Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2011-07-11

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-07-11. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close (825 bytes · 💬)

Way too much time spent on this moot court crap. Ban the shitheads and put the Arbcom to work on articles. It's just insane how people who say they are incapable of reading books and laying out a page will nevertheless go research all these diffs and all. I know peeps love drama and flaming and arguing, but there are plenty of areas to slake the thirst outside of this whole shebang.TCO (reviews needed) 03:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Namecalling, huh? Yeah, that's much more productive than conflict resolution. Powers T 00:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured content: The best of the week (2,148 bytes · 💬)

What is the rationale for ordering of the bullets within each featured content section? Does not seem to be alphabetical. Nor in notability order, when the first article out of the gate is "rather obscure".TCO (reviews needed) 16:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you order a list of articles by notability? Juliancolton (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes the obscure is the most interesting. We try not to order them consciously—often the order is according to chronological (or reverse chronological) promotion; occasionally I put the item related to the uppermost pic first. Tony (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Interestingness is a good way to order. Maybe alpha just makes most sense, if you are not going to group and arrange each week. Order within the week seems low value.
I can't imagine a more boring way to organize the week's progress in recognizing our best articles than bulleting them alphabetically... Juliancolton (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "interestingness" is a better parameter. Perhaps "like with like" (implicit categories) makes sense. I think order promoted during the week is even worse than alpha though. At least alpha has some navigational benefit for the eye...TCO (reviews needed) 17:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Interestingness? Who's going to decide which article is most interesting? Juliancolton (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
And I can't imagine a more demoralizing virtual sight than seeing my hard work being classified as the most boring article of the week. Juliancolton (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

From the editor: Stepping down (5,809 bytes · 💬)

So basically, editor of the The Signpost is a job application? Sad. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you would spend many years contributing to the Signpost & one long year editing it -- a totally underappreciated and demanding job, incidentally -- if you weren't interested in improving movement communications. Similarly, I don't think you would apply for a communications job if you weren't interested in and talented at it. Around here, one's contributions stand or fall on their own merit :) And yes, HaeB, you did a great job as editor and will be greatly missed. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, sad. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
So basically, someone does something good and you're disapproving and always finding faults and being cynical? Sad. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think what Malleus means to say is that this "stepping down" makes the editor position look like a job rather than a volunteer position, though I don't agree with him. I also echo the others in saying that HaeB will be missed. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:28pm • 06:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. That wasn't my take at all.--SPhilbrickT 01:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You will be missed! G'luck. jorgenev 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Congratulations HaeB! You've done great work at The Signpost and will continue to do great work at WMF! See you soon =) SarahStierch (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Good luck! -- deerstop. 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats. For the work and then the new gig. I like the independance. That is a reason why USNI Proceedings has the success that it does. Also, like the coverage of overall Web 2.0 things, to include Sanger-land and Wikipedia Review. Plus I think of this as a little Asgard-rag (Whewalt would translate)...and then just supplying some of the "did the high school paper" instincts. Like the guys who always turn out (there's always some) to be in the recruit band at boot camp.TCO (reviews needed) 02:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your work and good luck with your new venture. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • All the Best wishes, HaeB. You will be definitely missed! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work and effort! I've really enjoyed reading The Signpost. eug (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've learnt a lot from HaeB. He's really impressive. Managing Editor of The Signpost is like FAC, FLC, TFA manager or delegate: a heavy-duty role for which it's appropriate that editors be appointed or take on the "job" via consensus. I guess it might have to be a rotating system, at least initially, if a single person doesn't materialise. But there's always hope. Tony (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you HaeB: I have been very favorably impressed by the way The Signpost has developed under your stewardship. I am not surprised that you have been hired away, and it reflects well on your new employer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your contributions to the signpost. --J36miles (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You missed mentioning Telugu Wikipedia as the first non english language wikipedia to start a newsletter called TewikiVartha (recently in its 6th issue) inspired by Signpost. Best wishes for your new role.-- Arjunaraoc 04:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunaraoc (talk • contribs) 
que triste, señor
te vamos a extrañar :'( LegrisKe (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap (1,705 bytes · 💬)

The Campus Ambassador and Online Ambassador programs are off to a fantastic start. Congratulations! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a great concept, but I really hope it is expanded to more than Public Policy as a field. I am impressed for instance with the experiments done in AP Biology classes. Think those sorts of things can be extremely positive for Wiki and for the students. Also, think it is important to figure out how to take the learnings and procedures and such from this experiment and transfer them to work with unis in general. Including when there are not the $$ as was in this case. Don't get me wrong, I'm super glad something was done. Just want it to go somewhere.TCO (reviews needed) 18:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We are already stepping beyond that. Currently Regional Ambassadors, who are volunteers coordinating professors and ambassadors see http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Regional_Ambassadors), are looking beyond Public Policy to find faculty for the upcoming semester, and semesters afterwards. Do not be suprised if one of the next classes ends up attaching itself to one of you favourite WikiProjects :) If you have recommendations on faculty to work with, be sure to contact one of the Regional Ambassadors, Sadads (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Tease me, baby!TCO (reviews needed) 05:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting (2,568 bytes · 💬)

Changed. I hope the confusion wasn't over some German newspaper of the same name. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I have commented on, and documented sources for, the BrE use of brackets/braces/parenthesis on Talk: American and British English differences. Some people may misuse brackets, but formal and historic BrE practice is the same as AmE. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 
page views in the last 30 days for Modern Philosophy as of July 14, 2011.
Regarding the effect of the "philosophy game", see the page views tool screenshot to the right. fuckin' hilarious!  
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant (7,040 bytes · 💬)

The grant

This is not very clear: "a grant of million". It is US$1 million per year? For example, "a grant of US$1 million per year for the next three years". --Mortense (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Pretzel's script accidentally got rid of the "$3". I and others have restored it. (As I recall, it is $1 million/year for three years, but I couldn't source that when writing the article so left it out.) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

I am very sorry to see that a remark by Charles Matthews was included, while no chance was offered to the actual organizers to Respond. I did so now on the mailing list - this information was definitely available. effeietsanders 11:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is very difficult to allow everyone to respond to every point made when running to a tight deadline (N&N does not have a regular writer, so things tend to be last minute). We tried to give a hint of balance, and, while he may not have been right, the In Brief note should be taken to show that he did not know that the information was available, not strictly speaking, that it wasn't available. I'm confident Signpost readers understand that, but even so, I have changed the wording slightly. Apologies for any confusion. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine that this is the case, but when you choose to pick a quote from a non-participant it would be good to go through this extra effort. It might be helpful to actually link to the concept page on Wikimedia Commons that gives this clear description? Because of course it is possible to actually not be able to find information (there is so much out there and so little time to spend reading it), but if others would like to read this, they would be helped by finding it more easily. Thanks for your effort in changing it so far! effeietsanders 11:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It would have been nice, I agree. Pretty sure I was going to come back to it (but then forgot to). Mea culpa.
I have added the concept link as general background. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have fixed the link btw. effeietsanders 11:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
As Charles was replying to my note, I think I should add some context here. A few months ago we had an upload of 80,000 UK images from the geograph project, and we still have over 48,000 images in the category commons:Category:Images_from_the_Geograph_British_Isles_project_needing_categories_by_grid_square So our priorities in the UK may be slightly different to those of our neighbours in Europe. Whatever the monument there is a good chance that we already have an image, but it may not have been categorised or considered for addition to articles in Wikipedia. So while we are delighted to have more pictures of monuments, at the moment it is probably more important that we digest that donation. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, but congratulations on the geograph gift, which I didn't know about and which sounds fantastic! For clarity, I added UK and Italy to the list of participating countries as "notable exceptions" on WP:WLM. Jane (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the proper use of "less" and "fewer" - one of my (many) pet peeves. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback

I think this is good, however I worry about how it might be abused. When looking at it on an article I was working on, Architecture of the Song Dynasty, I noticed that it had one rating, which was 1/1/1/1. The article is at nearly GA level. It has subsequently gotten a second rating, which mathmatically would have to have been a 5/5/5/5, since the average is now 3/3/3/3. At the very least, the 1/1/1/1 is not constructive. The 5/5/5/5 is probably also not constructive. If a few jerks go around giving everything 1/1/1/1 ratings, it'll skew any useful data that would have otherwise have come from the tool. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course when there are more ratings, numbers will tend to average out. But there are mitigation measures for problematical ratings such as these: (a) don't display ratings until a certain minimal number (say, 5) have been done; (b) show a chart, not just a number, as Amazon and TripAdvisor do, so that outliers are visible; or, my preference, (c) discard the highest 10% and lowest 10% of ratings.
I also wonder if older ratings will be weighted less over time; it makes little sense, for example, to use older ratings if an article has doubled or tripled in length since such ratings were made, or - for that matter just been extensively edited and footnoted.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA information

I just added information about a successful candidate for adminship (this happened on July 6th). Ideally the "Brief News" part of News and Notes will have an item on RfAs every week, noting successful candidates and any RfAs in progress, or - if neither of these is the case - noting that there were no successful RfAs in the past week and that none were in progress at press time.

The larger issue is that there are no more and more weeks with no successful RfAs, and that fact may be less obvious than it should be if there is no mention whatsoever, in the Signpost, of what has or is happening with admins. (It would be even better if the number of active admins, and the change in that number, were noted each week, as the seeming inexorable shrinking of our community continues.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems (1,063 bytes · 💬)

The secure issue was due to a single apache server that was reinstalled, and repooled, but was not configured correctly due to changes in puppet that weren't tested for installs. I fixed both problems. There should be no more secure issues currently.Ryan lane (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear. Keep up the good work :) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Contractor, not employee

Thanks for your coverage! Just FYI, I'm a Foundation contractor, not an employee. Sumanah (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums (2,090 bytes · 💬)

I find the Wikiproject interviews quite good. The interviewer doesn't just ask the same questions each time, but comes up with interesting ones that are specific to the topic at hand. Sometimes they are thoughtful ("more meta") and the responses of editors are as well.

I think some "what I've learned from interviewing and looking at Wikiprojects" feature by the main interviewer might be interesting. I realize this would be some work of analysis and writing, but I think the interviewer may have a more informed perspective than anyone on Wiki for what makes Projects tick (or not). Obviously this would be a bit more of an opinion or analysis piece...and I think on the individual interviews, they are (wisely) pretty neutral, just with good tee-up questions to get the subjects to opine.

TCO (reviews needed) 16:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. Coming up with neutral-yet-interesting questions is one of the most challenging parts of writing for the WikiProject Report. For the best results, you have to figure out what motivates the project's members long before you write a question asking them about their motivations. Figure out what things aggravate them before you ask about the obstacles they have to overcome. You'll learn a lot from poking around the project's subpages and talk pages.
As to "what I've learned from interviewing and looking at Wikiprojects", I wrote an article on reviving WikiProjects a couple months ago that might interest you. There's also a retrospective each year called "Where are they now?" that allows for some analysis of the success and failure of projects. I'd like to do more of these "special" reports in the future, so check back in September for a big birthday bash... -Mabeenot (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2011-07-11&oldid=1125229173"