User talk:LocalNet/Archives/2017/June

Drafting iOS 11

Hello again, LocalNet. It's just a matter of hours before the official announcement of iOS 11 at WWDC 2017, I wonder whether we could (or even allowed to) create a draft of the article at Draft:IOS 11 or we'll have to draft it in our own userspaces. It'll probably be speedy deleted since we have no source whatsoever. Hayman30 (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Hayman30: I am also awaiting the official announcement! Exciting! I have spent a few days brainstorming the best way to do it, and I was considering drafts, but the complete lack of any confirmed information means that I can't actually create a decent draft without heaps of speculation in it. I am therefore going to wait for the real page and actively edit that. I do expect heavy traffic from many editors in the first few hours, possibly to such an extent I'll be unable to do any major editing. That's speculation on my part, but I have seen the scenario happen before. I like to quality-check my work before saving, and while I am editing, 10+ edits are being done, completely changing the page before I'm even previewing my changes. The good news is that I already edited the iOS 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 articles to follow a certain layout pattern. I expect there will be LOTS of information coverage in the first few hours and activity will gradually die down over the night and the next few days. If my expectation of heavy traffic is incorrect, I will actively edit on the real page once it goes active. If I am unable to actually write content due to constant changes by others, I will try to stick to layout changes tonight, and then take over content in the following days. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Mobile Filter

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Codename Lisa: I was going to say that I'll take a look, and I had written a comment, but right before saving, someone else jumped in and posted a comment with a transparency notice about receiving a "participation invitation directly from the nom". The user linked to WP:CANVASS, an article about neutrality in discussions. I didn't realize that was a thing. Having just learned about it, I want to refrain from participating in this discussion until I've learned more. Nothing personal against you, I just want to make sure I stay within Wikipedia's policies, and that was brand new to me, so I want to read about it before making any actions. Good luck with the AfD! :) LocalNet (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No pressure. But just FYI, canvassing can only get me into trouble, not you. And FleetCommand is under extra scrutiny.

If you want the summary, I can give you. Proper notification, per WP:CANVASS, has four legs:

1. Scale (i.e. I notify only the people whom work in this certain area, not everyone in Wikipedia.)
2. NPOV (i.e. the message should be neutral, like "please take look at the discussion" vs. "please vote 'Support' in the discussion".)
3. Audience (i.e. notifying a wide-range of Wikipedians, as opposed to notifying deletionist only.)
4. Transparency (i.e. sending them a message in a way that the community can scrutinize, e.g. in their talk pages as opposed to emails!)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the info! :) LocalNet (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

News Feed

Hey thanks for your additions to the News Feed article. I'm curious though, what prompted you to remove some info, like on New Facebook and some other details? You moved some paragraphs around, so reading diffs is pretty difficult. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ɱ: Thanks for the message! I removed the information about New Facebook for a lack of sources in the article and an inability to locate any sources by searching myself. I apologize that I didn't adequately explain the reasons. I usually try to be very good at letting edits be focused on individual actions with an accompanying explanatory edit summary, but in this case, I failed to do so, and I'm sorry about that! You wrote "and some other details?", so if there's anything else than the removal of New Facebook I should explain, please let me know! :) LocalNet (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I had copied over the information that was on the Facebook article. A few other things were cut, but I found additional sources, I'll see sometime soon how much I can put back. Also are you set that Social Monkeys is not a reliable source? Although it's a blog and doesn't state its source for its article, the info is all factual/neutral, in-depth, and seemingly accurate. Anyway, if you have any free time more than me, feel free to look over [1] [2] [3]. Thanks, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that Social Monkeys is not reliable. A few reasons why: 1) The author doesn't use their real name, often a requirement of reputable media organizations. 2) Writing style, specifically use of unprofessional "how Facebook newsfeed works" header with grammatical errors and incorrect capitalization, and a finishing line "All these factors combined gives us the stories of our newsfeed!!" with again bad grammar, double exclamation marks, and a total absence of sources. 3) No information about who is behind, suggesting a personal blog initiative. 4) A quick click on "Tech" shows an entry about Snapchat filled with poor writing style.

Of the three sources you linked me to here, I strongly question TalentZoo as a source, this time more concerning the design of the page, a lack of date, and that other pages on the website appear to be of low quality, not a normal trait of a technology publication. Business Insider and Mashable don't use the words "New Facebook" and don't appear to focus on updates to the News Feed, but rather details of what gets into the feed (Business Insider) and a patent for the feed (Mashable). LocalNet (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You have a strong bias against ESL speakers, which you should fix. "Social Monkeys" has an About Us page. They live in India. What you see as egregious errors are commonplace on websites catering to mass audiences but made in other countries. One can also see unprofessional/casual wording more and more in significant newspapers, that is, unless you only read the New York Times. Otherwise I don't disagree with your points. And I linked the sites not supporting a term like "New Facebook", but perhaps supporting the release information that you removed, and as well, other information that could be added. As for Digital Pivot, well, page design should never be an RS argument; it's extremely subjective and not inherent to a good publication. Regardless, I'm not looking at its general reliability. It presents facts neutrally and usefully, and is seemingly reliable for the information that it conveys. Deem reliability on the subject matter, not in general, because different sources are always reliable for different things. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"You have a strong bias against ESL speakers, which you should fix". Right there, you pretty much lost credibility by focusing on me instead of the content, and my willingness to even talk with you was drastically reduced. But I will respond. You can give reasons for why a source is reliable without pointing the finger at me for not thinking something is reliable. I gave multiple reasons why I don't deem the site reliable, and you respond with "India" and "errors are commonplace". I wholeheartedly disagree with both sentiments. Place of origin is irrelevant for a source, but "errors are commonplace"? Yeah... no.

I judge a source by multiple factors. That you chose to focus on the design of Digital Pivot was something you chose. My argument extended to a lack of date and low quality of other articles on the site, the latter is usually a good indicator of a bad source. I'll take another look at the Mashable and Business Insider links, but wanted to post this message first. LocalNet (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(←) I felt a strong need to focus on you: I think it's problematic that you'd shun a source just because of spelling and grammar, especially when it's from a place like India, where only about 10-20% of the population even knows English, nonetheless are able to write without flaws. Very familiar with NPA, but if you're determining RSs in that biased of a manner, it needs to be corrected. No offense intended or desired here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"just because of spelling and grammar". I hereby repeat and present points 1 and 3 of my original comment, which you have yet to address:

1: The author doesn't use their real name, often a requirement of reputable media organizations

3: No information about who is behind, suggesting a personal blog initiative; WP:RSSELF. LocalNet (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Apple Inc. WikiProject Reviving

Hello there, I am trying to revive the Apple WikiProject. Please come back and add your name to the participant list if you'd like to help me. Let's make this awesome. Come by today! Thank you, DJAustin (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DJAustin: "Please come back" - I never left. :) Just today I'm working on iOS 5. But I fully support you in trying to revive more of the project and other members, so let's indeed make it awesome! :D LocalNet (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I'd love to talk to you a bit more! Do you have IRC or something else we can talk on? DJAustin (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: I've heard about IRC but I haven't used it in many years. So both my experience and knowledge of IRC is very, very limited. I had to actually go to the IRC Wikipedia page to refresh my memory, haha. If the talk is about Apple and Wikipedia, I'd prefer some sort of public chat in case other members want to join. Maybe that's possible in IRC? Sorry for sounding so clueless... I'm willing to try :) LocalNet (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Sure! Join #wikipedia-appleinc DJAustin (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: Alright, will do, I'll try :) LocalNet (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: I normally like to brag about being relatively tech-savvy, but my knowledge has failed me here. I joined a random server, entered #wikipedia-appleinc and just sat there alone for quite a few minutes. But while waiting, I also thought a little about it. Wouldn't it be more suitable to use a public chat where messages are saved in a history for anyone to see? After all, I'm thinking:

• 1) Visibility to the public might be very important, and joining an IRC would be a purposeful move rather than an open, accessible one.
• 2) It concerns the WikiProject, so it should perhaps happen on Wikipedia rather than external sources with their own policies and functions.
• 3) I used mIRC, which looks to require payment after a trial period. I honestly don't think it's a smart move to have communications behind a paywall.
• 4) If we come to agreements or make decisions it might be useful to actually have a record of it.

Doesn't the WikiProject have a talk page or other form of commenting system? LocalNet (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: While there are paid clients for IRC, there are free ones. You can use Freenode or Kiwi IRC in your browser or download LimeChat (what I use, mostly). IRC has been used in the past and is the best way for quick communication. DJAustin (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: Thanks for the explanation. Not to ruin your good efforts so far (I really appreciate your enthusiasm), but the more I think about points 1, 2, and 4 the more I disagree with the use of IRC. The fact that I failed to properly set it up and found a paid alternative rather than free ones also further strengthen my thinking that I believe we should use the talk page on the WikiProject Apple Inc. page. The argument of quick communication is certainly compelling, but I frankly believe all these points overweigh that argument. What do you think? LocalNet (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: It's fine, I just thought that it would be good at least for the start. Feel free to leave your suggestions, ideas or thoughts on the talk page and we can discuss it. DJAustin (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: You too :) I'm happy we can create a team to try to engage the Project again :D LocalNet (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: Just a question. You started the conversation with "I'd love to talk to you a bit more!" I feel like I kind of ruined your buzz here. You obviously wanted to talk, but then the conversation shifted towards communication platform. I just took a look at the WikiProject page and found a link to the IRC with a web-client. I don't love the idea of using it for normal discussions, but if there is something you wanted to talk about right now, I can use it. I just want to make sure I didn't ruin your interest in re-engaging the project, because it really is an admirable effort I want to be a part of. LocalNet (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: If you would do that, that'd be great. I just wanted to get to know you and we could become the "leaders" of the project so I wanted to set a few goals etc with you. DJAustin (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@DJAustin: Oh! In that case an IRC is more suitable! You should've said so :) Definitely! I just joined the IRC now :) LocalNet (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook edit

I added a new section related to a study released in 2016 about Facebook friends. The study is named What's Her Face(book)? How many of their Facebook “friends” can college students actually identify? and it was released by Charles Croom, Bay Gross, Larry D. Rosen, and Brad Rosen. I am working on this study and working on adding more content to the new section if the page Criticism of Facebook. Please give me time to explain it and not just remove my content. I am also open for advice if you give it (I am new to Wikipedia contributions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaycirYAHMED TPT (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @TaycirYAHMED TPT: I explained in my edit the reasons why the content was removed, but I will repeat it here: 1) The information in this paragraph comes directly from the source, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. 2) I could not find information on this study by searching, so WP:N comes into question." Please be advised that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about what kind of material gets published. Please also note that you just confirmed you have a conflict of interest with the material at hand since you are working on it. Wikipedia relies on third-party, independent, reliable sources rather than the original material itself. I would recommend that you read up on how Wikipedia works and its policies, especially the policy on conflict of interest, before making further edits. Thank you. LocalNet (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @LocalNet: I want to point out that I am working on the article as a third party (I am a student working on a study that was published by other researchers). I am trying to further understand it and add related content as part of a course I take at Telecom ParisTech (France). So that excludes the fact that it consists in a conflict of interest. That is an explanation to your first remark. As for the second remark, I put a link in the references referring to the study: title : What's Her Face(book)? How many of their Facebook “friends” can college students actually identify? Elaborated by Charles Croom, Bay Gross, Larry D. Rosen and Brad Rosen, from California State University and Yale University. Please help understand what went wrong, or -if possible- advise me where to put the analysis of the study. Thank you.

Hello again. Thank you for the clarification, but please keep in mind that as long as you have a working relationship with the subject of your contributions, it can still qualify as a conflict of interest. For example, as per WP:EXTERNALREL, "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest" (emphasis added by me). You are adding information specifically about a study that you are involved in studying (if I understood you correctly).

That means, for example, that your edits only constitute adding information on that study, whereas there are sooo many studies out there about Facebook that we need to be neutral and careful about which studies are notable for inclusion. The usual method of acknowledgement there are the notability guideline and secondary sources guideline. Notability states that "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article"; in this case, the study is the topic and I was unable to find third-party sources discussing its findings. Secondly, the reference you added was for the study itself, which is the actual original material. If the study had been written about by many media publications, none of which had ties to the study or anyone involved, its findings would perhaps be notable for inclusion, as we would use those secondary sources. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. I hope I'm explaining myself clearly, but these things can be technical, so please let me know if I should simplify. :) LocalNet (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! That was clear enough. Thank you. I will try to enrich my comprehension of the subject through further/divers readings and reformulate my ideas. Thanks again :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaycirYAHMED TPT (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@TaycirYAHMED TPT: You're welcome! I'm happy you understood me. I look forward to hopefully seeing more editing from you in the future with these things in mind :) LocalNet (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

iOS 11

Hi :) Just wanted to let you know that I have the iOS 11 beta, and contractions that are auto-corrected do contain a closing single quote instead of an apostrophe. I can't find a source for it, but if you want me to provide a screenshot, I will. CB19 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Cloverboy19: Unfortunately, we can't write information based on our experiences. We need to have sources backing up the info. Screenshots are unfortunately not valid sources, and we run into issues of copyright. Furthermore, I am not sure if this information is notable. Sorry. LocalNet (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)