Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-04-22/In the media
Discuss this story
Florence[edit]
I took a look at the crime section in the Florence article and the recent changes. The material now there is fully documented and citing crime statistics certainly seems encyclopedic to me. Those statistics should be updated every several years as conditions change -- as should any other statistics in the article.
I don't have any problem with the city of Florence correcting mistakes in the article about the city. However, I believe that an editor should be identifiable as connected with the city of Florence. In the past few edits, that has not been the case and the editors for the city have not been correcting errors, but rather erasing verifiable statistics on crime. The explanation for the edits is pretty lame, stating that the statistics for the year cited were not representative. It' highly unlikely that crime statistics spiked so dramatically in a single year -- but if so the city can demonstrate that by introducing more representative, alternative statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The worst thing isn't that Wikipedia has misinformation on the city, it's that a major company were basing their multi-million dollar deal on information from an encyclopedia. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- +1 Master... I can't believe Otis are that silly... - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading the title I thought Florence Devouard has said something. How boring is the actual topic, in contrast! LOL. --MF-W 14:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
If only more officials everywhere would realize that they should be helping out here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Number of Unique Visitors? Number of Visits? Number of views?[edit]
Why is it that Web Pro News can figure out how many unique visitors a month we have, but when I asked about the number of visits and/or number of page views (here and here and here, also see here and here), nobody on Wikipedia seemed to know how to make our NUMBEROFVIEWS Magic Word work properly? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- It does work just fine, when page view counters are enabled. ^demon[omg plz] 14:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- The difference between "doesn't work because it is broken" and "doesn't work because it causes a large performance hit and thus was turned off" is rather academic; in either case the feature does not work. The question is, why can't we update the NUMBEROFVIEWS Magic Word once a day, week, or month, thus avoiding the performance hit? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Women subcats[edit]
Puzzling that there's such an outcry over the "American woman novelists" category, when I've tried and failed to fix a similar problem with sportsperson categories. Powers T 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Most people accept the overwhelming evidence that there are gender differences in athletic ability. See Sex differences#Humans and Sex differences in humans. There exists no compelling evidence supporting the view that there are major gender differences in writing ability. Having separate categories for male and female novelists is a lot more controversial than is the case with, say, Olympic weightlifting. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but the issue is not that the women are separated from the men; I think a lot of those who object to the novelist category wouldn't have a problem if we had "American men novelists" and "American women novelists". Many (the merge and keep folks) would even accept just the women's category if they were included in the "American novelists" category as well. The issue is the same with the sportsperson categories: Cats where the men are "American foo players" but the women are "American women's foo players". It's the imbalance that is problematic, not the separation by gender. Powers T 13:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)