Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-02-19

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-02-19. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge (11,897 bytes · 💬)

Redesign

I'm sure someone will complain about "too much whitespace", but I absolutely love 1910's redesign of Wikipedia. It's definitely needing a better design, considering myself (and most other users) have simply become accustomed to ignoring the vast majority of space Wikipedia uses, e.g. the sidebar, copyright notifications, the footer, and smaller text underneath the edit box. Removing all the extras could improve Wikipedia a lot.

Their simplification of the most common tools from the sidebar and other parts of the interface is welcomed and looks fantastic, in my opinion. While I would support a sidebar extension for the "power users", the casual user simply doesn't need those tools. Analytics would undoubtedly support the idea that most actions remain unused by the vast majority of users, especially those who are simply browsing rather than editing.

I also wanted to compliment their choices of coloring. The shades of gray/white are vastly improved over those of the current Wikipedia. The web is moving away from gradients, and Wikipedia is a perfect candidate for a simplistic gray color scheme which focuses primarily on the content.

Great article this week! I'd love some more mentions of design in the future, even if they're just "In brief" like this one. --Nicereddy (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Failed at the first hurdle: fairness. For the current look, they take a page with a very long first section, "plot". In all the later, "improved" versions, that section is suddenly gone, only showing sections which have an accompanying image or infobox on the right side, not showing how the plot section would become twice as long (vertically) with a huge chunk of empty whitespace to the right (a bit like the current Flow version). It suddenly wouldn't look so attractive anymore... No matter what merits the proposal might have, if you present it using such methods, you lose all credibility. Fram (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As a Monobook user, I think those 'new' ideas look ghastly. I hate books or brochures with a little bit of text in the middle of a vast white or pale blue (don't mention pale pink...) space. I always think it's designed to cover up a lack of communication (or information...) along with a desire to be 'modern' at all costs. Having said this, I also don't like cramming, and avoidance of any white space on a colour page (people who say "We're paying for colour, so we're going to have colour!" need countering with the brightly coloured tiger and zebra disappearing into their backgrounds...). Peridon (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the overall redesign. Its simple. Its focus is on the content. It give prominence to the search bar. The sidebar is embedded in the header. I think it could be improved, e.g. have the text flow into the other columns when there is no picture, and not have quite so much whitespace inbetween sections... But other than that its an enormous improvement. Someone should make this happen. Int21h (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't fix what's not broken. The current design is timeless and doesn't need changed. I cringe every time a site announces a design change now, as most site-design changes in the last five years have been for the worse. This "1910 look" is typical of the designs that I don't care for. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"stuck in the 90s" - but Wikipedia didn't even start until the 00s! 75.41.109.190 (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: "The current design is timeless". Regarding this, I would say that it's an inherently impossible for anything to be truly timeless. If you mean to say that you would reject any redesign of Wikipedia, I think that would simply invite stagnation, which I would think is hard to argue as a positive attribute of any website. I vehemently oppose the phrase "Don't fix what's not broken", as it implies that usability and efficiency are inherent qualities of functionality. Imagine if we remained complacent in the early 1900s and refused to adopt cars because "horses work fine"? Imagine if we said the same of cars with regards to the invention of planes, telegrams with regards to the telephone, or candles with regards to the lightbulb! While I can hardly draw definite parallels between such obvious improvements to technologies and the redesigning of a website, I don't think the comparison is wholly unreasonable.

We are not suggesting that we "fix" the home page, nor are we suggesting that it is in any way dysfunctional. At the same time, however, that is not to say that the design is perfect or has reached perceived "pinnacle" which we may never again reach, let alone surpass. A redesign would not be for the simple sake of change, but rather for the overall good of Wikipedia's usability and therefore longevity. What isn't broken, I hope you would agree, can still be improved upon, regardless of the form and functionality of the predecessor it attempts to overcome.

We must not remain stagnant. We can provide the world with an encyclopedia encapsulating the whole of human knowledge, but if the world finds its navigation difficult or its design an eye sore, the knowledge held within is rendered useless. And what's the point of an encyclopedia no one wants to read? --Nicereddy (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Wikipedia shouldn't remain stagnant and there are many areas where improvement is needed:

• Better design for integrating all orphaned articles into the encyclopedia
• Better design for keeping Wikipedia from being overrun with low-quality articles about marginally notable people and organizations
• Better design for ensuring that articles don't have too many—or too few—images in the right and left margins (keep in mind that anyone can add or remove an image on pages that aren't protected)
• Better design for ensuring articles are reliably sourced
• Better design for helping novice editors (Visual Editor 2.0)

I'd rather focus on real improvements and not new front grilles and tailfins. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There are different Wikipedia:Skins readers and editors may choose to use, though I've never felt the need to use anything but the default skin. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Redesign proof of concepts. --Atlasowa (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave Wikipedia the way it is. If I am at a library or it has been 30 days since I last signed in, I don't like the way it looks. When I sign in, I do. So please keep this option.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Compensated editing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Swedish and German policies described in this article actually involve disclosure of the compensatory arrangement? I mean, surely de:Benutzer:Coca-Cola De wouldn't fall under the proposed change to the Terms of Use, since that change only requires disclosure? Powers ^T 03:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're quite correct—in trying to make a more interesting segue, I was very inaccurate. Thank you for your attention to detail! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The top section on paid editing is very biased. It only covers folks who are opposed to the change in the Terms of Use, folks who seem to say that it is a major problem if paid editors disclose their paid status.

The real situation on the talk page m:Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment is that the proposed change is overwhelmingly supported. There is a "voting section" at the top of the page, and as of now the vote is 135 in favor to 39 opposed. I do think that covering some of those (78%) in favor would reflect better on the the Signpost's neutrality. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I view it a bit differently. The Signpost's job is not to agree with popular consensus, but to offer critical reporting of anything from wildly popular initiatives to critical failures. As a side note, since when have there been Wikimedia votes without signatures? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the job you have taken on here is to provide neutral reporting on issues of concern to Wikipedians. Ignoring the 78% who favor the ToU change of requiring paid editors to disclose, and concentrating on the 22% who are not in favor is a major bias. Frankly, you owe an abject apology to the readers of Signpost for this biased coverage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that's correct—I believe we're misunderstanding each other. We certainly aim to be a neutral news outlet, and while I'm not convinced that this is a biased treatment of the topic, I've added a sentence to note the numbers in support. Note, though, that I haven't added figures as the sentence is referring to "as of publishing time", and I felt obligated to note the unusual number of unsigned votes. While I think there would still be a majority, it's not a small number (only two of the first 22 have a relatively normal Wikimedia signature). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek suing action

“is likely to receive a heavy criminal sentence if convicted”

Like what ?

--Nnemo (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Status Labs

Jeff here-- I run Status Labs Inc. out of Ch and SF. Totally different company from your Wikipedia stuff. Friends where I work keep asking me about it and I have no idea... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.11.11 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, there appear to be two companies at work here. We're referring to the renamed Wiki-PR, a public relations firm now run out of Austin, New York, and São Paolo. That said, in an effor tto avoid any confusion, I've added a clarification to the original article; I am certainly not looking to disparage your company. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: Chilly Valentines (1,449 bytes · 💬)

Serendipodous I enjoyed the commentary this week. --Pine^✉ 07:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this week's content was well-written. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Competitive ice resurfacing"? The Canadian community frowns upon your shenanigans! Resolute 15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's be real, that's an entirely accurate comment. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We in Milwaukee, a home for competitive curling since before we were even incorporated, likewise deplore this short-sighted view of a sport that combines traditional men's and women's skills! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias (22,612 bytes · 💬)

Very interesting report Mabeenot. --Pine^✉ 07:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting project. Is it also the planning to do something about the systematic bias described as "US-Centrisme"? Too many people expect that everybody knows and wants to know everything about the USA, expecting that you know that Place A in County B is located in State C, USA. And other think that all schools in the USA are automatically notable as they consider that even when you can not find any sources, it is not that there are no (online) sources but that you just did not search hard enough... The Banner talk 19:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • And of course the point that people expect you to know that "football" is nor soccer nor association football nor Gaelic football but American football that also can be named Canadian football. As I just discovered at Cal State Fullerton Titans... The Banner talk 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Systemic bias will only be completely eradicated when we are all the same. We are all different and have different perspectives, and we write and edit from those POVs, whether we are victims or perpetrators. The project tools that we use to try to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic are WP:NPOV and this truly awesome project. While we all should strive for less bias and more neutrality, at the same time we should also keep a positive outlook and celebrate the "spicy" concept of "Viva la difference!" – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! The comments section on this recent article about the differences between the Wikipedias in various languages suggests that some aspects of "self-focus bias" may not necessarily be a bad thing: "Wikipedia's Secret Multilingual Workforce". MIT Technology Review. 2013-12-13. Retrieved 2014-02-22. Djembayz (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am concerned with the notion I'm reading from these interviews that somehow our policies hinder the study of women and minorities. I don't see any real evidence of that and I would caution the community about this claim that "Western sourcing standards" are an unreasonable expectation. Out of curiosity I took a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Representations of Latinos in media. It hasn't been accepted for good reason. I see that a more-experienced editor has taken the task on and perhaps can fix the most glaring errors. It's that combination of enthusiasm with a general lack of scholasticism that is dangerous for the project and must be rejected. (disclaimer: I am one of those educated white males that we hear from too often online.) Chris Troutman (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding one more redlink ... Whiter Shades of Pale ...  :) Diversity has something for everyone. Djembayz (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, articles need to be based on reliable sources. What makes sources reliable may be different in other cultures, especially those lacking a Western academic tradition. Reliable sources that are not as accessible or not in English may be unfairly disregarded in favour of accessible English sources that are not as reliable or comprehensive. Moreover, specific notability guidelines (such as for sports or companies) may fail to consider poorly represented subtopics (such as female/disability sports or Chinese/Indian businesses). Hope you found this clarification useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't find that clarification useful and I wouldn't even call your statement a clarification. As a history major I've studied Africa and I've learned the importance of documenting African history through African voices. While accounts from European and Arab explorers are both fascinating and useful, the concept that the African people had no history helped encourage slavery. Our concepts of notability and reliability are not, however, culturally constructed rationalizations of privilege.

Wikipedia as a tertiary source needs to stay firmly grounded to academic secondary publications; hopefully ones that leverage previously ignored ethno-linguistics and material culture in order to better understand what actually happened. My dislike of subaltern studies stems from this enthusiasm from some to rewrite narratives to cater to specific ethno-political audiences. I think misunderstood populations deserve real academic rigor, not pandering screed.

If your accusation is that our notability or non-English sources guidelines need re-tooling then please provide specific examples. The discussion that I'm seeing reads like hinted indictments of the majority of historical literature from the hetero-normative imperialist bourgeoisie. Bias towards non-white, non-male, peasants is still bias. I hope that WikiProject Systemic Bias values provable fact over ahistorical feel-good "anybody but white men" propaganda. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we interpret the term "Western sourcing standards" differently. We both agree that minority groups should be documented through their own voices. If some indigenous communities have longstanding oral traditions which they deem the most reliable reporting of their history and culture, to what extent should we respect that? Then there are cultures with established academia that are very different from Western ones. For example, Islamic scholarship has its own methods of evaluating how reliable sources are, especially for Islamic theology. Can Wikipedians trying to determine whether a hadith is notable or researching on Middle Eastern history afford to ignore these methods?

For some sports, a player is deemed notable if he has played in a fully professional league. Hence a male English footballer who makes a couple of appearances in League Two is deemed notable, but a female English footballer who makes hundreds of FA WSL appearances is not. There is also a consensus that high schools are generally notable and middle schools usually are not. Then what is the Chinese equivalent of a high school and middle school? What about cram schools, which are common in many Asian countries?

Some policies that are not directly related to content may also hinder minority groups from contributing to Wikipedia. Blocking open proxies causes massive collateral damage in countries (especially China) where they are needed to bypass government censorship. In the past, refusal to censor Wikipedia was taken to extremes and our policy on offensive material had to be clarified to stop such behaviour, which alienated readers and editors from more conversative cultures.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: Ok, now I can understand what you're looking at. Taking the last part first, I support blocking all IPs from editing, as I'm far more concerned with policing editor behavior than I am hearing from the oppressed people living under a communist regime. It's a wider political problem not a scholastic problem.

In situations like the FA WSL league or cram schools, I can only assume notability criteria have been selected with reason. If our systemic bias led us to inadvertently slant our coverage then perhaps we should have new RfC's on those notability requirements. However, I question why Wikipedia should think any primary or secondary school is notable at all. It smacks of regional inclusionism, not academic study. I'm currently a student at Loyola Marymount University and I see no reason why there needs to be an article about it, either. Readers might be curious about Harvard or Yale because they've attracted study and so many politicians and academics graduated from them. Just because students go there doesn't make it notable.

Oral traditions and Hadith are primary sources and Wikipedia shouldn't be relying on them. I don't know if you would consider this a "western" concept, but a tertiary source has to take cues from academia. If scholars write secondary analyses of oral traditions then Wikipedians can cite those journal articles. Just recently, I replaced a self-published website that clearly fails WP:RS with two published anthologies of the same material. WP:RS helps protect our project from trusting random websites, even if it's in the guise of discussing Buddhist mythology in an English-language context. I want the "western" audience to know about these myths surrounding a future Buddha but that study has to be done responsibly. We cannot weaken our standards to include material outside Wikipedia's mainstream and I contend that we don't have to. Proper sourcing is just a little more work; it's not a biased policy. Thank you for providing specification, though, as this subject deserves real discussion and I'm happy to drill down on what I either support or oppose. I've served as a campus ambassador in our Education Program precisely because I'd like to bring the college audience with their access to academic sources and methods to Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I believe your initial comment was in response to the notion that "to accept the voice of other cultures...one has to accept non-standard sources for notability". @Kosboot: Could you clarify the notion and offer further input on this discussion?

@Hildanknight: My comment grew out of a online discussion (not in WP:CSB) in which people were arguing that for some populations a record of their history is not captured through words, but through oral history. A lot of Native American history was told through oral history and this is true for other cultures in Europe and Africa. I recognize that WP depends on the published words, but I also think that it's possible to incorporate information that comes down in non-traditional ways. -- kosboot (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your belief that we need not hear "from the oppressed people living under a communist regime" is deeply troubling. The population of China is greater than the population of the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand combined. I hope you realise the historical and global significance of Chinese culture. Our terrible coverage of Chinese topics calls can only be addressed by an influx of Chinese voices. As an overseas Chinese, I can read Chinese-language sources, but cannot access offline publications by universities in China.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight and Kosboot: I support inclusion of other topics from outside the anglophone world, including the PRC. The claim that our criteria should change because Mandarin- or Cantonese-language websites are easier to get to than academic publications is exactly the problem. As a history major, I assert that the quality of sources (even if only available centuries after the fact) make better study than use of unreliable sources in the here and now. What you're attempting to do isn't history, it's journalism. An encyclopedia cannot be cobbled together like so much sensationalism from TMZ. If you want to include Native-American voices then find academic work to back that up. You can't use a self-published website and then claim WikiProject Systemic Bias needs that source in order to "fight the man." Sometimes finding reliable sources is going to require stepping away from your keyboard and going to the library. I won't be sold on taking the easier, sloppy path to questionable output over taking the well-established path of empirical study. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I definitely agree that we should not cite random websites. My argument is that Wikipedia needs editors from mainland China because they would have easier access to the most reliable sources on Chinese topics, such as offline publications by universities in China. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is a great report -- and so many participants, all with a different slant. Great job, in my humble opinion. There is only one demographic minority I can think of that has not been mentioned: older people. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And more generally, people of any age subsisting on fixed incomes due to disability. I have been trying to help make our popular economics articles more consistent with what the peer-reviewed literature reviews say about social safety nets and progressive tax but it has been a hard slog. EllenCT (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic Income and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability deserve a mention. Djembayz (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point EllenCT. Also I think I have not seen mention of LGBT? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably because LGBT topics are, on the whole, pretty well represented on Wikipedia (compared to other 'minority issues', at least). WikiProject LGBT is one of our most active WikiProjects. Robofish (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT topics are pretty well represented on Wikipedia?

Interesting comment above, User:Robofish. I am no expert, but my experience indicates differently. I vaguely remember coming across a Cuban transgender woman and having a category for her stub(?) article removed. Anyway, what I am really curious about is how one can measure representation/success? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but certainly one should not draw inferences based on a single article. Take a look at the work of WP:LGBT. It seems to me that they should keep watch over such articles rather than WP:CSB. It's important to stay out of each other's backyards. -- kosboot (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

LGBT issues are very well covered and Chensiyuan previously stated on his userpage that Wikipedia had a pro-LGBT bias. Since this issue was brought up, I have decided to expand on my answer to the question about discussing systemic bias with disruptive editors. I once tried explaining to a white Wikipedian why most Singaporeans disapproved of homosexuality and he responded with a flood of racist comments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

J.L.W.S. - where is your expansion (re: dealing with disruptive editors)? I'd like to read it. :) -- kosboot (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence above about the pro-LGBT, racist white editor is a brief expansion. I am unsure if we are supposed to edit our answers after the article has already been published. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias resulting from paywalled and inaccessible source materials?

As Chris troutman correctly points out above, we can't solve systemic bias simply by deciding we'll just work on anything besides articles about white males. His remarks bring us to an entirely different aspect of systemic bias that The Wikipedia Library seeks to address. This is the inherent and systemic bias on the Internet towards commercial materials and pop culture, which results from the fact that so much solid, scholarly content and hard data is out of print, hidden behind paywalls, or otherwise difficult to obtain.

I'm hopeful that The Wikipedia Library will help get solid data and information into the hands of editors who aren't connected to universities. Any insights or ideas on how to overcome the barriers for editors who lack access to high-quality source materials? Djembayz (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll hope too, but Sionk's use of that word, "recentism" really struck me. There's quite a bit available through Google Books, but I believe people generally prefer to deal with recent times, and avoid historical background (like newspapers do). To me it suggests that The Wikipedia Library should prepare some document like "How to do research" so as to serve as a guide to those who should understand what they're getting involved in and what are the subject's needs. -- kosboot (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an underappreciated problem: in many areas where Wikipedia has substandard coverage, it is surprisingly difficult to find reliable sources to write articles with. (And yes, I do use print sources as well as websources such as persee.fr about, & am a frequent user of my public library's Interlibrary Loan department.) For example, I had to give up writing articles on the top-level ministers of Ethiopia practically before I began due to lack of accessible sources. (I was honestly surprised that bare-bones information -- place of birth, education, highlights of political career -- were not easily accessible. It was easier to write about politicians who lived before the Ethiopian Revolution than after. Maybe Ethiopian politicians are not as publicity hungry as the politicians of other nations?) -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Do policies hinder the study of women and minorities?

@Chris troutman: You said above that you are concerned with the notion that our policies hinder the study of women and minorities. You say that you don't see any real evidence of that. I am just wondering if you have ever started an article about an notable woman / minority? Are you speaking from personal experience? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I've only started a couple articles and none of them had anything to do with subaltern studies. My introduction to expanding historical knowledge into less-covered areas has been the study of Middle Ages Africa. I'm asking for examples of how Wikipedia policies stand in the way of article development because all I'm seeing are accusations. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)