Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-07-29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-07-29. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Even mammoths get the Blues (2,887 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

I think you guys missed the new Featured Topic. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Scheduled monuments in Somerset. GamerPro64 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, it wasn't on the basic Featured Content report via the FC_Importer script. That's a new feature. Shall we add it? There were discussions for a while I missed what's in or not. Hafspajen (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The script takes content from WP:GO which is missing this entry. ResMar 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we usually adding Featured Topics? We can write up a quick summary and add it - or add it to the next, maybe, if we do. Hafspajen (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the script picks up featured topics too, but only if they're included on Wikipedia:Goings-on, which is where the scripts gets a list of stuff that's been promoted. If it's not there it'll miss it. ResMar 17:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift is not an actress[edit]

If she has acted, it's not even enough to be notable. She's only notable for her singing and songwriting and that's the only reason anyone has ever let her act.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped 'em round to reflect the order in the source article. Her acting style is "painfully clunky" and "unwatchable" apparently, but with "serious comedic potential". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That looks better.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars? (2,402 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • "Is Wikipedia a battleground in the culture wars?" followed by multiple in-brief stories in which Wikipedia is a battleground for cultural history. More like, "Wither the WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND?" – czar 19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having a "Cultural Marxism" article, I can understand. Putting it in the "Frankfort School" article... OK, I can see that... but under the subsection heading of "Conspiracy theory"? When the entire contents of the subsection is about the concept of "Cultural Marxism"? This aversion to even having the sub heading so much as contain the subject term is just plain bizarre. Marteau (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help but notice that the LinkedIn article's top comment has someone admitting to be a paid editor. Kinda concerning to say you're doing something that is frowned upon here. GamerPro64 00:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has various FRINGE headings that include the descriptor "Conspiracy Theory", Cultural Marxism is one such fringe theory. In this case the theory (that the Frankfurt School are somehow responsible for multiculturalism, political correctness and various other social issues and rights groups) is factually incorrect on multiple fronts (many of the accused rights groups pre-date The Frankfurt School, and the philosopher who coined the modern usage of "Politically Correct" explicitly and on record denies any influence from The Frankfurt School). On top of these demonstrable factual errors, the theory meets the requirements of both WP:FRINGE as well as Michael Barkun's description of a Systemic conspiracy theory (as found over on the Conspiracy theory page). Anyone interested in discussing this matter further, is welcome to join the open editorial discussion over on The Frankfurt School talk page - just remember as one editor above has already pointed out Wikipedia is NOT a BATTLEGROUND. --Jobrot (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: BARC de-adminship proposal; Wikimania recordings debate (5,465 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • the reality is that most Wikimania videos only get a few hundred views - I understand that on its face that its not very many. However the reality is that most Wikimania presentations only get a few hundred (at most) immediate audience - so we are more than doubling the viewership for a relatively small cost, compared with the cost of Wikimania.
  • Moreover the Q and A sessions are perhaps the most important part, as clarification is provided and new ideas are broached.
  • There is no need to have professional videographers, a single fixed camera and an auxiliary audio recording covers a great deal of what's wanted.
  • While many videos are being compiled, maybe they could be supplemented with slide decks and scripts by the presenters.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wikimania may look like a party but it's a place of information exchange too. So making presentations available (video, slides, whatever) is interesting. As it is mostly founded by the Movement, it is a must. B25es (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few hundred views per video is huge, considering that probably most viewers are core wikimedians, who could have been part of the event from a distance and be inspired and informed by it for a budget price. I did watch most keynotes from Wikimania HongKong over three days and felt part of the event and inspired. And would have loved to do likewise this year. Erik Zachte (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Wikimanias get most things right. However, most Wikimanias usually fail badly on some important aspect or another. Organsers are notorious for not learning from the mistakes of previous conferences while one would have thought that each team would be conscious of actually wanting to do better than its predecessors. In spite of its claimed $urplus, The Foundation appears to not do nearly enough to fund this most important event. I cringe when I think about what is going to go wrong in Italy next year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few thoughts / opinions on video recordings:
    • It's worth bearing in mind that this is also a disability / accessibility issue. I'm sure I won't be the only Wikipedian who is crippled in a way that means I can't easily attend a Wikimania — indeed my mental health meant that I failed to attend any events even last year, when it was in my home city.
    • Even without my mental health issues, I couldn't afford to travel to anything more remote than Western Europe and I'm pretty well paid. While I'm sure bursaries are available, we can't subsidise everyone who'd want to go.
    • Even if we could subsidise everyone and there were no accessibility issues, when did you ever go to a conference where not a single session clashed with something else that looked kinda interesting? :o)
    • Finally, even if only a few people watch one of the sessions by video, that's getting information to people who wouldn't otherwise have seen it and the cost need not be high, given the quality of smartphone recordings now. I'd be a firm supporter of making full video recording be mandatory for future bids, even if the mechanism could be something as simple as coordinating signup sheets for people to tape a session on their phone. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many people watch the video in the first few weeks or months is not what is important. What is important is that we leave a permanent record that will be available for generations to come. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Owen and Guy. I remember one BarCamp in London that I discovered was broadcasting live from one individual's laptop camera, and I felt like I was there as a participant. In that case, it was live-streaming and not preserved but the great thing about digital media is like any document or sources, you can continue to draw on it to share ideas and strategies. There was a talk at WikiConUSA that actually changed my life and I wish I could refer people to a link to this presentation. I don't think this will rival TED talks but the individuals who present at WikiMania go to a lot of trouble to organize and compose their presentation and I think all Wikipedia editors could benefit from having their talks available for viewing. And if this appeal doesn't work, think of it this way: these are primary sources, documenting the history and evolution of WMF. For future historians studying social organizations, I would urge the foundation to preserve these moments of history. They are a wealth of information for researchers in understanding WMF. For posterity! Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed: My life as an autistic Wikipedian (5,901 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

I appreciate you sharing your story with the Wikipedia community, Guillaume. It takes courage to be vulnerable and share something that was previously only known to close friends and family. It's interesting to read how you perceive the world and I'm glad that Wikipedia is well-suited to people of different talents. Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors, I'll give it a read. Liz Read! Talk! 17:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was an amazing read; thank you so much for sharing, Guillom. It has given me a new perspective and surely I have learned a lot from it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guillom. Your story is inspiring! Jee 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guillaume Paumier, this is very helpful and very interesting. I did also read the essay, which was also very helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome piece! Taught me a few things about how different minds work. Thanks a lot. --Hispalois (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guillaume for sharing this experience ! Very enlightening and personal. As someone close to several autistic people, I would recommend reaing Je suis à l'Est, an excellent way for non-autistic people to understand what it can be like and how nobody is actually "normal". It's in French and Spanish to my knowledge. All the best. le Korrigan →bla 14:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice piece. Far more Wikipedians are somewhere on the autism spectrum (or however it's being redefined lately) that most editors realize. Same goes for the intersection of "Wikipedia editor" and "obsessive–compulsive". A increase in tolerance toward what some editors view as "trivial" work, by editors who self-identify as WP:GNOMEs, would be welcome, as would a recognition that some heat in arguments is natural for some participants even as it's distasteful to others. We have rules about WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, but a lot of editors need to read these carefully and understand that they do not encompass "everything someone says I think they should have worded differently or been silent about". A tremendous amount of WP strife could be avoided if editors would just take in stride, and stop reacting with personal angst about, the fact that some people are more sensitive and some less, that some editors care mostly about breadth and accuracy of coverage of a topic and getting it to Featured status, while others think it's more important to ensure a professional presentation even in stub-level articles. Together these approaches produce a useable encyclopedia, and it's the commingling of different sensibilities and tempers that produces a community that gets fired up enough to do get the work done, while collectively self-restrained enough to do it well and fairly smoothly, especially given how close this entire project is to some postmodern form of anarchism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the Wikipedia community interacts with those on the autism spectrum is an interest of mine, I believe we have needlessly alienated a number of good editors over the years, as well as a larger number of potentially good editors.

An interesting role reversal occurs sometimes in on-line conversation, which is worth remarking on. That is some neurotypicals will reply to the comment they think you made, or they think you wanted to make, or they think you should have made. This behaviour would usually be perfectly appropriate in real-time verbal conversation, where body language feedback, speed of exchange and interruption provide governing mechanisms, but in an on-line text based conversation leads to either frustration, wildly erratic discussion, or conflict.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As the essay pointed out, if someone wanted to create a honeypot for us autistic people, they couldn't get better than Wikipedia. I also believe Wikipedia acts as a honeypot for other neurodivergent people (Wikipedia is very appealing to OCPDers and other ADHDers). As you pointed out, a lot of Star Trek fans are autistic.

There is nothing wrong with autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, OCPD, etc. lives. If we were cured, it wouldn't suck just for us but it would suck for neurotypicals too. We are part of the rich blanket of life. Sure there are downsides to me being autistic and ADHD but there are positives too. It is who I am and if I was cured of my neurodivergence I wouldn't exist anymore. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research: Wikipedia and collective intelligence; how Wikipedia is tweeted (3,565 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Average Account age by year[edit]

If we weren't recruiting any new editors the community would be getting a year older each year, so six months means we are still getting new editors. On the face of it this looks very healthy, after our initial period of exponential growth when the average editor had been here less than a year we are now getting a bit more experienced. We are still getting lots and lots of newbies, but with community size broadly flat we are only keeping as many as we lose. My suspicion is that if we combine this with other measures we would find that despite a steady inflow of newbies we are broadly stable, but as we have no way to work out our twenty let alone fifty year retention it is hard to know how healthy this is. Logically a new volunteer endeavour whose founding generation skewed very young will continue to get older and more experienced for decades, at some point if all goes very well indeed, the experience gained annually by the remaining community getting a year older will balance the experience that is dying, retiring or being blocked, and the number of experienced editors lost will match newbies joining. But an organisation barely 14 years old should be decades from such stability, even if we knew editors ages, or which former editors are still alive, or which "newbies" are anything but. But nice work, thanks for doing this. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how charmingly Hegelian. a darker view would be that there needs to be twice as much new editor retention to get to a steady state. this is a long term trend that no amount of happy talk or software change has budged. i don't see any measure of increased productivity of the remainders compensating for the decreased numbers. when the work load and backlogs are growing, it is hard to imagine any reasonable person calling it healthy. actually fixing cultural problems is too hard, and so the community is resigned to the status quo. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Errh, aside from the issue that edit filters, faster vandalism reversion, the move of intrawiki links to wikidata and indeed the rise of wikidata all mean that we can't compare current editing levels to past ones and we don't really know when the true peak was; If you do worry about raw edit count, the first 6 months of this year have all had more editors doing more than 100 edits that month than the same month a year earlier. That doesn't mean there aren't hard cultural problems embedded in the community and in the environment in which we now operate. One, two or three months increase year on year could still be consistent with a long term trend - a single month could easily be down to comparing one month with 5 weekends against one with 4. But 6 months in a row showing an increase is not consistent with the theory that "there needs to be twice as much new editor retention to get to a steady state". ϢereSpielChequers 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Namaste again, Reddit (3,768 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Why are you asking, Ellen? You know more about that program than we do. Perhaps all the edits were on Jul 30? Serendipodous 15:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bamyers99: is that it? Should we try daily updates? EllenCT (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EllenCT: 1) The Signpost links to the previous weeks most edited articles report. 2) This weeks most edited report ran at 2015-07-30 01:10 (UTC). --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this list is traffic from July 19 to 25, 2015. I bet Cecil will make an appearance on the chart, at least on the Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, next week. Liz Read! Talk! 17:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking ahead, it seems like both Killing of Cecil the lion and Cecil (lion), the two different article titles, made next week's list of top pages but I'm not sure if combined, they will cause Cecil to make Serendipodous' weekly charts. Liz Read! Talk! 12:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: the Memphis Pyramid is only 322 feet (98 meters) tall, 133 feet (40 meters) shorter than the Great Pyramid of Giza. A. Parrot (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; misread the article, but in my defence it was confusingly phrased. Serendipodous 17:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could also be worth mentioning an image of the Bass Pro Shops megastore appears on Tennessee state drivers licenses. -- GreenC 17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice fact but not the reason it's on the list. Serendipodous 19:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why doesn't Donald Trump get a nationality? Not everyone knows who he is, or what country he's from. Can't we just make him a bombastic American real estate developer, rather than a bombastic real estate developer? Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Go Phightins!: and @Gamaliel:. I created this page since it was a red-link. Clearly it's not right, but I assume you have a process for creating the single page version, so I didn't spend any time on it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I've added the proper template manually. I think the bot timed out before it finished the publication process. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-07-29&oldid=1140569817"