Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-02/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

I do not understand why the Signpost insists on using my full legal name on multiple occasions. In all the correspondence mentioned in this article I wrote as Fæ, no other name. On Wikipedia I am Fæ, on Commons I am Fæ, in every GLAM I have helped with on Wikimedia projects I am Fæ, even when I was Chair of Wikimedia UK or Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association I consistently tried to keep to my pseudonym whenever legally possible, as it is under that name that I am known for my active contributions to our projects. Could you please amend your article to show basic respect for my choice of Wikimedia identity and my desire to separate my professional life from my time as a volunteer for Wikimedia? Thank you --Fæ (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I second Fæ's request for anonymity, as you do not mention Risker's real name in the article. So, could you please change this? – Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea. I thought you used it openly in the movement. Changed. Tony (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, he does. But so does Risker. She also filled prominent positions in the movement. It would be adequate to treat them equally.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My first name, yes; it appears on several mailing lists. I don't think my surname has shown up very often, certainly not on this project. I am not now, nor have I ever been, the holder of a position that required my personal identity be published; Fæ, on the other hand, has been a member of a chapter Board of Trustees, which does require public disclosure of identities. Being on Arbcom isn't the same thing, and does not require public disclosure of identity. Risker (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I made a clear and true statement above. Being legally required to use my real name as a trustee is not that same thing as expecting Signpost to respect my choice of on-wiki identity. It is odd considering Arbcom's power to destroy reputations or damage careers, sometimes influenced by secret evidence that later turns out to be false, that members are not as accountable as Chapter trustees. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I don't really see much point in the Signpost writing about you using a name you do not use on this project or for that matter on other projects with the possible exception of Meta. You're known as Fæ pretty much everywhere, so using another name (however legitimate) is not respectful to the readers, who know you as Fæ. At least that's my perspective. Risker (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Took me 60 seconds to find it staring out from a table of WCA members and linked to your username. In fact there are 59 instances of your name on Meta alone. Tony (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So what? My legal name could not remain a secret from the point at which I became a director of Wikimedia UK, years ago now. Just because you can find a Wikimedian's name with a bit of internet searching or even having been accidentally outed on this project or other Wikimedia projects in the past, does not mean that we should disrespect a Wikimedian's choice of pseudonym on this project. A bit more searching and you can find my home number, my Grindr profile, photographs of me with my husband on holiday, along with some stupid homophobic attacks and false claims against my personal life. I hope that you do not feel you have a right as a journalist to publish anything you fancy using the excuse of claims of notability or tabloid notoriety. Yes, once you had an excuse that I was a "public figure", please do not use this to remove the last shreds of dignity I might be stupidly expecting to hold on to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you covered the wikimedia-l discussion, but missed the part on the WMUK Engine room (which actually started first). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an amusing thread. I removed your real name, Fae—which you've successfully drawn attention to—as soon as I saw your initial complaint here. Your real name wasn't used to get at you; but merely in the mistaken belief that you use it widely on-wiki. Tony (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Other people's private lives are not a joke for you to laugh at. It is disturbing that you have Wikipedia's Signpost as your platform if you think this way. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fae, you've made your point and we made the change as soon as you asked for it. Thank you for posting. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Support for the editing community

IMO the most effective method to support the editing community is by directly supporting them. Figure out what issues they have and try to fix them. Some issues include detecting "copy and pasted" content being added with efforts around WP:Turnitin needing more help. Other issues are basic / key templates not working across all languages of Wikipedia. A basic set of standard templates would be a huge step forwards in making translation easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, I totally agree with you! Facilitating such a detection project and managing it would be a very useful way to spend donor money and if you can spell it out in a proposal (or two) I would suggest turning in an IEG idea that perhaps someone else can make into a proposal. I am thinking of people who are good at scanning medical content and comparing it to published content (we have Marc's Corenbot but I am unsure if it works with medical stuff). It would be great if you could couple the copyright issues to pre-translated content from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation Task Force, so that instead of article deletion, article replacement could occur (with some appropriate copyvio clause in the edit summary). BTW, have you looked at this as a potential issue in the IEG grant for m:Grants:IEG/Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing? Jane (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I check all English content extensively before it is put up for translation. Yes have added my support to the IED :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to mention that as an answer to the second part of your question I believe you really need to look at the Reasonator and use it for basic access to foreign articles. This Reasonator output for the List of childhood diseases and disorders shows lots of childhood diseases with their Q numbers on Wikidata as a way to harvest those foreign articles. Jane (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also support a funded effort to harmonize templates across wikipedias. Isn't that one of the things that Wikidata was supposed to eventually support somehow? EllenCT (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall harmonizing templates ever being a planned outcome for Wikidata, no. I am not against this, but I would be cautious about any programme to harmonize templates. The English Wikipedia literally has a magnitude more templates than any other project, and this might be seen by some as en.wp forcing its system of bureaucratization on non-en projects. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is about harmonizing half a dozen templates like "cite journal", not about standardizing all or a lot of templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds easier to negotiate then, though this ought to be done one project at a time. Is there a wiki page with a plan/proposal for this idea for folks to read or discuss, or perhaps it is in a section of one of the larger discussions? --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Managerial Revolution?

I think the difference in approach from WM editors and the NGO style chapters is that the former accord to what Yochai Benkler calls peer production and whereas the later function as businesses. This can be seen particularly in the UK where charities have been obliged to internalise all sorts of business values leading to management structures more akin to that of corporations. This can lead to the sort of managerialism predicted by James Burnham. It would be interesting to know whether anyone has noticed this phenomenon occuring in other chapters?Leutha (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Editathon at the Royal Society

As the organizer of this event, I dislike your assumption that Wikipedia's coverage of the women in science is "poor", which was not in the report in the New Scientist. After many events such as this over recent years, at the Royal Society and around the world, and having myself spent many hours on the increasingly difficult task of researching suitable subjects for attendees, I don't believe this is the case when compared to our coverage of science in general. The only evidence-based assessment of this I know of is the coverage of Fellows of the Royal Society, where there are (pending the 2014 elections) currently no female Fellows (living or dead) without biographies, which is certainly not true of the male Fellows (a much larger group admittedly), where a high proportion of Fellows lack biographies. I suspect analysis of other National Academies of science would show similar results. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is part of the solution to what is widely recognised as a general cultural problem, rather than part of the problem. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I didn't write that in brief note, but I don't take issue with the notion that the coverage of women's achievements in many areas of science is wanting in the 290 Wikipedias—certainly this is the case in the English WP. However, a broad statistical survey would be welcome. The Signpost has previously covered issues and events related to women in science; this is an example. Tony (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

But how are you certain? Do you have any evidence? Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Keilana (talk · contribs), who's done a lot of work in this area, to this discussion. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wiki at Royal Society John: Your skepticism is welcome, but aren't you comparing two completely different lists? List of female Fellows of the Royal Society is an historical list going back to 1945, meaning there is much more time to work on these subjects, and a lot more of a track record to draw on to compose those articles. The list List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2012 is just for one recent year, so there's not nearly the same time to work on those. (BTW, of the 50 some fellows for 2012, only one seems to be female). Yes, more studies would be great. But the comparison presented is severely limited in what conclusions you can draw. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No. We don't have a full historical list of FRS's, which is not surprising as Category:Fellows of the Royal Society has 4785 articles, and that's only the ones we do have articles for. So I chose a recent year, where all the women (ok 1) have articles, but fewer than 50% of the men. This is no coincidence - compare other recent years (or less recent). I'd guess about 1500 male FRSs lack bios, vs 0 women, but looking at any of the annual lists shows lots of missing bios, all for men. There will probably be new 2014 women FRSs without a bio when the new crop are announced (this month I think), but I'd be amazed if they don't have one by Ada Lovelace Day in October. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a participant in WikiProject Women scientists, I've modified the blurb to reflect the fact that our coverage of women scientists is incomplete, and remains a work in progress. The WikiProject Women scientists pages will give you a fuller indication of where we stand in English. Given the size of the editing community, and the extent of English-language source materials, we can expect that improving coverage in other languages will need to start with expanding coverage and quality in English Wikipedia. BTW, you don't need to be a scientist yourself to pitch in to add an infobox or assess an article or two ... :) Djembayz (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree all that, except that scientists from non-English-speaking countries (who stayed there) naturally tend to have more local sources, so translation into English is also very important, if often harder. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)