Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-09-11

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-09-11. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute; Infoboxes case closes (4,368 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-11

Discuss this story

I am a member of QAI and said in the case : "I have intentionally not supplied any evidence against (!) any editor, many of whom I respect, and still don't want to do that. (Was it a mistake? I am interested in understanding, not "remedies".)" - It was a mistake, but I would do it again, and I keep doing so and say no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Rather ironic that this was released on 9/11. — ChedZILLA 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Very poor decision by Arbcom. This result allows a group of editors to continue to viciously attack anyone attempting to improve "their" project and bans knowledgeable people from saying anything about it. In an attenpt to institute a false image of "fairness," they also failed to identify or say anything about the worst offenders who contributed greatly to the atmosphere of hostility that characterized the original set of disputes. The four people who did get smacked, given time, would probably have worked out their disputes amongst themselves. The underlying problem itself continues unabated and those most hostile to infoboxes got off scott-free and can continue to make claims that have no basis in technical reality. However, the wall of text that characterized this case appears to have made it impossible for ArbCom to sort the wheat from the chaff and reveals a fundamental structural problem in the process. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I continue to lose faith in ARBCOM when the end result is always a series of bans and no resolution of the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• how dare anyone try to add an infobox. this coddling of unreasonable people, drives away veteran editors. what the article owners don't grasp, is that their article will be unimproved, while every article but theirs has one. (until they leave) the problem with the route around censorship approach is that whole swaths of the wiki are a desert indefinately. the reliance on software tools and not training and "coaching" is an epic fail. (although i do sympathize) Duckduckgo (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The arbitrators are operating within the confines of a system that in effect, however we want to pretend it isn't, has punitive overtones. Like Gerda I recently also decided not to present evidence against another editor, because the environment on Wikipedia that includes attacks on each other and the arbs has become poisonous, and I was exhausted with it. I can't say I won't do that again, but at the time it seemed right. I understand frustration on the parts of community members, and on the arbs part, but until we allow for another way of dealing with problem areas-ways that are collaborative-we are doomed to more and more of the same. I doubt its the fault of the arbs or the fault of the community, its a system that doesn't work very well-walls of text, diffs that are taken out of context, editors who are not necessarily savvy in arbitrations, some needing help and support but nobody who cares or is afraid to help, which allows for unfair decisions, all of this, and more. Until we change or adjust the system and as a community allow for change, we bhave no one to blame but ourselves. When we all take responsibility, whether that hurts or not, then we can expect more novel and ultimately productive ways of dealing with this kind of case. *Gets down off soapbox*(olive (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC))

In the media: Lawyer goes to court to discover Wikipedian's identity; Storming Wikipedia; Wikimedia UK Secretary in conflict-of-interest controversy; Does Wikipedia need a "right to reply" box? (36,413 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-11

Discuss this story

Wikipedian in Residence

• Thank you for highlighting the Wikimedian in Residence position with York Museums Trust. However, to state that this is a “paid editor position” is misleading. The following is taken directly from the signed agreement between Wikimedia UK and the York Museums Trust:

"1. The aims of the residency are as follows: The Institution and WMUK agree and acknowledge that the WiR shall perform duties that may require the following tasks to be completed during the course of this Agreement:

• To perform the key aims and responsibilities as set out in Exhibit 1;
• Work towards the improvement in quality of Wikimedia projects content related to the
• Institution’s collections;
• To promote digital engagement in areas related to the work of the Institution;
• To provide training opportunities for staff, volunteers, and researchers associated with the Institution and its networks;
• To facilitate knowledge exchange and knowledge co­-creation;
• To collaborate with key partners; and
• To make information or materials held by the institution available via the Wikimedia projects, e.g. releasing text, images and other multimedia files under a free license.

For the avoidance of doubt the Institution may not under any circumstances direct the WiR to create, edit, comment, or post Wikipedia articles about the Institution and/or create articles on behalf of the Institution. "

I’d be very grateful if you could correct this misunderstanding. I am more than happy to write an article for The Signpost about our Wikimedian in Residence programme and its objectives. I am also happy to answer any questions that your readers may have about the programme, either here or on my talk page. I can also be reached at stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we also covered this in last week's "News and notes", but this week's note here has also been tweaked. Thank you for the note. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed the "paid editor position" line remains in the single page version. Could this be corrected please? Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The single-page version's content does not exist as a separate page; it's transcluded. There is a link to purge your cache at the bottom of the single-page version. Clicking that will fix it. Andreas JN466 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For reference, the Yorkshire Post said, The partnership between York Museums Trust and the creators of Wikipedia will see more information and images about Dr Anderson put on his Wikipedia page. To do this, a new part-time temporary paid role has been created at the Trust, with potential candidates having until Sunday to apply. For further information go to www.yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk Martin Fell, digital team leader, said: “Our partnership with Wikimedia UK will investigate using Wikipedia to boost access to images and information on our collections using a global platform. “We are delighted to be working with them on this project which will initially be used to raise the profile of one of York’s real characters.” I took and take that to mean that the person will be paid to edit and add content about Tempest Anderson to Wikipedia, referencing the York Museum Trust's collections. If that is a misunderstanding, then please advise. Best, Andreas JN466 12:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding, yes. The Wikimedian in Residence won't be editing directly and as far as I can see the article doesn't say that they will be. The WiR will be teaching and training others how to edit as a part of their role, as well as helping to make the Trust's resources available under open licences where possible. I'm sure you're aware that sometimes people from outside the Wikimedia movement don't always understand what we do or how we do it. If there's a lesson here it may well be that we cannot always take what we read in the media at face value. Myself and others from the UK chapter are always available to answer any questions that people may have regarding any aspect of our work so do feel free to get in touch. Of course, this applies to everyone and not just those who contribute to The Signpost! Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I should qualify that comment a little. With things like donated content then the WiR is the person most likely to be adding that content to Commons. If there is a template that's needed, then they would likely to create that. The key point is that they will not be editing content about the institution or where there is a conflict of interest. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stevie. If you check the Yorkshire Post article, you'll find it said that "more information and images about Dr Anderson" would be "put on his Wikipedia page", and that "a new part-time temporary paid role has been created" "to do this".

At the end of the day, the York Museums Trust have made it clear through their statement to the Yorkshire Post that they believe they can increase the visibility of their collection through exposure in Wikipedia. They speak of "using Wikipedia to boost access to images and information on our collections using a global platform" and hope to "raise the profile of one of York’s real characters" – on whom they hold a major collection. So to say that the new staff member is not editing content about the institution, as though that meant their work is not designed to advance the institution's interests, is a distinction without a difference: because contributing to Wikipedia is part of the institution's publicity strategy. If it didn't advance their interests, they wouldn't pay someone to do that work.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am not saying that such collaborations are a bad thing. At the end of the day, museums are there to educate the public, and so is Wikipedia. But we have to be transparent – if staff are paid to edit Wikipedia, and such editing serves the interests of the institution as well as the interests of Wikipedia, this has to be acknowledged, in communications to the community as well as those to the press and wider public. If this is done, then we stand a better chance of handling a conflict of interest if one should ever arise. I don't believe there is an awful lot of scope for conflict of interest in this particular case – I don't think that it is very likely that there is a museum with a similar or better collection on Tempest Anderson that might feel put out that their rivals are getting all their images and references into Wikipedia (or getting DYKs on the main page) while they do not – but it's best to be completely upfront about the interests that are being served by such an endeavour, and the extent to which paid editing takes place in support of these interests.

To this end, would you please answer the following questions:

1. Will the new paid staff member edit or create articles related to Tempest Anderson, adding references to or images from the York Museums Trust collection?
2. Will the new paid staff member train paid museum staff who will then go on to perform such edits?
3. If neither the new staff member nor other paid museum staff edit the Wikipedia articles on Tempest Anderson, how will Wikipedia's coverage of Tempest Anderson be improved?

Best, Andreas JN466 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note also that the job vacancy description says, "York Museums Trust's (YMT) Digital Team is embarking on a major partnership project with Wikimedia UK to help improve online access to our extensive collections and disseminate information about our collections, buildings and gardens to the widest possible audience."

If that is accurate, I am not sure it is an ideal use of donors' money (I understand the job is part-funded by Wikimedia UK – please correct me if that is wrong).

Furthermore, the press release on the York Museums Trust website says, "Anderson is little known outside of Yorkshire, but now a partnership with Wikimedia UK will see much more information and images put on the Wikipedia page about him."

If Anderson is a figure of limited note, which presumably means that few people look him up on Wikipedia, then what led Wikimedia UK to prioritise him over other possible uses of donors' money? I remember suggesting a while back for example that Wikimedia UK could collaborate with reputable sex education bodies to improve Wikipedia's sex education articles, many of which get large numbers of page views but are of poor quality. Or liaise with medical educators, funding a Wikipedian in Residence to help people like Jmh649 and Anthonyhcole bring the most viewed medical articles up to scratch. Could you say a little more about the process by which Wikimedia UK identified Tempest Anderson as an educational priority? Andreas JN466 17:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Given whats actually in the yorkshire museum collections (for historical reasons they are bigger and broader than they might be expected to be) they are a fairly reasonable choice of institution for a UK based educational charity to work with.Geni (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's a lot to get through here. I didn't actually work over the weekend, hence no reply so far. I will draft a full response and get back to you today. Thanks. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Break for answers

Andreas, thanks again for your questions. I hope you find these replies useful. Firstly, I’m really happy we are speaking about our Wikimedian in Residence programme. It’s something that Wikimedia UK is very proud of and that we are keen to continue. To shed some light for those who aren’t familiar with the programme, the position at York Museums Trust is not the first by any means. There have been residencies at the British Library, the Science Museum and Natural History Museum, the National Library of Scotland and the Tyne & Wear Archives and Museums. There are also others in various stages of development. We are keen to make sure that our efforts are distributed widely across the UK rather than focused in any one area. By the way next year we will be undertaking a full review of the programme to date and will welcome contributions.

You are correct that the York Museums Trust position is jointly funded by YMT and Wikimedia UK. Your comment that this work is in the YMT’s interest is interesting and obviously they see benefits in releasing their materials. What we are finding is that there is a shift in the cultural sector towards a greater understanding of open content. Many institutions are taking steps to make at least some of their materials freely available online, including the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC and the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. In fact, speakers from both of these institutions presented at our GLAM-Wiki conference earlier this year. Of course we advocate this sharing of knowledge and encourage other institutions to take similar steps, helping where we can. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is about?

The attention that you are dedicating to Tempest Anderson here is somewhat misguided, although understandable based on the YMT press release. If the sole aim were to improve that article then there would clearly be no call for this residency. It is not surprising that YMT would mention Tempest Anderson in their local publicity (into which WMUK had no input, by the way) as he is a locally interesting figure and this year marks the centenary of his death. However, to suggest that WMUK has identified Anderson as an education priority is somewhat unfair. York is an extremely important city in the history of the United Kingdom and Yorkshire is the UK’s largest county. This residency will work to make much of that history available online for the first time, and with open licences to boot. You are welcome to question whether this project is “an ideal use of donors’ money” and we encourage Wikipedians to ask questions of us. I would say this project is a very good use of donor funds but we always welcome more suggestions.

To give you some insight into how the YMT relationship developed, York Museums Trust first responded to our 2012 call for partnerships. The WMUK board agreed to consider this application in Spring 2013, when it was accepted on the grounds of potential, attitude towards open content and geographic diversity. Since then we have been working on documents codifying the future project, such as the Agreement quoted previously.

I’ve been in touch with my colleague who is managing the process from the Wikimedia UK side in order to properly answer your three specific questions.

• Will the new paid staff member edit or create articles related to Tempest Anderson, adding references to or images from the York Museums Trust collection?

The Wikimedian in Residence is there to enable the staff and visitors to the museum to contribute to Wikipedia and the other websites in line with our best practices. Tempest Anderson will be an obvious topic, especially if we can release useful archive material under open licences. They aren’t there to edit.

• Will the new paid staff member train paid museum staff who will then go on to perform such edits?

Possibly, although the training that the staff will receive will thoroughly cover teaching them about the conflict of interest. They will also teach volunteers and members of the public. They will be expected not to edit about the Museum’s institutions themselves. They would be asked to have individual Wikipedia accounts, possibly with a declaration that they are also staff at YMT for the avoidance of doubt. Training is a key part of this as it has been with all our posts from the very first volunteer based one at the British Museum in 2010

• If neither the new staff member nor other paid museum staff edit the Wikipedia articles on Tempest Anderson, how will Wikipedia's coverage of Tempest Anderson be improved?

By volunteers, the Wikimedia community that will gain access to materials thanks to the WIR, the general public via outreach events and so on.

With reference to medical articles, I agree that these are very important and, personally, I believe they should be among the best on Wikipedia. We have worked with Medical Research Council before and the Wellcome Trust in supporting a series of events we are running in 2013. We are certainly going to further develop these relationships. Additionally, I am currently finishing off a proposal to work on editathons related to Breast Cancer Awareness Month (October) and Prostate Cancer Awareness Month (November). I hope to have some more information available on this soon. I’m also aware that WikiProject:Medicine is doing some great work in this area.

I hope all of this is useful but please let me know if you would like me to clarify any of these points and, as we have said many times, we would love to meet you in the office to chat about these things. Thank you. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers, Stevie. Some comments:

• I would certainly suggest that staff editing Wikipedia place a corresponding declaration on their user page. The more transparency in these situations the better.
• I would also ask you to think about coordinating your partners' press releases and job advertisements with them: if the YMT says that the position is there to, and I quote, "disseminate information about our collections, buildings and gardens to the widest possible audience", it just does not feel right that donors should be paying for that, at least not the second and third parts of that list (i.e. disseminating information about their buildings and gardens). That's institutional PR.
• You say my "comment that this work is in the YMT’s interest is interesting". You have to remember that us lot out here read the information made public: and the YMT's self-interest is very apparent in phrases like the one quoted above, and others like "boost access to images and information on our collections using a global platform", and "raise the profile of one of York’s real characters". I would humbly suggest that it would be far better if the press releases and job adverts talked about an educational mission, rather than about how this donor-funded job will help raise the profile of the hosting institution. Tempest Anderson normally gets something like 5 page views a day [1], so the emphasis on this figure in the press release was likewise unfortunate. It's just not something readers have a demonstrable interest in that would warrant spending their donations on. I am happy to learn though that the collaboration is about more than Tempest Anderson. :)
• Is the funding for the WiR 50/50 between WMUK and YMT?
• I am glad to hear you are liaising with medical bodies. But as I have outlined elsewhere, I would love to see Wikimedia UK (and other chapters) do work starting from the Wikipedia end, identifying weaknesses in coverage and looking for partners able to help improve those content areas, rather than from the GLAM end, looking for GLAMs prepared to work with Wikipedia, and then having them concentrate on whatever content they host collections on. In other words, focus not so much on broadening Wikipedia's coverage, and more on improving high-traffic articles.
• You gave an example of an edit-a-thon. But improving high-traffic articles requires more than edit-a-thons. In edit-a-thons people typically add new niche content. Improving high-traffic articles requires focused work by trained specialists checking and revising existing content. This is much harder to do than working in a niche area, but in my view it's essential. And it's not something experts generally volunteer for.
• As I mentioned before, a good example here is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexuality, which has many articles with very high page views, yet has zero top- or high-importance FAs, and just a single mid-importance FA – and that is Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies – with the other minor Featured and A-Class articles similarly representing a kind of curiosity cabinet including Gropecunt Lane, Icelandic Phallological Museum, Wank Week, S&M (song) and a handful of pop culture articles. Given how popular a source Wikipedia is for young people, who are in need of solid information in that area, that is a shame. Highly trafficked medical articles similarly would benefit from regular attention from an expert. And there surely are many other areas like that, which are educationally important and have high viewing figures, yet are poorly covered in Wikipedia.
• Now, it may well be that trained specialists might experience difficulties and conflicts when trying to improve highly trafficked pages, but these are conflicts that need to be brought to the surface and analysed if Wikipedia as an institution is to learn and improve.
• So, to be quite clear: I am in favour of paying identified experts to edit and monitor Wikipedia, and of Wikimedia UK funding such work. Is that something you would be prepared to take on?
• To me, a reader-oriented analysis, based on page views and the educational importance of getting the information right, is essential to ensure that funds available are used in a way that maximises the benefit to readers, to ensure that donors get the best possible value for the money they contribute, and to ensure that Wikipedia as an institution learns as much as possible from experts about the strengths and weaknesses of its own content generation process. Best, Andreas JN466 00:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• funding the dissemination of information about the collections, buildings and gardens held by the York Museums Trust is a pretty solid match for WMUK's educational goals. Boosting access to images and information in the YMT collections is again a solid match for what wikipedia does (make as much information as possible as accessible to as many people as possible). Given the extremely broad collection held by the YMT (due to a mix of york's importance dating back to roman times and britian's imperial history) its a given that it will cover areas of interest to those looking to counter systemic bias. Your interest in human sexuality is noted but again I would remind you Eboracum was a roman settlement and I understand the romans has some interest in the topic. Have you ever actually been to any of the YMT's museums? oh and the high traffic articles with conflicts on them tend not to be the ones with the most serious issues.Geni (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Andreas and Geni. I certainly agree that in future we need to have a closer liaison with partner institutions regarding promotion. This will lead to changes to future agreements which tightens the process. And yes, I also agree that the focus should be on educational outcomes. For us, that's the reason we enter these partnerships. The funding isn't 50/50 between WMUK and the institution, there is no set pattern. In this case the chapter is funding the salary of the post and the YMT is meeting other costs, such as space for events, line management, desk space, equipment and so on.

I take your point about editathons sometimes being niche but they can be also very useful, and they aren't without impact. For example, charities related to breast cancer and prostate cancer will have access to an awful lot of appropriate source material, but also the required expertise to make sure that the articles are at a decent standard. Given that many people are affected by cancer I think these articles are important.

The suggestion of “focused work by trained specialists checking and revising existing content” could be an interesting approach. Your later point, “a reader-oriented analysis, based on page views and the educational importance of getting the information right” sounds pretty subjective to me but I'm open to discuss this at another time and place. I'm not sure that page views necessarily equate to educational importance (the constant presence of Facebook in the top ten viewed articles highlights this). Something based around these vital articles would be my personal preference but others would view it differently.

You ask if I am prepared to take on “paying identified experts to edit and monitor Wikipedia” and “Wikimedia UK funding such work”. That's not a decision for me to make, it's a decision for our community to make. If this is a conversation you'd like to have more widely, please do feel free to raise the topic (including any of the above points) on the UK water cooler where I'm sure the Wikimedia UK community will join in or do come in and have a cup of tea. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these answers, Stevie Benton (WMUK). Just to be clear, page views in themselves do NOT equate to educational importance. What I am suggesting is that if we have money to spend, articles that have both high page views AND high educational importance (because the information is in some way critical to the reader, or because it's a vital article) be prioritised for attention by experts. It's basic risk management: critical error × high page views = high priority. Best, Andreas JN466 12:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a summary of this discussion at the WMUK Watercooler page and invited further discussion there. Andreas JN466 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary on the water cooler Andreas. I feel like this has been a worthwhile discussion and I hope others have likewise found it helpful. Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia

There has been another article on the Croatian Wikipedia today in Novi list, Croatia's oldest daily. As far as I can make out, the headline reads, "Jovanovic: Kids, don't use Wikipedia. Its contents are falsified." ("Jovanović: Djeco, ne baratajte hrvatskom Wikipedijom jer su sadržaji falsificirani.") Željko Jovanović is a Social Democrat, and Croatia's Minister of Science, Education and Sports. Andreas JN466 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar, note that there is a related discussion on Jimbo's talk. --Andreas JN466 04:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikistormining and FemTechNet

Please see all these mentions of FemTechNet's Wikistorming project. The project is being highlighted here as if the press coverage were entirely in conservative media condemning it, but that is not the case. Foregrounding less reliable sources that attack legitimate Wikipedia work is hardly the way to encourage underrepresented groups to participate in this community. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wadewitz, we covered previous positive press for the project in the last two issues of the Signpost, and that coverage is explicitly mentioned at the beginning of the section. It's just that this past week there seemed to have been a minor backlash as conservative media picked up on the initiative, and that seemed worth pointing out. For reference, there was also a piece on Fox News TV that I thought was an absolutely appalling distortion of the project's aims and context. Andreas JN466 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

A link to that coverage would help! And, yes, it is appalling. Wadewitz (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added the links. You're right, they should really have been there from the beginning. Andreas JN466 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Google Maps drops Wikipedia

I am much displeased at losing my main method for finding targets for Wikiphotography. Perhaps we can get our own mapping system. Wikivoyage already has one. For example, Wikivoyage:St._Helena_(island) has a little blue and green square at top right. Click, and we get Wikivoyage's own map. The system is underdeveloped and layers are skimpy, but maybe it can be made to grow up. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We could build our own Google Maps mash-up on Tool Labs. That seems like the most sustainable solution to me. Dcoetzee 02:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If that can work on my old HTC EVO Android 4.1 phone, it would be a great help for my photo target hunting on the road. Or even if I must replace the phone. Presumably such a capability means a Wikimedia map app similar to the old Commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012/Mobile fact sheet Android app but more modern, more general and more oriented to articles and existing photos. If it's only a Web page that is slow to load through mobile data service and difficult to read on a screen that fits in a pocket, then it can still be pleasant at home where the fast connection and big screen are, but less useful in practice.

Have a look at this map (Openstreetmap with Wikipedia POIs on toolserver by Kolossos).

You can integrate this map into Wikipedia by user script: [2]

For the future there are OpenStreetMap plans (Sumana Harihareswara) for Wikipedia mobile and desktop. Imagine that together with Special:Nearby... --Atlasowa (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not new; Google maps has stopped supporting Wikipedia layer for at least a month. And yes, we need to have an alt solution... this was a great tool for wiki tourism (IMHO much more useful than the entire Wikivoyage project). And yes, I don't understand why we don't have the map integration, it's been used on Polish Wikipedia for years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Having been the liaison person with Google, when we introduced {{Coord}}, working with them to develop that service, I was very disappointed to see it dropped. However, addition to Kolossos' useful tool listed above, it was good top read that the WMF has recently said it will establish a map tile server using OSM data to facilitate the development of such tools. Jim.henderson and others may also find the "nearby" feature of Wikipedia's app and mobile website useful. I've also proposed a project, which is being developed, to categorise articles with coordinates, but no picture, by state, county or city. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Article with OSM-tool (old implementation with "map"-link instead of clickable icon)

• BTW, i like the Wikivoyage little blue and green OSM icon at top right . If you compare with de:St. Helena (Insel), on german WP is a similar but smaller OSM icon that opens the openstreetmap window in the Wikipedia article.

Google maps/Mano Marks says they turned off the Wikipedia layer due to low usage. I find that hard to believe. Incidentally google just introduced local ads on the Google Maps app... --Atlasowa (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So, from this little discussion with people in the know, I have got a few impressions.

1. Things are being done to make articles more geographically aware, especially as seen on the desktop. This will partly make up for the loss of Google Maps' Wikipedia layers, and maybe go further, eventually.
2. Less is being done for this year or next for smartphone users, thus for me in my principal use of Wikigeography. We can eventually hope for a higher level of integration among existing capabilites, such as going from an article to its map, find there a marker for another article, and jump thence to the actual new article. It could also include powerful tools like mobile maps of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Renfrew County, someday. For now, even as small a thing as the "nearby articles" feature only looks at places near where I'm at right now, and cannot quickly show me what articles are near a distant place whose article I'm reading.

Incidentally, I've been uninstalling the Google Maps for Android updates every week or two when it automaticaly updates. Nuisance, but it let me find several targets yesterday in Yonkers. So, I mustn't replace my old phone with one that has a new version of GM. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Genocidal

• Guy Fieri "genocidal", according to Wikipedia: The wording of the sentence "although there has been an attempt to re-introduce it since in modified form, by an IP address stating it refers to Fieri's portrayal in web comic Homestuck." should be improved. IP addresses cannot edit Wikipedia any more than usernames can, Wikipedia editors are human beings whether they choose to have their edits attributed to their real name, a pseudonym or the IP address of the internet connection they are using. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: As deadline approaches, Individual Engagement Grants looks for ideas (1,404 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-11

Discuss this story

• The backlog idea is an IEG I submitted last round, was it? I think I withdrew it from consideration, if I remember correctly. I still think it's a fantastic idea, and I recently posted over at VPI about it, but this idea might be best left unfunded for now. I'm not sure how the IEGs are classified as "active new ideas" vs. "dormant old ideas", etc. I'm brainstorming about a new idea though. Biosthmors (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• It appears that if one wants feedback on a potential idea or to ask questions the best place for this is at m:Grants_talk:IdeaLab on meta-wiki. Biosthmors (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• What a sweet kitty.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football (3,515 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-11

Discuss this story

Lil Wayne must have deleted those Tweets because I can't find any that are provocative and there is no mention of them on his WP article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They weren't provocative; he just apologised to his fans for not getting any awards for his last album, and said he'd do better next time. So he releases his next album, and comes top of the list. Serendi^podous 15:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I really like this feature - it's an interesting view into the interests of the readership at large, and the ratings encourage any self-respecting editor to say "WAIT an article with such a low rating is getting that many views? It needs to be improved." Great concept. Dcoetzee 02:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always nice to get positive feedback. Serendi^podous 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If twerking makes the list again next week, can we please not refer to it as "girls waggling their bottoms"? Men/boys/women can twerk too. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have doubts whether Facebook is really so popular or whether something is inflating this. Why isn't Google, Youtube or Twitter making an appearance? Something is fishy. This does seem to have some support in search terms popularity ([3]), where Facebook seems more popular than the proverbial sex or porn. It also is much more popular than all the other popular articles of ours, like this weeks' Lil Wayne. I don't grok it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the Top 25 report, you'll see that those other websites are also frequently listed. Facebook is the post popular website on Earth (it's more popular than Google) so it will logically be the most popular website search. It is likely that these websites are getting some inflation from people typing them into the search bar and accidentally clicking on the Wiki page instead of the page itself ("G" has a high ranking, probably for this reason) but there's no way for us to say how much. Serendi^podous 07:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Traveling to Indonesia (4,777 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-09-11

Discuss this story

"...31 Featured Articles, 14 Featured Lists, and 93 good articles...". It's good! Wagino 20100516 (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of that due to our editor Crisco... - his adding quality to the project has been phenomonal in the last few years sats 12:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh sats, you're making my face go redder than a cabe rawit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys! Feel free to keep planning a bid for Wikimania! I know the project is separate from local organizers but Indonesia is a priority country for developing the international movement! meta:Wikimania 2013 bids/Surakarta meta:Wikimania 2014 bids/Bukittinggi I would love to join an editathon with WikiProject Indonesia as part of a conference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be interesting... though (to be honest) I think the only city that could support Wikimania would be Jakarta. Everywhere else... the internet alone would be a cause for mutiny. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Why would you exclude Bandung or Bali, both common locations of international conferences, and with friendlier environment. --ELEKHH^T 19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I have not been to Bandung in several years, so its possible (likely, even) the internet is better now. I think Bali would be good to avoid for Wikimania both for the internet and because we'd lose a lot of people to the sun, sand and surf. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
        • But Haifa also had a balmy climate with plenty of sun and a nice beach. I guess the trick is to make the conference interesting :). --ELEKHH^T 07:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Perhaps, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Nice to see Signpost cover such a broad and important topic. I also greatly appreciate the contributions of Bennylin, Satu Suro and Crisco. However, I think the current state is more bleak than depicted above. The Indonesian Wikipedia is outstandingly poor, with enormous amount of copyvio and poor content, and such material often spills over to en.wiki. The fact that by the number of articles id.wiki is only 30th is telling. Most discouraging is though that there are only 1,500 active editors on id.wiki, while there are 64,000,000 active facebook users in Indonesia (both measures on monthly basis). On the positive side, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous contributions to the coverage of Indonesia on en.wiki by Rochelimit and Merbabu. -ELEKHH^T 20:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with you here. When I can have 4% of their featured content without even regularly translating my stuff... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks Bennylin, Satu Suro and Crisco for making Indonesia showcased here. JKadavoor Jee 02:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yesterday I removed a wp:PROD tag from an article about a public university located in Surabaya which according to its article is the second largest city in Indonesia. Just wondering if this a case of wp:systemic bias. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't surprise me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)