who will do a better job. That new reviewer can then pass or fail the article as appropriate, rather than some "auto-fail" process. Every nomination deserves a decent review.

However, as long as editors see The Backlog as The Problem, such a proposal is unlikely to garner much support. Geometry guy 19:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with a long wait before review comes from my own personal experience. I was soley reviewing the oldest articles in the backlog and then having to fail many because the nominator was no longer availible. Three months is a long time and a lot can change about someones situation during that time. To spend an hour or two reading and writing a review and then getting no response is frustrating to say the least. I have solved the problem for myself by no longer reviewing old nominations, but that does not help those that have been waiting for months.

I also think that the backlog is actually reducing the number of people willing to put forward nominations. After drives it always quickly increases and then flattens out at about 300. While some of that might be due to reviewer burn out, some is possibly due to an increase in nominations when the perceived wait time is low (when I have time and the inclination I might check that).

The current proposal does not even address this issue; the only way to reduce the backlog is to reduce the number of articles coming through, make it easier for reviewers to remove articles and attract new reviewers. Limiting the number of articles a single person can nominate at once (peer review and FA already do this), somehow regulating drive-by nominations (recently Julia Gillard and Steve Jobs were nominated by authors who had never edited the articles), and increasing the quick-fail criteria are all possible ways to accomplish this. All have been mentioned previously but not gained any consensus. No one is going to disagree with attracting new reviewers, but it is the hardest solution to accomplish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aircorn (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 December 2011

Concerning backlog elimination drives, there has always been a bounce-back, even when the backlog was smaller. This is primarily because the extra time reviewers commit during a drive is not sustainable, and some may well take a break, or review less after the drive. More recent drives have actually had softer landings, which suggests that reviewers collectively recognise the problem. I agree with you, though, that the backlog and perceived wait times can have a regulatory effect, so that after a drive, editors are encouraged to nominate. Geometry guy 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

But that ignores the fact that the backlog is not homogeneous, and most categories have very little in the way of a backlog. The problems largely arise with the pop culture stuff, which few reviewers seem to want to touch. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly have no desire to touch pop culture articles ... either at FAC or GAN... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I did 2 that I thought were useful for both sides, then one nightmare that the nomination insisted on giving full quotations, and all of these were from the TV's show's crew, with no independent sources. I "Failed" it and a friend of the nomination Passed it the next day. No more soaps for me. --Philcha (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the imbalance between nominations and reviewers willing to take them on affects certain topics disproportionately. A well thought through strategy would address this problem, rather than make blanket restrictions on nominations per editor.

Concerning the quick-fail criteria, I believe they should be limited to articles which flagrantly disregard the GA criteria. Every other nomination deserves a decent review, so that the article may be improved, whether or not the original nominators are still interested in doing so. However, a decent review is not the same thing as a thorough review, and there is absolutely no obligation to place an article on hold. This is made perfectly clear in the instructions, but seems not to be widely appreciated.

For an article with substantial failings with respect to several GA criteria, it suffices to note some of the failings in the review, give indicative examples, and fail the article. There is no point in placing such a nomination on hold, because there is too much work to be done. Such a review might only take an hour, but has the benefit that a few concrete suggestions for improvement are available for future editors.

I'm not sure why this is not used more often. Perhaps because nominators might complain "you didn't give me a chance to fix it!" There is no obligation to do so: GA is summative assessment, not formative. One way to deal with this is to test the waters with an initial review comment, to see how keen nominators are to respond. If there is no response, then placing the article on hold is pointless.

Perhaps also reviewers seek a response as validation for their efforts, but then if no response to a brief review is frustrating, then no response to a thorough one is worse. Geometry guy 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a perception among many nominators and editors that "quick fail" = "fail with no hold". I used non-holding fails in the past and was advised then that it was better to give the nominator a chance to address the issues (although well intentioned I have since decided that it was not the best advice). Maybe I am a bit soft, but I also find it hard to fail an article like that if someone has waited three months for the review. Despite my complaining about the backlog I actually think good articles works quite well, and is one of the most important parts of the encyclopaedia. I will leave your talk page in peace for now, although I have an idea that I will run through you if you don't mind when I have developed it better. AIRcorn (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The judgement for me was always very simple: can the necessary work reasonably be expected to be done within the seven-day holding period? But regardless of that, every nomination should be given something to work on, especially if it fails. Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I could conceive of supporting more nuanced restrictions on nominations. For instance one could require that in any section where there are more than 20 nominations outstanding, no editor may have more than 2 net nominations, where the net nominations of an editor in a section are the number of their nominations in that section minus the number of articles they are reviewing in that section. I'm not saying I would support such a proposal, and I'm not convinced it would have substantial effect; however it is the kind of proposal that might be worth considering, in that it combines incentives (to review) and restrictions (on nominations) without prescribing either as The Solution. Geometry guy 23:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That kind of restriction works with FAC, where there are nominated delegates in charge of the process, but I can't see it resulting in anything other than acrimony at GAN, where there aren't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

... unless of course it could be entirely automated, in which I might well be all for it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

For now, I'm just raising the sort of idea that might be acceptable. If the principle is precise enough, and widely accepted as fair, then it can be implemented by everyday editors, without needing delegates. On the other hand, in such a situation, it is quite likely possible to automate it. Geometry guy 00:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought maclean had an interesting take, and I voted as such there ... that is, instead of a 30-day deadline, say that it's permissible for a second reviewer to join after 30 days ... what their role would be, and what they'd be expected to do, would evolve just like everything else does. But I think that at least deals with the scenario envisioned by Mr. POV Pusher, does it not? - Dank (push to talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I could see such an idea working and would be happy to contribute to a discussion where Mr. POV Pusher felt unwelcome. However, your proposal is not "maclean's take", nor do you provide a diff here or elsewhere to the view of his you are supporting. Clarity is a major issue in talk discussions. Without it, your thoughtful contribution could end up being used simply as a chalk mark. Geometry guy 01:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied there, under my vote. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you may see from this thread, I believe that discussion of a bad proposal has nevertheless generated some ideas that might lead to a better proposal. Someone needs to take the lead here, and try to bring such a better proposal to fruition. I have engaged in such "leadership" in the past, but GA should never depend on one person: it thrives on a collective understanding of its values (which we all should communicate at every opportunity). Many individuals who "get" the GA concept have seen this proposal. If a proposal of this type is beneficial for GA, someone should be able to take up the lead and steer it towards a widely approved and implementable conclusion. In its current form it is not. Geometry guy 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Helpful

I encourage editors watching this page to contribute to this discussion about the SOPA act. I don't have a strong view about this particular case, but posted this comment about our mission. Geometry guy 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On SOPA

"If you think Wikipedia is "neutral", think again about the radical nature of its mission, and how unacceptable it is to some people, some societies, and some cultures to present viewpoints contrary to some prevailing dogma"

This should be written atop a mountain in flaming text.

I think a lot of people are missing how deeply subversive Wikipedia itself is— simply because they have the great fortune of coming from a subculture that agrees with its principles completely. Perhaps by the same token they may fail to realize how fragile a position we have, and how easily our achieves could be dashed with a bit of misguided public policy. Thank you for taking the time to fight the good fight and apply some well needed cluestick. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your comments were consonent with my own, and was glad to see that. We are indeed extraordinarily fortunate in having the freedom to build a free encyclopedia. I think many editors appreciate that, but if we do not articulate and celebrate it, we could easily lose it. Geometry guy 04:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an "extraordinary political statement" indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and some of its political principles ("anyone can edit" perhaps?) have downsides. However, the idea of making information and knowledge freely available is widely regarded as extraordinary and good. Geometry guy 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the daily battles here it's easy to lose sight of what's important. The "anyone can edit" mantra is clearly absurd, at least in my opinion, but that's equally clearly not a battle easily won. I see it as akin to anyone can juggle, or anyone can win an Olympic Gold Medal. Some years ago I decided to learn how to juggle after watching someone while on holiday in Turkey. My immediate thought was "Hell, if she can do it then it can't be that hard", but it was, and even now I'm a pretty shit juggler, especially with the clubs. And as for winning a gold medal ... well. I don't know what the answer is, but I find myself increasing drawn away from the "vital articles" crowd and towards editors like User:Ealdgyth, who have a determination to plug a gap in freely available scholarship, whether it be considered vital or not. I would argue that her individual articles may not be "vital", but the corpus may well be the most important resource freely available on the planet. If she ever finishes it of course. Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a crap argument (made a lot, though). Scholarship on the obscure topics is "freely available" by going to the library and pulling journals and books and theses. Also, even just in the sense of "on the web" being free, even for the very important topics, there are not FA type articles (chock full of content and citations, and for that matter free to copy) on celebreties or the like. If we don't do it, it really isn't out there on the net. A hobbyist page or a blog post is not the same thing as a detailed article. And then when you add in the 1000-x multiple of demand... [feel free to go back to chatting amongst those that agree with you, though...and the prevailing Wikipediot ethic though...despite it being different than the entire history of mankind's work in newspapers and books and TV and the like (where demand is valued).]TCO (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I must have imagined my work on articles like Augustine of Canterbury or Thoroughbred... you know... those "high priority" ones. For that matter - my work on Appaloosa - another one of the "high demand" articles. Or my efforts on Second Crusade. Or the efforts on Horse. Not all articles are going to be high demand, TCO. YOU go work on "turtle" or "snake" and get IT to FAC, and then maybe we'll listen a bit more to your arguments. Some of us already HAVE worked on high demand articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We have. I look forward to TCO setting an example by presenting his turtle article at FAC, but I won't be holding my breath. If I recall correctly you and I were categorised as star chasers in TCO's recent analysis; I wonder how he'd categorise himself? Malleus Fatuorum 05:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, TCO has here illustrated so well the standard of argumentation he employs that it is worth looking at it more closely.

• First begin by declaring that some other argument is "crap" by fiat. It is not even completely clear what other argument is being dismissed. We suppose from the context and sequel that it is an argument concerning the relative availability of information on popular topics compared to unusual ones, but the more slippery the assertion, the harder it is to counter.
• Second, mention that the "crap" argument is made a lot. Do this in a way to suggest the "crap" argument has traction due to its popularity, rather than any inherent value, without actually stating this explicitly as a hypothesis (which could be challenged), or giving any justification for it.
• Third, make a contrast by applying entirely different standards to the widely different subjects. Whereas information on unusual scholarly topics is readily available by spending months of research in libraries compiling source material and sifting it for weight and importance, information on celebrities is not, by contrast, instantly available over the internet in a free, reliable, digestible, fully FA style form, chock full of content and citations.
• Hence Wikipedia is impoverishing mankind by not bring the article on, say, Russell Brand, up to FA standard immediately, because such top quality content (which accounts for less than 0.1% of Wikipedia's content in any case) is "not out there on the net", except on "hobbyist pages".
• Make a vague reference to some multiplying factor of demand, with trailing dots, begging pretty much every question under debate, but not actually stating anything concrete. Are we supposed to conclude that the number of google searches for "Russell Brand" make this a more important topic to bring to FA status than, say "Logarithm"? We cannot tell, because not only is no argument made, but no position is stated.
• Now the coup de grace: go back to the popularity idea, and imply that other editors do not "get" this rhetorical line of argumentation because they are "Wikipediots" who buy into to some prevailing dogma, and prefer to talk to other editors who agree with them. Again, provide no evidence for this ad hominem, but instead suggest that the effort to compile and summarize information which encyclopedists have been doing for centuries is fundamentally at odds with mankind's progress, because, unlike television, say, it has not primarily been driven by popularity and advertising revenues.

I agree with Malleus that writing a top quality encyclopedia article, on any topic, from the most obscure to the most mainstream to the most populist, is an extraordinarily difficult task. Few people have the ability to do the necessary research, make the editorial judgements needed to select a good balance of source material, then compile this into a coherent narrative that will be a definitive treatment of the topic. Anyone who demonstrably can, like Ealdgyth, should have our full support, whatever they choose to work on. TCO's arguments are not worth listening to not only because he fails to support those who do the writing he cannot or does not; he doesn't even seem to be able to compile a decent argument. Geometry guy 04:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time recently on this article's FAC I really do resent TCO's representation of me as a Wikipediot with no interest in popular culture. Had I said that about him I would undoubtedly have been blocked for making one of those personal attack thingies. That TCO's position is apparently given credence by the WMF is to its eternal shame. Malleus Fatuorum 05:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Geom guy: you are right that I indulged in those little things (crap, pediot) in my specific post. But wrong in that it defines me. I can supply issue analysis and evidence. Have done it. Even did it (some) in the post with the "crap" and the "pediot". For instance, noting the issue of the non-availability of FA type free content for popular topics if we don't do it. (That's an additive point that wasn't made and that corrects a false impression from earlier comments.) Even the 'pediot is not completely meaningless. Part of my point is that there is a real tendancy to self-justify here and to see things with a Wiki filter instead of stepping back and considering all the things we can learn from how the rest of the world has solved problems. [the "crap" was of course "crap".]

Would add two more things above what I said before:

A: That I think there is a unconsious confusion of class versus item by advocates of the obscure. If you could do the entire class of 500-view items to FA that might be something. But just one? Would you really say that is as important as a high view item? If you only had the one shot. REally? If you BOUGHT an encyclopedia, would you think it better if it omitted half of the 50,000+ view topics entirely and replaced them with 500 view topics. Really, would you?

B: Interesting how the justifications of social utility seem to gibe with "what we happen to be doing". We just naturally optimized there? Hmm. It had nothing to do with the non view-scaling of the social rewards?

TCO (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. There is no "set of people that think like me". Many more of you than of me. Rest easy.

P.s.s. I spent 2 years being blocked for civility, Malleus. You can get me re-permabanned by Toddst and MOP and ProtonK and all them. Just give them a whistle. I'm sure that I am guilty. Don't worry. I won't even defend myself. Won't try to dig up stuff on you. (I just try to stay out of that whole "he was more uncivil than me" "do loop". Segue: you should see how the ladies at the diet forums interact. It is ALL ABOUT accusing each other of having offended the other person. They thought I was the strangest thing in the world...but...kind of fun to be on a part of the Internet that has females...even has the ratio in my favor.)

P.s.s.s. Kudos, Mall, for helping Single Ladies. I mean it. You don't need to ask for my approval, you know I think highly of you. But if it makes the person on the other end of the modem feel good...well, I like a lot of things about you. Especially the engagement with Jimmy Butler...and helping the Tony/Wehwalt spat. And lots of things...like that. You're a good researcher and writer (especially at sentence/phrase level) and strong on all the Wiki markup and have a knowledge of a lot of fields. A grownup for sure. You're not God on a stick or Eugene Volokh though, man. But that's OK. (I'm certainly not either.)

I've never sought to have anyone blocked or banned, and I'm not about to start now. Malleus Fatuorum 13:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO - perhaps you missed that my efforts are to bring ALL the medieval English bishops before 1300 up to as good a status as can be done - I'm not just doing "one" - not all them will make FAs but lots are GAs. But ... again, you're avoiding the point *I* raised - I want to see YOU work on one of these high value articles you keep trumpeting - and see you bring it to FA status. If you brought something that high value to a nice clean status everyone would take your arguments a lot better - you'd have put into practice what you're preaching. Instead, right now, with nothing of your own efforts to back up your complaints, you're in the same boat as the rest of us you're denegrating. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A. I heard you the first time. It's an ad hom argument, but I guess a pretty good one! I can't "address it" other than to get a big article done (and I would do an element, not a reptile...I don't really know them, just did one to help out NYM). If you want it addressed, here, the only thing I can say is "Aye. Noted."

B. Get over the butt-hurt. You, Mall, Ceoil, and TRM are all fine. You can handle it. I mean it. Would look you in the eye and say it. The only peeps that I would feel bad for are "dabblers" that did a first ever FA and then have some fooker (me) writing a nasty PowerPoint. Because there is something sweet about a newbie and all. But some star collector or "caught by the time period limit" dabbler. Nope. Man up and move on.

C. Yeah...I know you are doing a bunch of them, but it still doesn't add up, E. See the disscussion on total views and the comparison of champions and star collectors. If you do 10 500-view articles in a year that is 5,000 total. You probably could have done 2-3 50,000 view articles in the same year with the same effort. Especially if you cherry-pick the more doable 50,000ers (and they exist).

D. And you may be purer than the snow, but I bet the equality of the rewards is driving the behavior. If we gave you one tenth the awards for those 10 500ers as doing a single 50,000...different behavior would result. And before someone comes in and says, they don't pay attention to the sticker...let's do a though experiment about removing the stickers from low view article nom userpages and BFAN and all. (Do you imagine no protest, no on screams).

E. I'm not here to denigrate or get you. I'm not part of some Wiki clique feud. I don't even know you, E. I even felt bad when you said you were "sad".TCO (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have NO idea WHY I write articles, do you? You assume that the awards drive me, but they don't. Until you realize that assigning motives for why others write what they write is leading you into bad analysis, you won't be able to make much headway (hint - it's not the awards, and increasing or decreasing awards would have little to do with what I choose or don't choose to write on... and for many of the rest of us, it won't either). And telling me to get over the "butt-hurt" isn't helping either - This isn't a job. I don't have to write on subjects YOU assign. I have a writing job all of my own, thank you very much. There, because I'm paid, I write on what others tell me. Here, I get to write for reasons of my own, and your "analysis" isn't going to magically make me work on articles I don't want to work on (i.e. pop culture and celebrities). And your comments above about me and the others needing to "get over the butt-hurt" isn't helping any desire I might have had to work on the subjects you seem to want me to work on. If you'd had a better attitude towards the fact that you offended folks - if you'd said "hey, sorry, I probably shouldn't have labeled other editors with cutesy labels" then yeah, I might have had more desire to work on the things you want me to work on. But your defensive "get over it" or "grow up" attitude just ticks me off and makes me MORE likely to not work on several articles WITH high views I have been researching in the background. You're in some respects your own worst enemy here, and bit of honey and sweeteners would have gone a LONG way to getting folks to do what you want. But that might not be as much fun, huh? (See, I can assign motives to why people do things too!) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge (and partially agree with) your points about milk/honey AND my motivation and your motiviation. Take care and don't let the turkeys get you down. I'm sure you are deservedly loved for your Wiki contributions.TCO (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been very busy with a funeral, still busy, so seeing this on my watchlist, I have two quick questions:

1. What the heck is SOPA?
2. Why is one single person in the FA or GA community still talking to trolls?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

SOPA is an bill being pushed by the music/movies industry, which goes further than DMCA. As for your second point: What's the alternative? With all the off-wiki trolls pouring in, it's like trying to shove a steamroller.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ah, ha ... that's what SOPA is, the thingie where some folks are finally coming to realize that Wikipedia is a haven for plagiarists and that legislation may end all the fun? I shall catch up after Christmas. The alternative: when folks on Usenet thought they had to placate the trolls, that marked the end of Usenet as a viable forum. So, who will get here first: TCO or the legislature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This thread has become somewhat confused, and now concerns two distinct issues. It started in response to my attempts to clarify widespread confusions between:

• NPOV and neutrality;
• the apolitical nature of Wikipedia articles and the political nature of the Wikipedia project.

Wikipedia is inherently political: any project driven by common ideals is. Some discussion about these ideals followed, including a contribution from TCO bringing up his vital-articles hit-count social-value position again. I can understand the viewpoint that TCO's position is trollish, in that his arguments are poor, and in some cases fundamentally flawed, but he persists in promoting them in increasingly vague and rhetorical ways.

Result of all this: intermingled discussions about SOPA and TCO. Sandy's two questions concern these two separate things, although she then manages to combine them as two separate threats. Here are my comments in response.

1. The goals of Wikipedia (to create a free encyclopedia) and the goals of creative industries (to protect revenue from non-free content) should be compatible: a free encyclopedia should not be a host to non-free content. The problem with SOPA and related legislation is that it targets webhosting organizations rather than copyright violators. In the case of Wikipedia, the webhost organization is the WMF. The risk is that badly-drafted or rushed-through legislation could place the WMF in a position where it would need, in order to avoid potential liability, to vet all edits/contributions before anyone else can see them. That's a worse-case scenario which would effectively cripple Wikipedia. There are plenty of bad-case scenarios too, and even where articles are free of copyvios, edit histories might not be, yet these are also available to any reader.
2. TCO wants Wikipedia to be something other than it is, but I find that his contributions actually sharpen my understanding as to what Wikipedia is about, because of the lack of understanding, poor arguments, and confused ideas his contributions demonstrate. I am also fairly tolerant of a wide range of views of my talk page, and dislike labels: if TCO is regarded as a troll, someone else will have to make that call and ban him accordingly; I am not willing to do so. I replied in order to call him out on the increasingly vague and rhetorical ways I mentioned above. His response provides further information about his lack of clue, for instance about the motivations of volunteer editors.

I don't think Wikipedia is under threat from either trolling or legislation. It has a coherent set of values shared by such a vast proportion of the English speaking world that many do not even notice that they are making a political statement when they support or promote them.

Any legislation that would cripple Wikipedia is almost certainly going to be unconstitutional in the US. And any attempts to convert volunteer editors into a workforce, or to redefine what makes the Wikipedia concept valuable, will instead illuminate what Wikipedia is about and perhaps even add to the long-standing tradition of What Wikipedia Is Not.

That does not mean we should be complacent; quite the opposite. Communicating and defending Wikipedia's ideals is central to contributing to this project. Geometry guy 01:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to do my best to catch up from a two-week hiatus, but with the holidays upon us, it should be difficult. Although your explanation of both (and the intersection I came up with) is wonderful and helpful, these incoherent TCO walls-of-text that are splattered across pages where we try to get some work done are a hindrance and a distraction. I'm glad his "increasingly vague and rhetorical ways" help hone your sense of why we're here-- they remind me of why I might find something better to do when I'm behind (as does the new dilemma raised by Colin below-- I'm facing those typing monkeys daily now on my watchlist). Have a happy holiday, G guy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Job description

I really like your statement:

Few people have the ability to do the necessary research, make the editorial judgements needed to select a good balance of source material, then compile this into a coherent narrative that will be a definitive treatment of the topic

This sort of thing gets lost in all our policies and guidelines. Given the above summary of our job description, what do you all make of this idea:

Take one professor and some grad students who have never edited Wikipedia. Add 1700 undergraduate students, who have also never edited Wikipedia, and who are doing an elementary science module at the prof's university. Waft some leaflets on Wikipedia at them. Request they pick an article in that science subject on Wikipedia, and add one or two sourced sentences to the article. No support provided. Expect the Wikipedia community to review the homework and revert/fix any mess. Award one bonus mark for carrying out the task. Rinse and repeat every six months.

Colin°^Talk 15:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Students" "Monkeys" don't write Shakespeare but instead, urinate and defecate on the keyboard ^{[citation available on request]} --Senra (Talk) 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I mentioned you here, in a good way. --John (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and for your seasonal wishes below (thanks also to others posting seasonal wishes here: I will reply with wishes for the New Year soon!). I'm always glad if any comment of mine is helpful, but there is a meme going around that Malleus was blocked (and may be banned) for using the word "cunt". Like you, I have no problem with the words Malleus uses and can read past them to understand the (often insightful) point he is trying to convey.

In this instance, however, Malleus escalated a poorly judged remark (or two) into point-making disruption over an extended period. Even if I agree with the point about inconsistency between acceptable uses of "dick" and "cunt" on-wiki, I do not condone disrupting enwiki on such a basis. There are many problems IRL, and such inconsistencies may be among them, but enwiki is not the place to resolve them.

Wikipedia is imperfect, as are the societies in which we live. I greatly respect editors like Malleus who challenge the imperfections. However, serious challenges almost always imply consequences, else they mean nothing. In this case, Malleus has consequences to face. Those who seek to defend him from the consequences of his actions may not have fully understood the meaning of activism. Geometry guy 23:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sums it up for me-- the final "f'ing c" was indefensible, so I have to assume he did it on purpose, to commit wikicide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The only alternative assumption I see is that he was non compos mentis when he made that post, cf. my comment here. I commend your efforts to seek wider lessons from this incident (and the extensive backstory), as I believe there is much to be learned here. Geometry guy 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I doubt those efforts will get any further than yours did on the ANI-- the attention span generally seems to be lacking. It's so much easier just to block folks, move on, and pretend that all will be well on the Wikipedia, when it So Is Not. Hey, have a Happy New Year there !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but it isn't easy to keep quiet when it is so clear that issues like these can be handled in a much better way. Ah well, all the best New Year wishes to you too. Geometry guy 00:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

SandyG is closer to the mark than you are Geometry guy. I've made no secret of the fact that I've found things intolerable here for some time now. But bear in mind as well that activism may sometimes result in necessary change; naturally I have no hope of that in this particular case though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of activism is to cause change (perceived as necessary): an individual may have no hope of doing so, but raising a collective understanding of an issue might. Geometry guy 00:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Change has become impossible here, as the place lacks leadership; consensus can only take you so far. It's for ArbCom to decide what happens next, as it's the only excuse for leadership that exists. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and am willing to spend some time participating in this arbitration case. Are you? Geometry guy 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Initially I wasn't, as it just seemed like a lynch mob to me. And to be honest it still does. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell, but wider issues are on the agenda, so we can all influence the development. Geometry guy

Watching Arbcom cases over the years had led me to the conclusion that the accused has little to gain and a great deal to lose from participating in a case (detailed rationale here). That's especially true in this case -- there's not much you can say in your defense, but it's very, very likely that someone will say something that will cause you to respond in a manner that is not altogether sweetness and light. People will then use this as evidence of what a terrible person you are, justifying ritual humiliationthe "appropriate" sanction for such behavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How very true. I've decided that nothing I can say will sway any of the people "opposed" to Malleus and will only lead to heartburn and stress for myself. If that makes me a chicken, so be it. I did get involved in one ArbCom case and decided it was not really worth all the effort - quite honestly. And that was a "quiet" case! Your essay was quite interesting reading - thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've little hope either ... any urging on the case page to get folks to hone in on the things that matter results in the usual ignorant responses. Poor arbs-- I don't think they really wanted to accept a plain ole "bash Malleus" case, but the general Wikipedia editing population isn't capable of much more these days. Darn you, Mally, we're going to miss you, but I sure do understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings!
	I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hey. Just wanted to let you know I mentioned you at the civility arbitration case. --Moni3 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and good comments. I will comment myself at some point, so as to make my position a bit less vague :) Geometry guy 20:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year...

Here's to Wikipedia

...to all my talk page supporters and anyone else who sees this! Feel free to "delurk" with your thoughts on 2011 and hopes for Wikipedia in 2012. I am grateful to all for comments both critical and supportive on this talk page in the last year, and hope 2012 will be a productive year for individual editors, and for the Wikipedia concept and its associated ideals. Geometry guy 23:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This New Year has at least found something: admins have had their hands unnecessarily tied by a topic banning policy that prevents them from taking action short of a block. If this can be addressed, 2012 may already be a better year. Geometry guy 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

HNY. One thing that worries me is the size of the Foundation, there are now 80+ employees whereas for its most expansive growth period there was only one. Having this expanded corporate part which paid people having a very different status to the volunteer editors can create problems like the Wikipedia:India Education Program where foundation staff had some smart idea about pulling in lots of Indian college students. Unfortunately they forgot to ask the rank and file editors who are now left with a giant clean up. --Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you: Parkinson's Law governs the rise of bureaucracy here, and all those new employees have to justify their existence by doing something. According to Parkinson, they do so by making work for each other. However, in this context, they are instead making work for volunteers. It is an untenable state of affairs, and I have never and will never make a donation to the WMF until it dedicates itself primarily to the infrastructure that makes Wikipedia work and seeks the advice of volunteer editors on how to spend any spare cash. Geometry guy 01:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

email....

You saw my email? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

From last month? Yes, and I thought about it: I will reply now. Geometry guy 01:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the civility arbcom case and related problems Wikipedia needs to address

This is a work in progress, but my comments so far can be found at:

• Principles
• Outcomes
• Banning policy

Geometry guy 02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're going with the topic ban proposal, and that the current discrepancy (admins can indef block but not topic ban) is illogical, but if we've seen unscrupulous application of blocks from lesser competent admins, the topic bans by individual admins have the potential to be much worse. I've seen many discussions where partisan (out-and-out POV) admins wouldn't hesitate to ban someone from editing an article-- slippery slope there. Perhaps that's why ANI consensus is needed first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I share your concerns: please see my proposal at WT:BAN. Geometry guy 03:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that very wording is what worries me. I've seen numerous situations of admins who would abuse of your proposed wording even more than they abuse of blocks, I can think of several in these very discussions who would abuse of that-- the concern is that they would view a ban as even easier to apply than a block, and those who block without scruples would ban even easier. I see the same problem you see, but I'm afraid you're setting up something very ripe for abuse, and that will also lead to a dispute resolution nightmare. Have you ever edited side-by-side with some of our more notable abusive admins? They would love to have the leeway to topic ban folks they disagree with, and remember that one rather infamous admin got herself into all kinds of hot water applying uneven bans per arbitration enforcement. Again, I see what you want to accomplish, it would work in a perfect world, but we're dealing with some abusive and POV admins in here... don't think your proposal will work. And ... if an RFA ban would have kept Malleus out of hot water, we already have a process for that-- there should have been an RFC, and a topic ban from RFA could have been requested there. Your proposal could give the already lazy folks who don't engage DR even more reason to be more lazy ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are worried and you are afraid. I can sympathise with that, but the current position places experienced good faith editors in a much greater state of fear: they can be blocked for essentially no good reason if the stress of their work leads them into conflict. I am proposing (see the Workshop) that experienced editors should almost never be blocked. That should be welcomed as a huge weight off the shoulders of the content contributors we value most. As for POV admins, they should never act in an administrative capacity where they are involved: if this proposal gives them a further opportunity to do so, so much the better, as they can then be desysopped more easily for abusing their position. Geometry guy 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There could be unintended consequences. Consider that some editors who get frustrated rarely might prefer a couple of 24-hour or 48-hour blocks every few months that give them a chance to cool down (for some editors, cool-down blocks actually work), rather than an unjust (from their point-of-view) topic ban that may be indefinite, easy to forget when following a discussion, and lead to a feeling of resentment far worse than that generated by a brief block. Not to mention the kilobytes of discussion wasted arguing about such topic bans. The key is to find ways to de-escalate flash points, and that can involve far more subtle methods than just topic bans. Sometimes trying to impose a topic ban (or remove the thread, as Prodego attempted, before it was replaced twice) can lead (unintentionally) to further escalation. Sometimes people are just looking for a fight. I mentioned somewhere else that in public venues (like WT:RFA) someone removing a thread stands little chance of working as among the many watching there will almost certainly be someone willing to put it back. But on a user talk page, if the editor whose talk page it is removes it, then there is an inbuilt instinct to respect that (e.g. see thread Sandy removed from her talk page when Malleus vented against me after I turned up and said something). If there were 'pub' venues on Wikipedia, with pub landlords (i.e. moderators) who were respected as those who were 'hosting' the discussions, such conversations might be more amenable to a loose form of control and less likely to degenerate into chaos. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Carcharoth, many of which I agree with. However, you haven't read the proposal, which specifically refers to time-limited bans. Any editor who so prefers can convert a ban into a block by violating it: the reverse is not so easy. In addition, you argue against bans as more refined and subtle methods than blocks by suggesting that more refined and subtle methods are often needed. That makes no sense as an objection: I agree with your view because it actually supports my position. The more convoluted the arguments against this proposal become, the more convinced I am that it is an idea with merit! :) Geometry guy 14:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy,

I am not sure how "short" and "time-limited" are defined. In view of what I see around, I would prefer the policy to have more specific guidelines. For example, I would limit the blocks which are imposed solely for un-civility to 24h, and request an ANI discussion for longer blocks. The same applies to your proposal, otherwise, it could lead to the same problems as blocking currently does.

Best regards, Sasha (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

PS now that I have read your proto-principles, I see you have similar thoughts. I do think however that some of this should be a rule rather than a principle. Sasha (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: principles and proto-principles are by nature just starting points for developing better governance. I also agree with your view that time limits should be made more explicit. However, in the rare cases where civility-related blocks/bans might be helpful, I would suggest 48 hours as a more appropriate upper bound than 24, as it often takes more than a day for the heat generated by an issue to dissipate. Geometry guy 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You were correct that I hadn't read your proposal... :-) Does it do anything to address the issue of someone seeing the imposition of an unjust topic ban as an escalation? BTW, can you check this edit was OK? Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typo. Regarding my proposal: on its own it will solve nothing because what is needed is a change in attitude, in which we genuinely believe it when we say "preventative, not punitive". If an editor's contributions to a topic/area are contrary to improving the encyclopedia, they need to be told as much, but not with a metaphorical slap for being naughty, just a requirement not to continue the detrimental behavior. The editor thus restricted should have as much opportunity to contest the restriction as they would if they were blocked: indeed (and perhaps this lies behind some of the irrational fears regarding this proposal) they would be able to do so in a public forum such as ANI, rather than being confined to their talk page. Editors should not be silenced unless and until they prove so unable to contribute in accordance with Wikipedia's goals that a site ban is necessary. Geometry guy 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to yr comments on the Arbitration Workshop page

Mind if we continue that conversation away from there? Perhaps in email, so I can speak honestly & name names without worrying about someone taking offense? (If not, one of our talk pages will do.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping things onwiki as far as possible, but my email is enabled, and anyone is welcome to email me at any time: I trust your judgment in using email where it might be more appropriate for candid discussion and/or avoiding offense and disruption. I regard all emails as confidential unless agreed otherwise. Geometry guy 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if I abrievate your name?

Do you mind if I abrievate your account name to GG? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to use whatever abbreviation you like. My own preferred abbreviation is "G'guy" (with "G-guy" and "G guy" as variants), but if that is too long, you could start a new trend with "Gg"; I'm more attached to the capitalization than the words. Thanks for asking, anyway. Geometry guy 00:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article help?

Hi. I have been thinking of ways to ease the learning curve for new reviewers and thought a kind of help desk would be useful. I have made a sketch up of how I imagine it to look here. Before I go too much further or release it to the GA community for digestion I thought I would ask around some of the more experienced editors in the project to get their ideas. I would appreciate any comments you, or any of your interested talk page watchers, might haave towards it either here or on the talk page. You are also more than welcome to make changes directly to it. My basic thinking is that new reviewers would be more willing to ask questions on a dedicated help board and it would keep them all in one place making it more likely that anyone searching could find an answer. It is something that I would have found useful when I stated. I was thinking the FAQ would be an extension of the one at WT:GAN and I am undecided on the value of including individual guides, but if editors are willing to write them it won't hurt to provide easy access to them. If this is going to work it needs a number of editors watching it who are familiar with the process and willing to answer questions (something I thought you might be willing to do). AIRcorn (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a super idea, and an excellent start which I encourage others to look at. I'd be glad to help and will let you know if I have any more specific ideas/suggestions. Geometry guy 14:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Page Views

I had made a similar sampling of 380 random articles. It is now in my sandbox. An observation is that the median page views for random articles is about 300, while it is about 900 for new FA's. Another observation is that the 10% most viewed articles account for 80% of the page views. There is a lot of talk about % of articles. Is there a motivation for counting articles rather than page views? The page views is what people see. Think of Wikipedia as a globe that people sees from a distance. If we want to understand how the articles affect how the globe appears for the viewers, than it is the page views that count, plus their lengths (to some extent) and maybe the occurrence of (colorful) images. --Ettrig (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Would you be able to produce similar data for random GAs?

A couple of methodological questions. First, how did you measure page views? Was it number of hits in November 2011? In my sampling by hand I also had to pick a "typical" month, and chose May 2011. Secondly, why do you find median page views a useful statistic? Personally, I am more interested in the percentage of articles with page views over a given threshold, perhaps for several values of the threshold. Of course that is easy enough to read from your conveniently ordered data: 27/380 = c. 7% with over 3000 hpm and 57/380 = c. 15% with over 1000 hpm. Perhaps not surprisingly, my smaller sample size underestimated both statistics. It would be worth checking a larger sample and/or other months for robustness. Have you published the raw data for FAs, so that similar statistics can be computed?

I understand your point about page views vs. number of articles. However, the latter is important as an approximate measure of the effort needed to produce the work. Further, page views still form a very rough measure of impact, because they attach a uniform value to each page view. For example, a page view of a high quality article on a specialist topic can deliver more value because similar information is disproportionately harder to find elsewhere. Geometry guy 21:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was November, arbitrarily chosen, can be checked by retesting a couple of articles. I am interested in how much service is provided by different article categories to the users. I think this should be fed back to the editors. If this encourages them to choose articles with more page views, the best work is able to do more good. So really, the total number of page views in the category is what I want. But the pareto curves have enormous numbers to the left, a lot of readership is in the first 1000 articles for example. So the average is very sensitive to sampling "errors". My intuition is that the median is much less sensitive. My FA table is in User:Ettrig/FA pageview trends. I have thought for a couple of days that I should refresh my understanding of information theory. Yes, I think there is a very general phenomenon that less common symbols provide more information each time they occur. I feel this could be generalized to something like what you are saying here. My perception is that the FAC community is so hostile to this kind of thinking that these aspects cannot be discussed in a constructive way. I am surprised by how deeply frustrated I am by this. --Ettrig (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now I understand why you chose the median: the mean is not robust. The problem with the median is that it is not clear what it measuring, unless you have an idea what family of probability distributions model the random variable X (such as article monthly page views, or FA monthly page views). For instance, the tails of the distribution could be fat or thin, and that will effect the part of the distribution measured by the median.

What I am sampling is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) f(x) of X, which is the probability that X, i.e., the monthly page views of a random article (or random FA), is less than or equal to x. The probability distribution function (PDF) of X is the derivative of f(x). I am interested in x=1000, whereas others have been interested in x=3000, but one can use a sample to estimate the graph of f as a function of x. As you say, it is sharply peaked. However, if you consider instead the random variable Y = log (X) giving the logarithm of monthly page views, you will find it is not sharply peaked. On the contrary, its CDF is similar to the CDF of the normal distribution. Consequently, the mean of Y should be a more robust statistic, because it is the peak of the PDF, hence values close to the mean of Y are very probable. Another way to say this is that the PDF of X is approximately log-normal (its logarithm is normal). There are good reasons to expect this: X is nonnegative (>=0) and both very small (<1) and very large (>10 million) values are unlikely.

In summary, rather than taking the median, I suggest taking the log of the data, averaging that, and then taking the exponential of the resulting mean. This is a kind of "multiplicative mean" more appropriate to random variables with a log-normal behavior.

For my own interests, I checked that about 71% of FAs have pageviews above 1000 hpm, which means that among 0.15*4 million = 600000 such articles, approximately 2500 (0.71*3448) are FA, about 0.4%. The overall statistic is slightly better at the 3000 hpm threshold. When such an analysis is broken down by year, it agrees with your own: a recent decline in monthly pageviews of FAs.

I don't share your perception and frustration, however. TCOs flawed analysis was rightly met with opposition for many reasons: he failed to consider or understand the nature of volunteers, the role of FA, the vitality of all contributions, and he used statistics to advance a misguided agenda that FA should fix a problem it is not equipped to fix. Right now, discussion at FA is clouded by uncertainty about leadership issues, so statistics are unlikely to get a fair hearing.

If you have patience, however, and wait for calmer times, then present your comments without trying to advance an agenda, or criticizing the good work of other editors, you may find the response more receptive. Geometry guy 22:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding. I am not sure your justification of log-normal distribution is quite convincing. Page views of a fixed page should be Poisson in any reasonable model. You are however considering tail events (pages with large number of views), so a naive model (albeit somewhat discouraging for editors that take FA seriously) would be a maximum (2nd maximum, 3rd maximum, ...) of independent Poisson variables. I would check that before suggesting more complicated statistics. Sasha (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, and please don't be sorry: I am not a statistician and welcome ideas for better approaches. I'm working in an approximation in which the random variable is continuous rather than discrete (I wasn't justifying log-normal, only observing it in the data, and indicating why log-normal might be a better approximation than normal). I find a CDF easier to understand than a max of a large number of independent Poisson variables. I wouldn't be surprised if there are theorems about limits of such maxima, but I am not a statistician, so I will ask my colleagues. Geometry guy 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this, but don't see how it helps. I agree that page views of a fixed page should be governed by a Poisson distribution, but each page has a different Poisson parameter (i.e, hpm), and we are trying to estimate the PDF of the parameter among Wikipedia articles. No argument based on a fixed page can determine that. Geometry guy 22:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I will think about it more seriously (probably, in a couple of days). Best, Sasha (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! This kind of question must have been studied extensively by now, but finding a good approach is not so easy! Geometry guy 01:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical discussion of statistical aspects

(in a separate subsection, in order not to overload the previous discussion. Also, caveat emptor: what follows is dilettante advise)

Let us start from the basics. What is your goal? If you perform a statistical test, you either have a hypothesis that you want to check, or a parameter that you want to estimate (preferably, the former). Could you state it?

Sasha (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My goal is the following. Given a class S of Wikipedia articles (e.g., all articles, all featured articles etc.), let X be the random variable on S whose value on an article is the mean hpm of that article (hpm = hits or pageviews per month, with the average taken over the last year, say). Describe the distribution of X on S. (For instance if the hpm of a given article is Poisson with parameter lambda, I am interested in the distribution of lambda on S.) A concrete parameter to measure could be the geometric mean of X.

However, since S is large and unstructured, an indirect approach may be easier. For example...

• Turn the question around and ask instead for the fraction of articles in S with mean hpm in a given range. This fraction is a random variable on [0,\infty) with uniform (Lebesgue) measure, taking values in [0,1], and I would like to know its distribution.
• Order S so that X is decreasing (equivalently, take a minimax: for a given number n, consider the minimum over collections of n articles of the max value of X on the collection) and pretend it is infinite. I think this is what I was doing above: my guess is then the hypothesis that X is log-normally distributed.
• One could instead consider the minimum max value of X on a given fraction of articles to obtain a random variable on [0,1] with values in [0,\infty). I don't know what a good hypothesis is here.

Geometry guy 17:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For me your statement is too mathematical for a starting point (unless your goal is statistical analysis of wikipedia in the spirit of this). I thought the discussion is about FA/GA and how they influence page views, am I right?

• regarding your second remark, I would bet on a max-stable distribution.

Sasha (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can state it less mathematically if you prefer!

I am interested in comparing page views for different classes of articles: all, FA, GA, "vital" etc.

The measure I want to use is the average hpm of an article. I want to see the influence of the type of article on the profile of hpm for articles of that type. The experiments I am able to perform to study this have the form: take a random selection of articles of a given type, and look up their page views in a given month (or perhaps a random selection of recent months). I can view this data by plotting pageviews against articles, ordered by popularity. I thus get a distinctive profile curve which estimates the profile of hpm for all articles of that type. I need some sort of model for the profiles I get, so that I can identify important features (I think the geometric mean is one such feature) and hence compare different types of articles. Geometry guy 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's try the following. Suppose hpm has a distribution (which we can estimate empirically; we should take into account that it changes from year to year, but we should do it carefully: GA/FA are tail events, so we should get a good estimate of the tails). Then we can "rate" a page in a natural way: the score of a page is the quantile of the hpm in this distribution. After this, we can ask, for example

• is the score of most FA/GA pages larger than 1/2 (I hope so, otherwise GA/FA is not of great use)
• how does the score of a new GA/FA page (measured with respect to the 2012 statistics) compare to that of a page promoted in, say, 2010 (measured with respect to the statistics of 2010)?

A simpler way to say all this is to ask, which percent of pages have higher hpm than a given FA page (in particular, is this parameter for an average new FA page better or worse than in 2010). Does this make sense?

Sasha (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense: in particular, "which percent of pages (perhaps of a restricted type) have a higher hpm than a given page" is exactly the parameter I wish to understand, and what I seek is ways of understanding it. Geometry guy 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarise what I understood so far.

• we define a parameter "which percent of pages (perhaps of a restricted type) have a higher hpm than a given page", and we are interested in its distribution in different classes of pages
• one technical issue is how to measure the percentile precisely: we are interested in tail events, so we need to sample the tails properly
• K.W. raises (as far as I understand it) a more conceptual issue: we would like to know how the FA review process (rather than the FA tag) influences the parameter. Therefore he suggests different ways to distinguish statistically between the two (I do not know whether either of these is technically feasible, but this is an important thing to keep in mind).

Sasha (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good summary. I have another way of describing the conceptual issue. The FA tag can influence pageviews in two ways: first there is selection bias, in that articles are not chosen at random to bring to FA status; second, there is the effect of FA status on the article, in terms of the improvement in quality, the extensive editing to the article, the appearance on the main page, and the listing of the article at WP:FA. It is difficult to separate the two effects, but I'd like to be clear that my initial interest in this question concerns the selection bias, not the post-FA effects. I want to know to what extent FA preferentially improves articles that people want to read. In some sense, therefore, I don't mind too much the post-FA effect, as long as it doesn't dominate: for instance, if the quality improvement makes people want to read the article more, there's nothing wrong with that per se. Ditto mutatis mutandis for GA. Geometry guy 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

well, Ettrig argues that his data tells us something about the quality of the FA review process. Since I am not sure I (or anyone who does not invest a much greater effort in this project) can perform what K.W. calls "observational study" in a satisfactory way, it is not obvious to me that any (non-intrusive) statistics can tell us anything about the FA/GA process. Statistically speaking, you need to prove that the FA review has any influence on the parameter (i.e. that the parameter of an article promoted to FA without any review will not increase as well). If not, page view statistics is of no help (to you or to Ettrig). This is what K.W. writes, and this sounds quite convincing to me. Sasha (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I note at KW-Talk, unlike Ettrig, I am not interested in using statistics to make a point. I am interested in understanding the correlation between review processes and pageviews, with no preconceptions. This is why I have been resistant to proposing a specific hypothesis or statistical test. Geometry guy 02:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Randomized experiment better than observational study

Sasha asked me to look at this discussion.

The scientific question is to determine the influence of quality ranking on page views. Of course, the Baconian scientific method would be to do an experiment, and the Peircian scientific method would be randomly to assign promotions to articles....

Randomized experiment

)

It is probably worthwhile to conduct a randomized experiment. Let WMF allow us secretly to protect 30 or so articles at GA level (but not matching on covariates like WikiProject, etc.---to avoid estimating nuisance parameters). Then randomly assign half FA status for 1-2 months, and freeze the others at GA status (for 1-2 months). Then compare the page views (or logs, etc.).

Observational study (

What about an observational study, perhaps using a subjective so-called "statistical model"?

The problem is that quality changes are not randomly assigned to the articles, so that there is no objective warrant for comparing e.g. promoted articles with articles that were not promoted. The analysis will be subjective, like making a pancake. That said, there are better and worse methods of making pancakes..., so I shall suggest a method that is not as bad as other methods for causal inference on observational data.

My first thought would be that you should use propensity-score matching. Conduct logistic regression on the outcome of interest (e.g. being promoted or not, when considered at GA/FA Nomination), using covariates suggested by experts (which should include qualitative factors like "nominated [written] by an editor with a successful FA nomination [article]", etc.). Then match articles (within WikiProjects) having similar GA promotion-dates and with the closest propensity scores.

There are other issues, but I think the study design of selecting exposed and non-exposed is the most important.

It might be informative to examine a project that produces rather homogeneous articles, particularly if the leader improves articles rather haphazardly, e.g. by alphabetical order of GA articles about hurricanes. (I doubt that anybody does nearly random GA--FA transformations.)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that Sasha asked for your advice and many thanks for commenting here. It will take a while for me to digest your ideas, but I will let you know if they prove helpful. I have also replied to Sasha above, as he has highlighted the parameter I wish to understand. Geometry guy 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout and Wikipedia policies

I have mixed feelings about the blackout. Maybe act== ion is necessary, but this is not clear to me, and the chosen action goes too far in my view. Nevertheless, I believe that a number of arguments against taking action are fallacious, and that there is an opportunity here to articulate and discuss the applicability and meaning of fundamental policies such as WP:NPOV. In particular, WP:NPOV does not mean, as editors and the press often state, that "Wikipedia is neutral", far from it.

For more, see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_95#WP:NPOV, WP:POINT and the blackout. Geometry guy 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In some quarters there does seem to be a misunderstanding about how and where WP:NPOV applies. As has been said elsewhere our content must be neutral but the fact of our existence is far from it. We challenge established business models by giving away for free what has formerly been sold. We challenge the notion of ownership of information by encouraging everyone to contribute what they can and to take what they will; no longer is information the province of an informed minority to be passed on to those deemed worthy enough to receive it and in a manner and quantity of their choosing. We frighten individuals, organisations and even governments to the extent that we're the target of organised campaigns and censored in many countries. None of this is remotely neutral. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I raised this during the first poll and was glad to see the WMF attempting to explain the distinction. Geometry guy 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

Would you mind commenting on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article talk page under this section to provide your opinion on this edit I made that has since been reverted?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It would take some work for me to do enough background reading to comment on that issue, so I can't promise anything for sure. Meanwhile, I note that you reverted a compromise edit at September 11 attacks. Such reversions do not help to build consensus: instead they may trigger edit wars. Geometry guy 22:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

DA seems to think that just because something is verifiable, it belongs on Wikipedia. I've tried explaining WP:WEIGHT but he doesn't seem to get it. In a nutshell, this is a minor point that rarely - I mean rarely - gets mentioned in secondary reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the "compromise" is not as good as what was changed. If it was just as good or improved on what was inserted then I would have no objections. As to my initial comment, AQFK has been quite insistent as you can see above about the mention of the Reichstag fire comparison being undue weight. Even after pointing out multiple major reliable sources noting the comparison, such as an article from a major news outlet that spends two paragraphs on the comparison and uses it as a segue into a broader criticism of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, AQFK has insisted there need to be more mentions in order to include the material in the article. I believe, as do several other editors, that the threshold for inclusion has more than been met.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is just an initial condition. It is not the only condition. All policies need to be taken into consideration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except my argument has never been just about WP:V. Given that 9/11 CTs already get minimal coverage in independent reliable sources, aspects of those theories will similarly have a lower level of coverage so a different understanding is needed for WP:UNDUE when it comes to articles on fringe theories. For a few sentences of material in the article, the level of coverage given to the Reichstag fire comparison more than satisfies the threshold for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in, but above you say "The problem is that the 'compromise' is not as good as what was changed." It seems to me that this is the essence of compromise :) EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, 9/11 CTs get plenty of coverage in secondary reliable sources. A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[1] I already told you this so why would you repeat something that is demonstratably false?
• No, a "different understanding" is not needed for WP:UNDUE and there is no basis in policy for such a claim.

Please, just stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take this to your talk page rather than cluttering up Geo's.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss the matter here. I may be able to make some (with luck, helpful) comments. Geometry guy 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Raw Google hits are meaningless as I have already explained to you before. It doesn't tell you if these are significant or trivial mentions. It doesn't tell you if the article is actually about the conspiracy theories or just mentions them in connection with a story. Actually looking through the mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theories reveals that most are trivial mentions or merely part of a story on a group or individuals that only mentions that said group or individual espouses such theories, without elaborating further. As to what I said about WP:UNDUE, it is consistent with policy that we make the kind of considerations I am talking about. The question is not whether the source receives as much or anywhere close to as much general coverage as the subject of the overall article, but whether it has numerous significant mentions. Given the minimal amount of coverage said theories get period there does need to be a different understanding. Having one or two major news article spending a few paragraphs on something would not normally justify inclusion, but when you are dealing with a subject that itself gets minimal coverage it is far more meaningful to have such mentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on this article for a couple years now. I've literally read dozens (maybe hundreds) of articles on the subject. My opinion that it's undue weight is based on that broad range of literature. It's unrealistic for me to ask you to go read dozens or hundreds of articles. The Google search results are an excellent way to easily judge relative weight. No, it's not perfect, but you haven't offered any other justification for this content. Yes, some of the search results aren't reliable or only contain trivial mentions, but a lot of them are reliable and provide significant coverage. And it's not like it's even close. 99.9% is an overwhelming majority no matter how you look at it. Another way to judge weight is to look at tertiary sources but again, you haven't done this either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some preliminary comments based on a few observations rather than an in-depth analysis.

1. I see no justification here for a paragraph on Reichstag fire comparisons, nor do I see any justification for a mention in the lead (an earlier proposal leading to this one).
2. Almost any source is a reliable source for what that source believes. In the present context, most conspiracy theorists are reliable sources for their own beliefs. Thus primary sources sometimes suffice, and secondary sources are not needed, for verification. However, secondary source coverage is needed to judge notability (in the English language sense) and hence due weight (in the NPOV sense). There is no algorithm here: secondary sources may indicate particular conspiracy theorists or theories are notable, but we may still need primary source material to describe accurately the most significant views held by such theorists or presented in such theories.
3. The editorial friction here needs to stop. Editing in any subject with a controversial aspect will likely result in conflicts, and may occasionally lead to disruptive behavior, which may in turn also result in sanctions. Such behavioral and interpersonal issues should be separated as far as possible from content improvement issues. Most established editors contributing to an article do so because they believe their contributions are helping to improve the encyclopedia, and one of the purposes of WP:AGF is to make such assumptions about other editors the default ground rules.
4. If editors are contributing what they believe is "right", i.e., best for the encyclopedia, then when they disagree with each other, they do so because they believe their view is better for the encyclopedia than the opposing view. This is the crucial forking point where the disagreement can either lead to mutual understanding and article improvement, or strife and article paralysis.
   • Note A. AQFK believes he is right because TDA doesn't understand WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE. However, not so long ago, he believed I didn't either (and/or I believed he didn't!). He doubted then, as now, that others do not understand WP:NPOV. NPOV is a really difficult policy to understand, as the whole blackout debate has shown, so we should expect to pick out different nuances from other editors.
5. To some extent we all edit because we think we know best. I'm writing this because I think I know best. However, I always edit with the acceptance that others may not recognize my genius see things in a different way. We cannot impose what we think is best; we have to negotiate and compromise. I draw attention to EyeSerene's remark that most parties typically view a compromise as "not as good" as their own preference.
   • Note B. TDA believes he is right because AQFK is inflexible, and is preventing the improvement of the encyclopedia. Consequently, he is more ready to revert to his preferred version, rather than engage in compromise. Why turn to other editors like me for their view on this paragraph, rather than seek compromise?
6. Given the state of the 9/11CT article, I would be reluctant to admit I had been involved in it for many years. It is a sprawling mess that conflates and confuses many different responses to 9/11 under an unencyclopedic and labeling "conspiracy" banner. More subarticles are clearly needed here, and then we need to gather them into something encyclopedic and informative, not argumentative and dismissive.
7. Finally, I see no harm in including a sentence on Reichstag fire comparisons as an example of beliefs held by some conspiracy theorists. However, the passive tense "Parallels have also been drawn..." is, in my opinion, the wrong approach to such a sentence: more specific attribution is needed to make this an example. I also see no harm in omitting this information.

In short, the issue under dispute is a triviality, but such minor issues are opportunities to reach mutual understanding and find compromises. I hope they can be found here. Geometry guy 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm out of here. I have no interest in trying to be reasonable with those who don't understand/agree with policy. If you disagree with policy, the correct venue to change these policies are these policies themselves. Let me know when consensus has been reached to change WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be contributing here with an arrogant attitude that you have some personal hotline to the meaning of policies (and how they help to improve the encyclopedia) that other editors lack. As long as harbor such an attitude, you will not be able to work effectively with others to improve the encyclopedia, and you will find editing Wikipedia a lonely and frustrating process. Given the hesitation and multiple edits it took you to reach your above conclusion, I hope that such appearances are misleading. Geometry guy 05:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the dispute is trivial. The comparison is most often mentioned in conspiracist sources in connection with the Patriot Act and other domestic developments following 9/11, giving it added relevance as other comparisons I have noticed only talk about using 9/11 to justify war. Essentially, excluding it excludes a relevant and significant characteristic of the conspiracy theories.

As to my attitude on this. I was accusing AQFK of being inflexible because his attitude on these two disputes has mostly been to say "I don't like it so it's gone" while cherry-picking policies and guidelines. His activity on the discussion page has mostly been to stonewall any efforts at compromise. Had AQFK rewritten the inserted material on the 9/11 article, for instance, that would be more acceptable, but he just performed a partial revert literally saying "I like this version" ignoring all the objections on the talk page. At the same time he has completely ignored consensus on the 9/11 CT article talk page for including the Reichstag comparison and reverted every attempt at including the information.

On a further note, the length of the Reichstag mention the last time around was about addressing a concern AQFK had about these historical precedents not mentioning the mainstream perspective on those events. Also, the source I was using used the comparison to suggest something about the 9/11 CTs in general that I thought should be mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have delayed replying to slow things down a bit, but owe you a reply nonetheless. No dispute is trivial to those involved in it, but it can look very different from a distance. I have been quite critical of both yourself and AQFK here, more so than I would be in any other venue: I consider that editors posting here are interested in my honest opinion, and respond accordingly. (Whereas Article talk is for improving articles, User talk is for mutual understanding.) I have noticed that AQFK seems to stonewall and cherry pick policies sometimes: this is common among editors who fear a "slippery slope". I have referred to this as Wikilawyering: I do not regard the term as an insult, as relying upon policies is an important part of improving Wikipedia. However, policies are a means to an end (not least because they set out common ground as to what "improving" Wikipedia means), rather than an end in themselves.

Whatever flaws you perceive in other editors, responding to like with like is not going to improve the situation. You have to rise above it. I have also noticed that you seem to be greatly distrusted, not just by AQFK and MONGO, but by Tom Harrison as well. I know how that feels, because my intentions were distrusted during the 9/11 GAR. The basic problem here is editors believing that their preferred content must stand because it is the best content, proven by the fact that they are right^TM (with whatever justification they believe proves that they are right). If it were as simple as that, writing Wikipedia would be easy, and there would never be any conflict.

If you want to make progress, you have to seek progress and look for progress, not disagreement and confrontation. AQFK may have made a partial revert at 9/11, but thanks to MONGO's idea to add a see also, the awkward "reveal" sentence was dropped. Such progress involved editors coming together, discussing the issue, and finding some common ground. It is a shame it took so much work to improve a couple of sentences, but discussion is more likely to achieve progress than charging in with a declaration that "I am right, so my edit must stand". Geometry guy 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To that I'd add that although it can sometimes seem like a disproportionate amount of time and effort must be spent to achieve common ground on something that might appear inconsequential (or even self-evident and not requiring of discussion), it's one of the few ways we have of building a working relationship with each other in an environment where all we have to go on are faceless text posts. Working to establish mutual trust and respect—even if it means agreeing to a sub-optimal edit or two in the name of compromise—generally pays off in the long run. EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

BRD

Please, I try to follow WP:BRD. I really wish you would do the same. Contrary to what you might think, I am reasonable and I do try to listen to those who have different views than mine. But I really don't want to edit-war. We spent 2 months discussing this on the talk page. If you want to change consensus, please do it on the article talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are failing miserably and need to get your own house in order before you have any right to comment on my single action in this dispute. I don't have a strong preference between the two alternatives, as they say almost the same thing. There is nothing "bold" about changing:

The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture in general

into

Beyond the political ramifications, the 9/11 attacks have significantly impacted society and culture in general.

It is an incremental edit, a suggestion for improvement. It has almost nothing to do with the 2 months spent discussing the inclusion of a cultural impact section, which was almost entirely about the benefit of mentioning conspiracy theories in context rather than as a "See also". Changes to the first two sentences have been discussed subsequently, with several editors making helpful contributions: your main input to that discussion was "I like my wording better". Subsequent to that discussion you partially reverted to your own wording and have been using reverts to impose your preferences ever since. If you have ownership issues, lets discuss them. If you have problems with TDA, lets discuss that too. If there is something about your wording that means it must stand (is it the word "geopolitics" and if so why?), then raise it on article talk.

But stop deluding yourself that you are acting as a guardian of consensus, when you are making reverts to impose your own minor preferences. Geometry guy 23:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is partially to do with the word "geopolitics". It just sounds better to my ears. I'm sorry if I cannot articulate it better than that.

There is also change in meaning. The second version says that the changes are significant. I don't think that's true. Unless you're traveling on an airplane, most people go about there daily lives pretty much the same as before 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to describe, I agree. In many ways, the main long-term impact has been on security (particularly at airports) and civil liberties, but there is a cultural undercurrent as well, which this section aims to describe. The view of people in the rest of the world about America has also changed in complicated ways, as has the Western view of Islam. These things all have had effects on every day life, and are reflected by media all over the world. Whether they qualify for the word "significant" is a matter for discussion. What I want to encourage is engagement and discussion, because no editor alone has all the answers.

Meanwhile, you will probably have noticed that I have been critical of TDA promoting individual judgment calls about what is or what isn't appropriate for inclusion in the the 9/11 CTs article. I know you both believe you are doing your best to improve Wikipedia: I wouldn't be engaging in discussions like these if I thought otherwise (I would ignore you, or walk away). My honest opinion is that you both have a lot to gain by imagining yourself in the position of the other, and observing the way the other edits from that different viewpoint. Geometry guy 23:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...my second concern can be addressed by simply removing "significantly" but I'm not sure how to address the first. I think part of the reason I like the current version is that it uses an action verb ("extends") instead of a non-action verb ("have"). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Geopolitics sounds cool, but it is too limited. There were various domestic effects on politics that wouldn't be covered under that term, which is why I keep putting in "political" as it covers the whole field.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the preference for active verbs, and I took that into account in my own attempts at wording. However "have" is not a non-action verb in the phrase "have impacted"; it is instead the perfect tense of "to impact". I usually find the perfect tense more encyclopedic than the present tense, because it indicates something that began in the past but may be ongoing. Switching tenses in the two alternatives above gives:

The impact of 9/11 has extended beyond geopolitics into society and culture in general

Beyond the political ramifications, the 9/11 attacks significantly impact society and culture in general

The choice of tense rather than the verb seems to make more of a difference here. None of these are overarching considerations, however. What matters in reaching consensus are concerns over words such as "impact" (especially as a verb), "significantly" and "geopolitics". Also, as a copyeditor, I would suggest "in general" is padding, carrying little meaning, and that placing "Beyond the political ramifications" at the beginning of the sentence results in a hanging noun phrase. This reduces the options to the choice of tense and subject. Here are the four options, worded similarly for easy comparison (I am using "the political arena" as a placeholder for some compromise between "geopolitics" and "politics", but it seems like a reasonable choice to me).

1. The effects of 9/11 extend beyond the political arena into society and culture
2. The effects of 9/11 have extended beyond the political arena into society and culture
3. The 9/11 attacks affect society and culture beyond the political arena
4. The 9/11 attacks have affected society and culture beyond the political arena.

Can you guess my preferences? What are your preferences? Geometry guy 23:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Political arena" is a pretty good wording. Geopolitics is just a subset of politics and the effect of 9/11 was well beyond just geopolitics. As far as "in general" that is not padding, but is included for the same type of reason that I oppose "geopolitics" in the sentence. Politics is really just a subset of society and culture. That's why they call it the "social" sciences. Saying "in general" means it goes beyond just a subset of the social experience to cover the entire cultural environment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you approve, but you didn't state any preferences.

There are aspects of society and culture which were not affected by 9/11, so "in general" says nothing that is not already implied by "beyond". Trust me, it would just get deleted at FAC (or indeed by any competent copyeditor). Geometry guy 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. By saying it extends beyond politics into society and culture period you are implying that politics is not part of society and culture. Politics is part of society and culture so there needs to be something to accommodate that. It doesn't need to be impacting every aspect of society to be impacting it in general either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I also have a problem with having the paragraph start off with "the" as it does in your version.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and I am implying no such thing, nor is the English language. But even if it did, it would make no difference: the sentence would then be referring to the part of society and culture which is not politics, with no change in meaning. However, I don't need it explaining to me that Political Science is a branch of Social Science: academy is my bread and butter. "Beyond" is evidently not being used here in the sense "on the other side" ("beyond the river"), but in the sense "outside the scope" or "more than". Something can extend "beyond US politics into global politics", "beyond New York City into New York State", "beyond the solar system into the galaxy", "beyond homeopathy into alterative medicine", "beyond this discussion into the wider context". None of these sentences imply, e.g., that New York City is not in New York State.

I entirely agree that a topic doesn't need to impact every aspect to impact in general, and that is precisely why "in general" adds no additional meaning than is already implied by "beyond". Geometry guy 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. Paragraphs often start with "The". I'm sorry you have a problem with that: most people do not, and it is not bad style; hanging noun phrases are. The 9/11 article begins with "The" as do c. 23 other paragraphs in the article.

Sorry, but you are just wrong about this. Some of your examples would imply that the subjects are separate, with those that don't being mainly because of some other word being introduced. Someone saying beyond NYC would most likely say "inland New York State" or "the rest of New York State" because otherwise it would imply NYC is not a part of New York state. Saying it goes from domestic politics to global politics obviously doesn't imply they are separate subjects because both are clearly described as politics. Saying a discussion extends into the "wider context" again does not imply separation because of the word "wider" being used before context. Also, that a bunch of paragraphs in the article start with "the" does not somehow mean we should have more. In fact, we should find ways to cut down on repetitive structure like that. Something of that nature is more likely going to be a problem in an FAC than what you are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ROFL and citation needed! Sorry, but you are just being argumentative.

You have just argued that "beyond" does not imply the subjects are separate when the subjects are not separate, yet also stated that politics is not separate from society and culture. Thus: "beyond" does not imply politics is separate from society and culture. However, if you believe "beyond" does imply separateness, then you shouldn't be using the word "beyond" here in the first place!

Grammar does not imply falsehood when other interpretations are available. How about "Beyond US politics into geopolitics"? Does that imply US politics is part of geopolitics or not? They are both clearly described as politics.

As for the word "the", I agree that it is terribly repetetive, so let's cut it out altogether: if Slavic languages can do without definite articles, why can't we? </humor>

The 9/11 article has about 90 paragraphs, so c. 23 is not excessive. I have not seen any style guide support your view, and I consult dictionaries and style guides regularly. Now, if you are not interested in my advice and expertise, that's fine, but don't argue with me over trivia like this. Geometry guy 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please cease this incivility. I have been tolerating it enough from other editors in this topic area recently.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Devil's Advocate! Why not give this thread a rest for 3-7 days, and then have everybody come back with fresh eyes? Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to apologize for anything you found uncivil, TDA. The key question is, are you still interested in my help and advice? It doesn't come cheap: there will be challenging observations, sometimes delivered with humor, as above. Enduring the heat of the kitchen is optional. If you remain interested, let me know, in your own time, and state your preferences regarding tense and subject (options 1-4) above (see also the thread below). If you are not, then I wish you all the best, in particular in finding rapprochement with AQFK. Geometry guy 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What I can tell you right now is that if there is one thing that will strike people as boring and unprofessional it will be a bunch of paragraphs starting out with the exact same word. Multiple sentences starting with the same word is another thing. Repetition can work in poetry, but becomes tedious when trying to present an engaging review of historical facts. As far as my opinion on the above options, I think one is the best model to work with, but this use of "the" to start out the paragraph needs to be addressed before I can support a change.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That you opted to use the barbaric "starting out with" ought to tell you everything you need to know. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus,

"You could make a preacher cuss!" (Heard from an 8-year-old in a tree yelling at her 6-year-old brother, about half a mile into a 10-mile deep hollow in West Virginia)

You should learn Swedish to appreciate the Germanic prepositional pile-ons of American English, particularly in the areas around the "Pennsylvania Dutch" (German-speaking settlers of Pennsylvania).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Misappropriating prepositions does seem to be a peculiarly American disease. Another of my pet peeves is "outside of". Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, but please be gentle, Malleus: as can be seen above, no one likes to hear that their grasp of English language usage is lacking. Since you have commented, however, do you know any style guidelines that caution against overusing the definite article at the beginning of a paragraph? Everyone knows that conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence are rarely appropriate, but TDA's concern is completely new to me. Geometry guy 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The work I do with online games ... we try to avoid starting paragraphs with "A", "An" or "The" in our descriptive writing, but it's a personal style thing and mainly because the words tend to be SO overused that if you make a conscious effort to avoid them, you'll then avoid the issue of starting every other sentence/paragraph with them, thus falling into the trap of boring writing. (Sorry, I'm not Malleus, but I figured I was welcome enough). It's like all writing advice, there are no hard and fast "rules" (no matter what our teachers in our younger years said), so it should be treated as a guideline. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are always welcome here, Ealdgyth, and I am happy (also on TDA's behalf) to see that there is some support for avoiding (in)definite articles at the beginning of paragraphs. However, 25% usage doesn't seem boring to me. Much more problematic, in my experience on Wikipedia, is proseline, where nearly every paragraph begins with "in" or "on". Geometry guy 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, and compounded with the American love of commas "In 1874, ..." it's a real irritation. Malleus Fatuorum 05:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the idea that starting a sentence with a conjunction is wrong is another one of those things we were taught at school but is completely untrue. Much like "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'". From memory Fowler called it a "superstition". Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about 9 or 10 when I was introduced to "i before e": I immediately modified the rule to "i before e except after c, w and h". It becomes much more accurate when you do that, but no rule is perfect. Geometry guy 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't take the wording of my talk page comments nearly as seriously as those of articles.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Novel solution?

What if we presented the issue on the Language Reference Desk and allowed uninvolved editors to settle the issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What about? The meaning of the word "beyond"? Whether it is permissible to start a paragraph with "the"? An explanation of the concept of a "dangling modifier" (which I refer to as a "hanging noun phrase", although "hanging prepositional phrase" might be more accurate)? The difference between the present tense and the perfect tense?

There are two simple stylistic choices to be made here: what is the subject of the sentence, and what tense should it use. A reference desk can't tell you which one to make, because it is a choice. I have asked both of you to express a preference, and neither of you have done so. Why not? My recommendation as a copyeditor and reviewer would be option 4. That doesn't mean I think the other options are bad, nor does it mean that I am proposing any of them as exact wording.

If you want to pad out the sentence with "in general", or start it with a hanging noun phrase, go ahead. I don't mind. I entered this discussion because you disagreed and refused to listen to each other: I have tried to mediate and provide stylistic advice. If you are not interested in it, ignore it. If you can agree on a different wording, then let it be. If you want to consult the Language Reference Desk, do so. Geometry guy 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This thread makes me long for another ANI/RfC/ArbCom discussion. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your question because I didn't like any of these proposals. But I find it dissappointing that you apparently don't understand what this dispute is about or the fact that you're involved in it (and not a mediator). A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

And you apparently have not read much of what I wrote above. My proposals were not intended to determine the wording, but to help you and TDA agree on the subject of the sentence and the tense. You can be "dissappointed" (sic) and call me "involved" if you like, but since I WP:DGAF what wording you and TDA agree on, I am not the one obstructing progress here. You are right that I do not understand how anyone could be so dogmatic about such fine points of wording of a single, not particularly controversial, sentence in an article with far worse problems. It seems as if you and TDA just like to argue, with each other, or with whoever happens to be available. You repeatedly respond "I don't like it", either with spurious justifications or stony silence, as you admit in this case.

I am not the one who has lost their sense of perspective here: I have other topics to edit and other things to do. In my entire wiki-career, I don't think I have ever broken WP:1RR, yet you do so on a regular basis. So get off your high horse and start engaging with TDA. If you don't want my participation in such engagement, or my copyediting advice, please do so elsewhere, not on my talk page. Geometry guy 15:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not read much of what you wrote; why you two are obsessing over this sentence is beyond me. But I suggest that you cease with personal attacks. We spent two months hammering out this wording on the article talk page. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to get the wording changed. You should accept that your changes have failed to gain consensus. I offered to turn over this dispute to uninvolved editors but you refused. It's time to back away from the horse now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Sadly any critique from me (alleged as "personal attacks" by you) is entirely redundant to your own admissions and remarks, which are more damning of your editorial qualities than any comment I could even come close to making. First you confess that you ignored the discussion because you did not like any of the options being proposed. Now you further admit that you did not even read the discussion you were commenting on, to the extent that you did not understand exactly what was being proposed! That's a really unimpressive combination of "I don't like it" and "I didn't hear that".

Now you allege personal attacks, moments after accusing others of being obsessive about just one sentence, despite the fact that you made more reverts to that sentence than all other editors on all sides of the discussion! Then, being unread, like a broken record, you repeat a position, long-ago refuted, that your choice of wording was "hammered out" by the two month discussion on including conspiracy theories in the article text. Finally, having contributed little other than reverts towards improving the article, you have the nerve to assert that "your changes have failed to gain consensus" and trot out a bunch of wiki-cliches to justify your position (including a horse).

That is pretty extraordinary behavior. I will examine your position more closely below, as other editors may find it illuminating. Geometry guy 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my last comment was in reference to the post that you asked me about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with having the general question of wording reviewed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

The discussions about replacing a "see also" link to conspiracy theories by in-text discussion resulted in a consensus to include such text as part of a general discussion of cultural impact. There was very little discussion of the surrounding cultural impact text. In particular the first two sentences were not discussed at all. They were however, discussed extensively at Talk:September_11_attacks#Beginning_of_cultural_impact_section, where AQFK initially contributed, but then stopped. He reverted changes proposed as a consequence, but only partially, and has subsequently stonewalled over what I consider to be trivialities.

In admitting change, AQFK has accepted that his text is not protected by some "two month hammering out" clause, and nor should it be. Yet he continues to use this argument to support his position. My conclusion from this is that AQFK's notion of "consensus" on the article is that he has a personal veto, so that changes are only acceptable if he approves of them. He has displayed all of the hallmarks of article ownership, something expressly forbidden.

It remains to respond to allegations of "obsession" on my part. My so-called "involvement" in this particular issue essentially began with this attempt to articulate consensus (described here as an optimistic look forward to a return to normal editing). I cannot help improve a page unless normal editing conditions apply. Alas my optimism was misplaced, as there are article owners who will revert first, ask questions later, and who even have the nerve to come to my talk page and say "I don't want an edit war, as long as my text stands, so I reverted your edit". That is not an environment in which article improvement can take place.

It was a test, because I do not want to waste my time on improving articles where there are ongoing ownership problems. Tom and MONGO both engaged cooperatively (as did TDA and Moxy) so there is hope yet. Sadly, AQFK, you have failed that test, as you have proved yourself more willing to revert than read or discuss. Geometry guy 00:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PR problem

WP:PR is huge because it is being copied into itself - I can't figure it out. See also User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews - any help would be greatly appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is almost always caused by someone crosslisting a peer review, but not wrapping the extra category in "noincludes". The tricky part is finding who dunnit. Fortunately, in this case, the miscreant :) piped the name of the article (Canadian comics) so the peer review page got listed under C at Category:Arts peer reviews, and Wikipedia:Peer review/Canadian comics/archive1 was the first one listed under C there, so was easily found and fixed. The next VeblenBot run should now clear the problem.

This happens often enough that we should probably try to devise a fix, or suitable instructions for cross-listing. When experienced editors are involved, some wet fish might be in order :) Geometry guy 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much - you're the best! I could not recall the problem or find it myself. I am going to copy this to PR talk so I can find it next time in the archives. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Shackles and chains

It is so liberting to know that my COI will be removed as of February 7, and I can start dealing with issues that have long gone unaddressed, but I couldn't speak up because I had to stay "neutral". If all of those folks who think there is some "power" in being director or delegate understood that it actually was constraining ... no power at all, only shackles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. It has been a while since you stopped by here, so allow me to extend an especially warm welcome. Anyone who wants to be an FAC delegate must be deeply committed to the encyclopedia, as it an extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming, and constraining role. I have a taste of that from my days of closing GARs. And it can be thankless, or worse: aggressive emails from disgruntled editors doubting one's good faith, for example. I'm glad you are looking forward to your liberation. I'm much less involved in GA myself these days. I always view editing Wikipedia as part of my leisure time, and like the freedom to choose how I will spend it. That said, feel free to let me know if I can help with any of your endeavors. All the best, Geometry guy 20:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It has? I thought I stopped here regularly-- well, forgive my bad manners! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are quite right, you do stop by here regularly, so please do not apologize: your name is all over the current page. I guess I meant that the last few months have been pretty hectic, and you are a busy editor, so I appreciate you stopping by in the sense of pausing for breath and starting a chat! Geometry guy 20:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Two things

Criticizing Arbcom is the flavor of the month, so I would like to note this principle from another recent case (with emphasis per Risker):

Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to all pages on Wikipedia, but especially to articles and article discussion pages.

That's exactly the sort of thing Arbcom needs to remind editors about on a regular basis. Editing Wikipedia isn't about playing the rules, but about collaborating to make articles better.

The second thing is that I introduced a non-free image into Wikipedia space recently, my bad. I apologize for that, but have not so far been reverted. The temporary use may be regarded as harmless amusement, but I will self-revert once the thread becomes stale (if no one else removes the image before then!). Geometry guy 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[Note added: this was reverted once by a bot, and then by myself.]