Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-09-25

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-09-25. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage (528 bytes · 💬)

Why cant you thumbnail (in a gallery) all new featured pictures? Providing links only is so yesterday...--Kozuch (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, thumbnails are so yesterday. Check out FC reports from three years ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In the media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia (3,575 bytes · 💬)

Some indication that the article confuses Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons would be welcome. Wikipedia hosts very few if any pornographic images, and the deletion of images by Jimmy Wales was on Commons (where the rapidly undeleted images were mainly images of artworks by long-established artists like Félicien Rops, which didn't enamour people to the porn deletion cause at all). Fram (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fox News? Wikipediocracy? We must be hard up (no pun intended) for news nowadays. Int21h (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• That is a good point, Fram and one I did consider : here was my thinking in not mentioning it: the title of the Fox article is misleading, but in all honesty, I highly doubt they know (or care) the difference, but as that wasn't the primary slant of the article, I didn't really find it necessary to point that out, as, in the scheme of things and in the context of the article, it is not really a central point to their argument. And In21h, yeah, bit of a slow news week . Thanks to you both for your feedback. Go Phightins! 10:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes Commons has stopped attempting to delete any porn and is instead now trying to delete all diagnostic images [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a needlessly inflammatory representation of your opponents in a very complicated legal debate, James. You should know better. Powers ^T 13:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And this I bet is how the mainstream media will paint the issue if Commons moves forwards with deletion. Yes it is a complicated issue. Not having "diagnostic images" because they are complicated however does not seem like the right choice IMO. We however have a community on Commons who is willing to fight tooth and nail to keep "porn" of questionable educational value. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Where's the pornographic content? Beside the pages obviously about the topic, and of human sexuality, these types of things never pop up randomly on Wikipedia. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. I don't appreciate having to see that when I check my watchlist. It doesn't happen often but it can. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor (5,384 bytes · 💬)

• Those who are interested in the Visual Editor situation might be interested in a similar situation at

Wikipedia talk:Flow#No edit conflicts? where many of the same issues are in play. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who voted for opt-out, even I got the hint that VisualEditor was opposed by most editors active enough to participate in the RfC, with good reason. WMF must understand the proposal was premature. It is not production ready enough for English Wikipedia expectations. This was said over and over (and over). I do consider the comments to the effect that VisualEditor should be disabled to make it harder to edit Wikipedia as "nonresponsive"; that is a policy decision that was not under discussion. But even with that said, consensus was still very strongly against because of technical concerns. So I reiterate that the proposal should be re-submitted in the mildly distant future after it is technically sound, with any and all comments to the effect that edits should be made more difficult ignored as against some WMF policy (a policy or whatev should be passed to reflect this if necessary). Int21h (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I must have missed the Declaration of Independence that Antarctica seems to have made.... Peridon (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Antarctica has about eighty internationally-agreed historic monuments - see Historic Sites and Monuments in Antarctica - few if any of which are on the equivalent heritage lists of any specific country. Handling it as an extra "country" seemed the most practical way to do it! There have been 19 submissions so far... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems to be a very religious place! Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Anasuya is not a new hire for WMF. She joined WMF in July 2012. Her title has changed but I think the role is more or less the same. I think Nonprofit Quarterly is a little behind. ASengupta (WMF) can you clarify? --Pine^✉ 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Ack, that's my fault for not double-checking. It looks like she was promoted earlier this year. My apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for noticing, Pine and Ed! It's true I was hired in July last year, but the NPQ did have it right in that Frank Schulenburg and I are the two 'newest' members on the leadership team at WMF, even though our promotions took place a while ago. :-) ASengupta (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• James Forrester is actually the product manager for VisualEditor. While it is true that product managers often also act as project managers and therefore what is written here is not incorrect, it would be more correct to refer to him by his proper title. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan, fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks to both of you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• A modern editor emulating a 1980s word processor is so retro. Get with the times: 140 character per article (and type with your thumbs). ~ 16:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What's a collective membership mark? Is this another term for collective trade mark? If so, once this is confirmed, please redirect it. Otherwise, a stub would be nice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Featured lists election: An election to select two new delegates for the featured list candidates process is being held from 1 to 30 October. Nominations will be accepted from 1 to 7 October. Voting starts on 15 October."

• I checked the Talk Page and it said that these elections were canceled and might be rescheduled (see FLC Elections). Can you find out what happened? I couldn't find any information explaining it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia (3,647 bytes · 💬)

• Paid editors are tantamount to sockpuppets. We must be able to link sockpuppets together, or bad things happen (they tend to release the magic smoke). This also touched on another problem: there are no regulations on this stuff that I am aware of in effect within San Francisco (except maybe that which you mention), the only legal jurisdiction of concern on any WMF project IMO. (Sounds like a good ordinance for the SF Board of Supervisors doesn't it!) Its all community policy predicated on a TOS, which is notoriously difficult to enforce IRL. But we are always in need of paid editors on Wikisource and Wikidata etc., though, so there shouldn't be a problem with that. Int21h (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• "It's crazy that blatant Wikipedia astroturfing firms are operating in broad daylight like it's a legitimate business that doesn't need to hide in the shadows." If you know of any such firms, consider reporting them to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal dept. The legal department is probably in a better position than anyone to either get an injunction and/or determine the IP addresses used by such companies so they can be blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have direct knowledge of such ABF astroturfing firms and - in some cases - their specific activities. I wouldn't think WMF would be in a position to deal with it, but if there was a place to report them that would result in real consequences (legal ones) as oppose to blocking throwaway accounts, I would be very interested in supporting that. They are usually smart enough to use a variety of IPs though, so our limited toolset on-Wiki is not really effective long-term. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The contacts listed in foundation:Contact us and foundation:Staff and contractors#Legal and Community Advocacy are probably as good a place as any to ask "what are our options using the legal system?" or similar questions. Unfortunately, if such activities are originating in countries with weak or inaccessible court systems, it may be impossible to get that kind of remedy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• English Wikipedia is F.U.B.B. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One area where PR professionals should be encouraged to contribute is providing illustrative photos for articles, such as publicity shots of clients, product shots, corporate buildings, etc., to the extent that they are missing from articles. They would have to meet our Creative Commons licensing requirements of course and be reasonably neutral (though even smiling attractive publicity shots are useful), and not misleadingly composed or edited. --agr (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Very much so. A single, high quality, promotional picture of most any subject is of great value to both Wikipedia and the company. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent research: Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia? (3,914 bytes · 💬)

• "delegated voice" is red, and I can envision several slightly different meanings. It's only mention anywhere on en.wp is this Signpost item. Could someone figure out what it means and make it blue? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @DMacks: I'm not seeing a redlink in the Signpost article, anywhere. More generally, I'd guess (without reading the referenced article) that "delegated voice" means that Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what is in reliable sources, and that originality of opinion, or synthesis by Wikipedia editors, is disallowed per WP:NOR. So a limited number of opinions (news articles, authoritative statements) are filtered through Wikipedia editors ("delegated") in the process of going into Wikipedia articles (being "voiced" there). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's red right there in my comment:) It's not linked or explained at all in the Signpost blurb, which is my main concern. In lay language, it could just as easily mean that wikipedia takes on (is delegated) the voice of the source, stating something "is" rather than that "[some source] says". And that's exactly why having it undefined and leaving us to speculate is a problem. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• "fixing of spelling mistaken"? That's cute, but isn't that more of a typo than a spelling mistake? – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Do we really need the editorialising second paragraph in the story about the research into Admins? It seems rather self-indulgent. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems really out of place on a page that otherwise consists of summaries. Op eds are all well and good, but this piece seemed to just be taking isolated points from the paper as a springboard for unrelated RfA and administrator criticism that has no empirical support. The connection to the linked essay was unclear as well. Dcoetzee 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The format of this research report explicitly allows for reviews, which contain personal opinion almost by definition. That said, I understand the concerns raised in this specific case, and had suggested before publication (see my talk page) that those personal reviewer comments should be balanced by more detail about the paper's methodology and results, but in the end neither I nor other people got around to making such edits or additions to the draft; unfortunately my own available time for this issue was very limited.

FYI, one of the authors has reacted to the review here.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nick, in the end, as with everything else, we need more volunteers to help review papers, offer second opinion, and so on. If you would like to join, you are more then welcome! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Does wikipedia actually implement or use any of the research and studies for these type of systems (such as Automatic classification of edits)? --74.202.39.3 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Look on Walter's works (1,274 bytes · 💬)

Yes, that Volvo article says the car is from 2004...not sure why the interest in it was revived. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It is Reddit, you can never tell what that site might make popular for a day.[2].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone notice if google search changes (hummingbird) affected our stats? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)