Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-03-12

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-03-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators (2,386 bytes · 💬)

 
Requests by contributors for arbitration by year on Wikipedia. (Data from Wikipedia.)
  • The number of formal administrative cases has dropped steadily over the years, reaching a level of about a dozen cases a year. Maybe these new arbitrators have as part of the objectives of their new initiatives a re-invigoration of the formal dispute process, which appears to be on the verge of irrelevancy to WP except for disputes among administrators themselves? Brews ohare (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • By the formal dispute process, do you include formal mediation, requests for comment, and everything else that isn't talk page discussion? Anyway, if I understand you, I'm not sure how an arbitrator can compel the community to use the arbitration process more extensively. It's also rather unclear whether the proportion of arbitration cases that relate to content disputes alone has decreased; certainly, with (for instance) the pending Article titles and capitalisation and the recently-closed Muhammad images, much of our current caseload does not relate to administrator conduct at all. (The committee also does an inconceivable amount of work behind the scenes, not least of which is ban appeals, advanced permission management, tracking of serial sockers, and the many items relating to individual contributors that relate to private or personal information and evidence, but that's probably not relevant.) AGK [•] 21:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
By "formal dispute process" I meant the cases plotted in the chart and listed at Wikipedia. These cases, as I understand them, involve a rather complete discovery process, unlike less formal actions like those stemming from AN/I. My query was simply whether the "new angles" of new arbitrators mentioned in this Signpost article had perhaps some implications toward reversing the decline in the use of this process. Brews ohare (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/Arbitration report

Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue (1,628 bytes · 💬)

Would it be possible to tone down those colours a bit? They're pretty jarring at the moment... Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem; are the colours any easier on the eye now? Skomorokh 12:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It may be monitor- and person-specific, but the green could be darker: the text is pretty hard to read with the bright hue. Tony (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Same here. --Waldir talk 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, green needs to be darker. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education (2,494 bytes · 💬)

Multicutural views of the same subject

I agree, it can be great "to have different cultures stating their own views on the same subjects." The only problem I've run into with that (with my admittedly very limited multilanguage editing experience) is that different cultures sometimes have non-compatible views on the same subject. We run into this in the English Wikipedia fairly often on such topics as "Should this famous person who was born in India then moved to Great Britain and became a British citizen be listed as an Indian person?" And, "Should this famous person who was born in Turkey, but whose Armenian parents emigrated to Turkey, be listed as a Turkish person or an Armenian person?"
As far as non-English Wikipedias go, let me give one example. In 1869, Francis Fox Tuckett, an English guy went down to Italy and climbed the Italian Alps. A mountain was named after him. In 1879, some Germans built a chalet, a nice multi-story house, next to this mountain. The Italians and the Germans consequently called it the "German House" or "Berliner Hütte". The Germans used the house as an ammo dump during World War II. At some point, the Italians renamed the chalet "Tuckett's Refuge" or "Refugio Tuckett". Today, on the German Wikipedia, this house is known as the Berliner Hütte and on the Italian Wikipedia this house is known as the Refugio Tuckett.
Multiculturalism is great. Problems can arise, though, when one culture touts their view as "correct" and the other culture's view as "wrong". Banaticus (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Illuminating

Thank you for your perspective piece, Leigh - Lots of ideas to explore !

An addendum while I'm at it : at WMFr, we have worked on Wikipedia:Wikimédia France/Workshop banner that can be of help during your university workshops (we use it with doctoral student) --Ofol (t) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Notes in chalk" - ...:| ResMar 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman (2,842 bytes · 💬)

  • Where do we "volunteer" Wikipedia editors to become extinct?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The process you want is Editors for Deletion.-gadfium 00:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Editors for Deletion is a memorable and useful page—that seems to satisfy my needs nicely. Thanks! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar (5,309 bytes · 💬)

  • For the many commentators who've lamented the loss of alphabetically adjacent entries stealing your attention as you look up an entry, I present Serendipity, a user script that'll bring that essential, missing functionality to Wikipedia. (Add importScript("User:Mxn/serendipity.js"); to this page.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I took the liberty of removing "another print institution struggling to come to terms with the digital era" from the description of The New York Times. Strictly speaking, it's true, but I think most people agree that other newspapers are struggling far more, so it's a bit misleading and feels like a random cheap shot. The Times at least was lucky enough to have a pile of money sitting around when the bottom fell out from under the print industry in ~2004, so they could afford to pursue a digital transition strategy, and it hasn't been as incompetent as many of their competitors at it. See this article for more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/business/media/times-company-posts-loss-on-write-down.html You'll note that Times Company reports a loss, but that's largely because of small regional papers which are dying horrible deaths, not the NYT itself. I think the consensus view is that in 5-10 years, there'll be 3-4 big fish left in the pond, and all the minnows will be dead, but that the NYT will almost certainly be one of the big fish.
I also see that I was immediately reverted as a poor "misguided reader." Care to explain why you think this comment deserves to remain, Skomorokh? SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
To add to what I was saying before... http://newsonomics.com/new-york-times-digital-transition-worth-34-million-annually-and-counting/ is another relevant link. I don't think any other paper in the business is close to that level of digital revenue. http://newspaperdeathwatch.com/news-publishers-missing-tablet-opportunity/ talks about problems that the Times are having... in that "The paper’s paywall continues to thrive, and digital advertising revenue was up 5% in the quarter. However, the success online can’t make up for the continued free-fall in the much more profitable print advertising business." The article's "struggling to come to terms with the digital era" quote implies that the NYT is sticking their head in the sand and pretending online doesn't exist, like many other newspapers did and the Britannica did to some extent as well; what'd be more accurate is that the NYT is struggling with the decline of print, a side-effect of the "digital era." I dunno. This feels like referring to the ranking chess grandmaster as "struggling with the rise of algorithmic computer opponents." A 100% true statement, but also misleading in that it implies the grandmaster is off their game somehow, when in fact everyone else is even worse off. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. "The Signpost is an independent publication; barring site policy violations, please do not revert the decision of a feature editor." That's... not an explanation at all. And this is a news article, not an opinion piece (which obviously would be the author's alone). My edit was offered in good faith and I would have been happy to discuss. But very well, it's not that big a deal. I won't edit Signpost articles any more if they're set in stone... just I'd like to point out that you'd said to me before that "We could certainly use contributors of your diligence." I guess not, after all. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
SnowFire's correction/improvement makes sense to me. I'm uncomfortable about a level of independence that doesn't allow for corrections - doesn't that belong on a separate blog site, or at least outside of the "Wikipedia:" namespace? It certainly jars with the impression I had of the Signpost. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interview: Liaising with the Education Program (944 bytes · 💬)

  • According to the job description on the Wikimedia Foundation website:[2] "This contractor will help ensure effective communication with the Wikipedia community regarding the Program working closely with Online Ambassadors as well as the WMF staff involved in the program." This will be very helpful. Mathew Townsend (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely looks like a move in the right direction. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation (3,894 bytes · 💬)

  • Aside from the fact that weekdays are capitalised by convention, I don't see a (semantic) distinction. Skomorokh 18:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (sorry, "last Saturday") I thought that "last Saturday" was more conventionally regarded as correct.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I noticed that too. It's not a big deal, but that sort of intentional reversal can be rather jarring. I don't think that Gilderien intended this to be any sort of "gotcha", but more constructive criticism or an attempt to point out what could be a mistake. Trying to deflect by talking about capitalization in what is a conversational setting (this talk page) isn't exactly collegial or constructive.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ohms law, why don't you tone it down? Skomorokh intended nothing negative, but your comment has an irritable sense to it—the very opposite of the collegial and the constructive you mention. Tony (talk)
  • You read my mind.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on? (3,296 bytes · 💬)

  • Readers of the "Technology report", I'm pleased to announce a trial of a voting mechanism, with the result of one week's vote relayed via a pretty doughnut diagram in the next. So for next week, the question is:
    What do you think of the proposed new default diff colour scheme?
  • And you can vote on that with two clicks here (no personally identifiable information required, just a vote :) ) Thanks! - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I really like the new color scheme - makes it much easier to see. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I did vote. But I wanted to tell you how much better the new color scheme is. I'm wondering if I'm unusual or do others feel the same. I haven't read reactions anywhere. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Departure from GoDaddy": kudos to WMF for walking the walk after talking the talk; to be imitated by other like-minded individuals and organisations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The switch seems a waste of money that could go to improving the wiki. And I don't want to hear "oh, we'll actually save money", if it was not worth swiching before Jimbo's SOPA lockout, it isn't worth doing now. Doing business on the basis of politics is always a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
agree with this. Politics is a pretty shaky basis for business decision making. Only good for making a point. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-12/WikiProject report

Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters (10,491 bytes · 💬)

Editors may be interested in the 94 missing articles I have listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedia articles/NWHP (National Women's History Project) and the six remaining red-links at National Women's Hall of Fame, although both pages are wholly American centred. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

It's ridiculous to suggest that recruiting women editors will redress imbalances and that we'll suddenly have greater coverage on biographies of women and other 'female-orientated' issues. I've said it before: it's sexist and demeaning to both genders to a) think that women editors ought to be writing about females and/or birth control and/or friendship bracelets and b) that men don't, or can't be encouraged to, write about females and birth control also. I hate the fact that this narrow-minded and segregational viewpoint is alive on a supposedly mature and intellectual encyclopaedia, and that it parades under an "equality" banner. Please! Julia\talk 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Julia! I'm just curious where, in the roundtable, folks suggest that women need to be writing "female-oriented" issues? WikiWomen's History Month actually hopes that anyone, of any gender, will write about women's history. Just curious where your opinion stemmed from! (And for the record: I do write about women's historical figures most of the time, but, perhaps I'm just a rare case!) To be accused of being sexist and demeaning is a painful thing for anyone to hear, and to know that myself, and these four advocates for the improvement of women's history and women's participation in Wikipedia are being called that, is even more hard to take! So I'd love to learn more about what in this article triggered your frustration. I might not be able to address it, but, knowing more about it would be great. Sarah (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't in this roundtable necessarily which suggested women ought to be writing about female-orientated topics, but it's been brought up synonymously with the issue of women on Wikipedia many times before. Specifically I was referring to an article mentioned in the Signpost last year, and my response to it: ([3]). Julia\talk 20:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh! And for the record again: I do believe that it's important that women interested in subjects like birth control, menstruation, brassiere, etc - things that many of us have personal experience with - write about them. I do think that in subject areas, like most in Wikipedia, that are written by men, it can be a powerful tool to have an even more neutral article. Perhaps a woman interested in the history of fashion or biology might add other things to an article than a man might. But, I don't think there is any research to prove that, it's just a theory I find interesting =) Sarah (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"It's ridiculous to suggest that recruiting women editors will redress imbalances". Actually it's not ridiculous. As an example, an academic study recently showed that movies that were preferred by women had less coverage on Wikipedia. More women on Wikipedia = more content from a female perspective. Of course that isn't limited to fashion and female biographies. Lots of women on Wikipedia write about sports and science fiction, and lots of guys (like me) write about feminism and menstruation. But either way, its good to get a diversity of voices contributing to the project. Kaldari (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Without getting into whether Julia's take on what the Sinpost was saying is spot-on or not, her general observation certainly is. It doesn't take a female editor to make good edits to women's biography articles here, nor should women editors be focusing on "womanly" topics instead of what happens to interest them and what they're most competent to write about. I'm male and feel no partiuclar urge or pressure to write about fatherhood, football and prostate glands. A problem that has been very under-discussed, however, is that women themselves buy into that sort of assumption too often, sometimes to an extreme that produces encyclopedically unhelpful results and doesn't actually do anything to improve the real female influence on and coverage in Wikipedia. It's quite unhelpful, in multiple ways, to create stubs and ill-populated categories that will almost certainly never expand, just to rather robotically include women as a special subcategorization. We do not need an article like Women's hang gliding in Canada or a Category:Women watercolorists, absent compelling reasons under WP:SUMMARY and WP:CATGRS, respectively, to sex-fork this way. [Those are stand-ins for real examples that are just as odd; I don't want to re-start debates about the real ones here.] That women might have some occupation or skill that didn't have something to do with children, sewing and kitchens [I'm writing this with dismissive sarcasm about sexist attitudes, mind you] hasn't been seen as noteworthy for several generations now, at least not in the West. There is no "gee-whiz" factor in the idea of female doctors and politicians and programmers and whatever. When a field has historically traditionally been completely and rather programmatically dominated by one sex or the other, such forks may make sense (at least while the novelty factor still exists for some non-trivial percentage of readers who may seek information on the topic as a topic in and of itself), as perhaps at Men in nursing and Category:Women's ice hockey players. But excessive pursuit of splitting every category and article topic on sex-based lines is quixotic at best, and can be "ghettoizing" (CATGRS goes into this). It's far more important to properly develop and balance exiting articles and categories to have less one-sided coverage, write important missing articles, and overall make WP less of a "sausage party" of nerd-boys, than it is to topically nit-pick for political point-making. I usually get called a sexist for daring to bring this up without having the right "junk" to have a valid opinion on anything to do with women, but my skin is thick and I don't give up just because some people find it easier to get reflexively angry than to examine their own editing priorities critically. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting post. I also believe it's unhelpful to race-fork, as in List of African-American astronauts. But I suspect this belief is politically incorrect, so I will remain an anonymous coward. 63.231.100.76 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm cringing while reading how strongly and polemically I worded my post. Evidently I woke up on the wrong side of the bed; it was early, and just before catching another student-crowded bus into work, and knew I'd probably be elbowed in the face again. I'm sorry! The issue of 'women and Wikipedia' does tend to rile me though. First, I can't help but feel that blame is being apportioned to men, as it is with many traditionally 'feminist' issues. There seems to be a tendency to think that men are somehow responsible for there being a low number of females on Wikipedia; leaving aside historical cultural points about why this might be so, I think the major reason is that most women just aren't interested, or interested enough to stick with it. Second, as I've commented before ([4]), this undervalues the women who are already on Wikipedia and not writing about traditionally female topics. It's like pushing me, and many others, into the male demographic, because we're not serving the feminist cause, as if women's value on Wikipedia could be measured by topic coverage. It only strengthens the stereotyping that women like me have been struggling with. The very fact that the gender gap 'issue' has brewed speeches and roundtables and journalism shouts that women need propped up and supported in something as simple as Wikipedia: not a good way to challenge the "weaker sex" notion, right? I know that if I were not already an editor when the drive to get women on WP came out, it would certainly have put me off becoming one. I wouldn't have wanted to insert myself somewhere as one of the prized, rescued, recruited few, amongst males who may now feel undervalued and resentful because the focus is on how, through no fault of their own, the encyclopaedia isn't 'good enough' because of their demographic, instead of focusing on their enormously worthy contributions that have built this encyclopaedia from the ground up. Third, we ought to be encouraging all diversity. We have a huge Western bias, which I see as far more of a concern, and more of a problem worth fixing, than pushing to have yet more small articles on, say, female authors of borderline notability, just to satisfy some perceived persecution. As unpopular as my opinion will be, I think women need to get over themselves and just get on with it. Reverse discrimination is never admirable, and no one respects it. By pushing this agenda we are creating a gender gap, and it's not about numbers this time. Julia\talk 20:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2012-03-12&oldid=1125229618"