Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-05-13

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-05-13. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases (1,439 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-05-13

Discuss this story

• Under "other actions", the last item links to a clarification request that ended in March – two months ago. AGK [•] 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The notifications in March, for instance here, said "The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion 'very shortly'", but as far as I know, this has not been done. —Neotarf (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • By a happy coincidence, the follow-up to that clarification request was scheduled some time ago to take place this week. However, the original clarification surely does not belong in this week's arbitration report, given how stale it now is. AGK [•] 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Not sure how happy it is, or how arb-staleness is measured, but I have noticed that anything with a discretionary sanctions component seems to be getting kicked down the road these days. —Neotarf (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map (1,264 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-05-13

Discuss this story

Re: recent FA Gustav Holst: My colleague and all-round good egg Tim riley was co-nominator and indeed the principal author, so he should receive at least equal credit. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In the original draft, he was listed as co-nominator for my article, California State Route 75. The author needs to be a bit more careful next time... --Rschen7754 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I will let the author of that section know about these issues. --Pine^✉ 05:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Added it to the wrong line by mistake. Sorry. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market? (4,406 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-05-13

Discuss this story

• User Another Believer was a recent recepient of the Editor of the Week Award. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit surprised to see the Rachel Johnson problem being described as a "minor mistake", and that Johnson's own coverage of the issue wasn't mentioned. The mistake she removed included vandalism claiming that she had never completed her degree. She also made some other innocuous updates, [1], but the vandalism that was a genuine problem, and had sat in the article for over a month. [2]. It wasn't corrected until five days later, when an IP used Johnson's article as the source. [3] OrangeMike erred in reinserting the vandalism, and using a templated warning that wasn't really appropriate on her talk page. While Johnson's edits weren't fully in keeping with the COI policy, and thus warranted a talk page message, they were NPOV, and removing vandalism is specifically permitted under the policy. - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby, I had the same suspicion when I read that snippet and was about to dig into the diffs and now see your clarification - thanks for posting! I am also very keen to see the content of that "templated warning" and specifically, I would like to know if it directs such users to our "ombudsman" or some other venue where they can post their request for corrections. It's not fair that only people who have a public forum are able to force "Wikipedia" to move, and that others not so fortunate to be able to air their grief in a public arena must wait patiently for weeks, months or years until their "talk page message" is read and acted upon. Jane (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The warning is here. The difficulty is that it is mostly a warning against creating an autobiography, which doesn't apply. About half way through it mentions suggesting changes on a talk page, which is the only point that was relevant. The problem is that the standard warning for biographical COI edits seems to be directed at creating pages, rather than making edits. This is one of those cases where a personal comment would have been more useful than the template, because the template is too generic. - Bilby (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that too! Though I can sympathize with Orange Mike's desire to use a template for such COI violations as personal messages take much more energy when on recent-edit-patrol, I do think that such a template should go to some basic COI landing page where the user can look up where to go for help. I noticed for example, that the term "talk page" isn't even explained in that template. Jane (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think "whose is described" should be corrected to "who is described." --Hispalois (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed it. From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About, "post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles are welcome" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote Recent Changes Map

The Hatnote Recent Changes Map (Hatnote Recent Changes Map) reminded me of Wikipediavision (WikipediaVision (beta)).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list (8,955 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-05-13

Discuss this story

WikimediaFoundation.org wiki

• The notification seems very abrupt and despite the thank you, quite hollow; "I am having administrator access to accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective immediately". Had this have been run through publicity or anyone with experience running a volunteer program, they would have pointed out the gratitude expressed was kurt and not proportionate to the service and hours given by the community. Furthermore, the announcement should have been made months in advance and some reasonable explanation should have been given. Mkdw^talk 06:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• WMF wiki versus Meta wiki. I haven't read any of the discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list. My opinion though is that I don't have a problem with how the WMF handles its own wiki. My problem is with Meta. It is a near useless wiki that few people use relative to the number of Wikipedia editors. Meta should be moved to a subdomain on English Wikipedia. Maybe meta.wikipedia.org. This way the WMF can get some much broader interaction with Wikipedia editors than with just the few willing to use Meta and its separate watchlist. English is the international language and Meta operates mainly in English now. Saying Meta is more international and accessible is ridiculous. Far more editors from around the world use the English Wikipedia watchlist than use the Meta watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As Tony points out below, you're kind of displaying your ignorance here (in a few ways). :-) You should read the mailing list discussion to better understand the underlying issues regarding control of wikimediafoundation.org.

    Regarding Meta-Wiki, whether the wiki is located at meta.wikimedia.org or returns to its previous home of meta.wikipedia.org, it makes absolutely no difference if features such as cross-wiki watchlists aren't implemented, according to the view you put forward. Simply moving the wiki would be both disruptive and harmful, with no benefit.

    There's great virtue in having a global site that can serve a global movement made up of Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, Wikisources, Wikiversities, Wikidata, Commons, Wikivoyages, etc. And many people, across all Wikimedia wikis, see that. I hope one day you're among them. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was assuming that meta.wikipedia.org would utilize the English Wikipedia watchlist. If not, then wikipedia.org/meta might be used as the URL. That would definitely be on the English Wikipedia watchlist. Both you and Tony missed my point. My point was that pie-in-the-sky beliefs that Meta's current location, and separate watchlist, will somehow magically involve people from more Wikimedia Projects, and "serve the whole Wikimedia community in all of its linguistic and cultural diversity" is wrong. Just believing something does not make it so. The evidence is that Meta discussions, and I have participated in some, do not get as broad participation as on almost any discussion on English Wikipedia. English Village Pumps for example. Many people from all over the world, who speak a large variety of languages, have user pages and user talk pages on English Wikipedia. They check their English Wikipedia watchlist far more than the Meta watchlist. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Those of us who have read Yochai Benkler's Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm might like to consider to what extent this action is an affirmation of WMF as a Firm. In end it is not so much about how conflict is handled, but more about whether the trajectory of WMF will inevitably develop in a way at odds with the community because it has a fundamentally different way of being organised and of how it sees the world.--Leutha (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Timeshifter, Meta began as an offshoot from en.WP, but now has grown to (supposedly) serve the whole Wikimedia community in all of its linguistic and cultural diversity. Tony (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

See my reply above to MZMcBride. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeshifter ... Meta would benefit from your presence. Tony (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Meta would benefit from the presence of many people. There have been many recruiting efforts to get people to go to Meta. They haven't worked over the long term due to its separate watchlist. People stop checking it. Meta needs to go to the people. The people are at English Wikipedia. Including people from around the world, who speak many languages, who have user pages and user talk pages on English Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Germany

• German chapter report in the "in briefs"—it says $8.6M, but I remember seeing a graph with a projected €8M, and a table immediately below with 7 point something million euros. I was confused. Tony (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

$40,000 Travel Budget

As a donor and someone who travels frequently, $40,000 is an excessive amount of donor money for 10 people. I hope Wikimedia learns to make more reasonable expenses in the future. I do think this issue needs more exposure. 74.202.39.3 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your post here (and some of the related discussion about this issue) reminds me a little of <http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/05/15/dictionary-of-numbers/>. In a vacuum, $40,000 for ten people means very little. Does that only include lodging and airfare? What does it include or exclude? And, as I understand it, the budgeted amount may not reflect the actual amount eventually spent (money can usually be returned).

There's a newly created Funds Dissemination Committee (including an ombudshuman position that's currently vacant and undergoing an election). If you want "more exposure," perhaps you should consider getting involved. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the $40,000 figure was an estimate used for costing purposes. When developing costings for something like this its actually good practice to assume relatively high costs to ensure that enough money is allocated. The story notes that the actual expenditure is likely to be lower. It's not terribly difficult to rack up a $4000 per person estimate for a trip involving intercontinental airfares as well as a week's worth of three star standard accommodation in an expensive city. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsperson

I still have no idea why "ombudsperson" isn't acceptable. It's gender neutral, it's in the OED, it has a million hits in Google Books. What's the problem? Ah well. Maybe I'll run for office and mandate that change. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

... yeah, because that's how the Board works. You get a seat and then you can just mandate change. In reality, a name change for the Ombudsman commission presumably requires the consent of the current commission and a Board resolution.

As I said in the relevant discussion, the overall name could use reconsideration. "Ombudsperson" is a very awkward word and the idea put forward by some scholars that "ombudsman" is sexist is genuinely offensive to some portion of Wikimedians, I think, as it defies a basic understanding of English, Swedish, history, and common sense in favor of hyper-political correctness—in their view. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)