Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-01-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Citations are needed (1,874 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2015-01-14

Discuss this story

I do like the sassy comments sprinkled in the Featured Content articles these days; they make it much more interesting. --Pres N 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, appreciate the sassy Signpost czar ⨹ 00:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Next is going to be really gloomy. Hafspajen (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that piece entitled with citation needed? If I see the featured filmography examples, while being excellent filmographies one could are argue that they are ridiculously overcited.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was a joke. Hafspajen (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sadly remember my Finnish architect colleague who once burst out exclaiming: WHY on earth do you Swedes always say:oh, this was a only joke? We Finnish NEVER say that in the same situation. Hafspajen (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of the sass. I see like 4 or 5 citation neededs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It's a reference to the piece's running gag. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Wikipedia's birthday brings tributes, app, award; Castro death rumors (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-14/In the media

News and notes: Erasmus Prize recognizes the global Wikipedia community (2,980 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2015-01-14

Discuss this story

"The head of our working mothers' support group is Erasmus B. Dragon." Wrong site, I know.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a trophy? Do we each get to take turns with it, like the Stanley Cup? - Dravecky (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The prize will be handed out in the Royal Palace of Amsterdam later this year. Romaine (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll be there with bells on; I hope there's not a queue! But all joking aside, what warm fuzzies I'm feeling, particularly from the wording of the foundation's statement; they really seem to appreciate the principles and aims we're striving towards. :) Snow talk 04:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They should make tiny reproductions of it and give them away as incentives when you donate to the Foundation, like the swag you get during a PBS pledge drive. "Show your friends that you are an Erasmus Prize winner with this lovely 1:25 die cast reproduction of the Prize. Yours for a $75 donation today." Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone make an Erasmus barnstar? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, am pleased to accept this honor, whatever I may think of some of those with whom I must share it. :) EllenCT (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As much of the wiki-work involves making and checking references it is natural that our project has attracted the favor of Erasmus. As Ernest Barker wrote, "Erasmus knew that a return to the teachings of the early Fathers meant the editing and printing of good texts of their works. He knew that the recovery of an authentically interpreted Bible necessarily meant, for a start, the editing and printing of as good a text as possible of the original Greek New Testament."(page 91, "Connection of Renaissance and Reformation" in Traditions of Civility (1948, Cambridge U.P.))Rgdboer (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed: Articles for creation needs you (13,758 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2015-01-14

Discuss this story

"These articles could help improve our encyclopedia and members of each WikiProject should be interested in fishing out these draft articles." Perhaps, where AfC reviewers don't feel competent to judge a draft on a particular technical topic, they could tag it for review by the relevant project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats been thought of, Andy, but it didn't work out. Very few projects actually perform as well as, for example, MilHist or GOCE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the review options could benefit from more choices than just "submission accepted" / "submission declined"? Maybe one or two more options to give some gradation between "Sorry but this is totally inappropriate" to "Really close, just needs attention to one or two issues"? I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to contribute much to AfC, but I do sometimes come across declined articles (e.g. where the reviewer has posted to the talk page of a WikiProject I watch) for which "Submission declined" seems overly negative and discouraging, as they're really not far off. Particularly submissions that have been revised, just not quite enough. Qwfp (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, once a submission is accepted, we need a big "create Wikidata entry" button. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OpEd paints a cosy picture, but AfC is riddled with bitter infighting, and newbies are hovering over their edit count to reach 500. For those in the know, AfC is in a shambles and teetering on extinction. One of the problems is that while there may not be a formal infrastructure, there is a clear line of ownership. Problem #2 is that AfC is more of a playground for coders who are still tinkering with all sorts of bots and scripts after all these years. #3 is that some good natured reviewers confuse AfC with WP:ARS. AfC has served its purpose, we now have the Draft namespace so now is the time to take it someplace where the work can be done without all the background noise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kudpung: I guess I'll take that as a back-handed compliment. I wrote this op-ed primarily to be informative and I deliberately avoided addressing the issue of how clique-y AfC reviewers can be or that AfC is a bug-zapper. I soft-pedaled my opinion that 99% of the drafts we get are promotional. If it were up to me IPs and new users wouldn't be allowed write new articles. Anyone that's WP:NOTHERE probably shouldn't be editing articles at all, let alone write new ones. The entire "anyone can edit" ethos needs to go. But much as I love the sound of my own voice I thought The Signpost would better appreciate a toned-down approach. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I'd live to hear such true words again. We'll talk more about this someplace where there is less background noise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had never gone through AFC when I started, and I heard nothing but negative things from users, reviewers, and administrators. I'm glad to see the comments reflect that reality. Perhaps there's a place where we can talk about what procedure or system would replace it. kosboot (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kosboot, central discussion seems like the most obvious candidate for forum to me, with notices posted at WP:VPP and WP:VPI. It's worth noting though that those parties who take on the task of creating an entire new process are looking at no small task. Snow talk 10:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - The entire "anyone can edit" ethos needs to go. This mindset, and all the mind-numbingly pedantic behavior which results from it, is why I went from being highly active to nearly inactive as an editor. My only solace is that the so-called culture of consensus in Wikipedia is actually a wordocracy (those who write, and read, the most on talk pages generally get their way), so getting rid of what you call an "ethos" and I call the cornerstone of Wikipedia's ideals is highly unlikely.--~T P W 13:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too think AfC not just useless, but worse than useless. Literally worse, because it prevents good articles getting into the encyclopedia, gives bad advice about improving poor articles, and is much to slow to delete promotionalism and nonsense. It is as much as we can do to deal with incoming articles on a single track, and NPP is the best we have. What we do need is a way for putting articles in need of being further worked on--we used to employ user space subpages for this, but the problem was that things there got ignored totally. We could use draft space for this, but we will need to establish some simple procedures for keeping track of things. We should;t need approval to move things out of draft--they would just go into New Pages, and be dealt with in the normal way. All we really need is a check that they are being worked on, and a way for the ones not being worked on to be made visible to the community for others to improve. The basic principle of WP is that articles get improved by the community, and for articles to get improved the community needs to see them.

I have a proposal for step One: No further articles should go to AfC, and all mention of it removed from the various instruction pages, except for working through the current material in there. I do not think it necessary to have a new procedure in its place first. We would be better off simply abolishing it straightaway, and making some needed improvements to NPP gradually. The proposed use of draft space could be set up separately. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for "anyone can edit, as I recall last time around the WMF refused to program a restriction on entering new articles. This can be seen either as justified as our attempt to interfere with the foundational principles of WP, which no individual Wikipedia should do, or unjustified as their interference with our local routines for accepting articles, which the foundation should leave to the individual WPs. I don't know which is the right way to look at it, but my own view is that the ability to immediately create an article is one of the major attractions in getting new editors, and should not be lightly abandoned. However, we don't have to decide that immediately. What we can do immediately is stop the entry of materials into AfC. That is under our control. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing around with Magnus's latest tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/prepbio.php -- Even with a one-sentence article, I think it goes very far in providing the structure of a WP article than AfC does. If it was just tweaked a bit I think it could provide a good alternative to AfC. kosboot (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having seen the title and lead-in for this story a bit over the last week (but not having yet come here to read the full text or the above comments), I decided to go volunteer some time there today, and these are my initial thoughts, having now read the article here. The space is just not, at present, terribly user friendly. I think the word I'm looking for is "over-engineered". For starters it operates in a manner different from virtually every other process area on Wikipedia -- I know of no other space which places such a heavy emphasis on utilizing a particular gadget as the medium for contributions, and it took a complete scouring of the project's byzantine structure to finally dig up a template buried at the bottom of one of numerous, lengthy subpages on how to submit or review, though even then I had to know (from previous contributions there years ago) that you place it on the draft page and not the associated talk page. I think this little stumbling block to usual workflow, especially the strong dependence on a gadget, probably discourages a lot of people who might have just dropped in to volunteer some time to the project (some of whom would get in the habit of contributing there); I imagine a lot of people just aren't interested in loading a gadget for each and every one of the (potentially dozens) of procedural spaces they contribute to, and even that portion (potentially also large) who think nothing of it, they still might decide it's not worth the hassle in the moment and might never get around to it. And if the process is that tedious for experienced and broadly-capable editors, imagine how inaccessible it might be for new users (and how poor a primer for our usual editorial processes).

But the whole project just seems (ever-so-slightly) insular. For example, the project places requirements on involvement in the project over and beyond those which are required by actual policy, which is not really appropriate. Considering community consensus on these issues, and the fact that in recent years ArbCom has come down on WikiProjects that try to create their own independent policy for their working space, this is a pretty serious gaff for such a high-profile space. Especially when you consider that this is not a prohibition on any particular kind of content but on any kind of critical participation at all. The restriction on creating new articles applies only to non-autoconfirmed users (not those with less than three months editing experience and 500 edits) and aside from a a very minute handful of high-level procedural forums, all spaces on the project are meant to be openly accessible to contributions from every user. Needless to say, this is not a blank check for abuse (obviously it would be regarded with suspicion if a new user referred another to ANI with their very first edit), and all editors are advised to familiarize themselves with policy and procedure for a given area before contributing there, but they technical retain the right to do so, pretty much with ubiquity across the project, and not matter how minimalist the members of this particular project find their standards, I don't think those requirements are consistent with policy.

All-in-all, to the extent that AfC is suffering man-power shortages (at least, over and beyond what we are suffering everywhere on the project right now), I get the impression it might be partly of the project's own making. I have no insight into the comments above as to the inside operation in general (though the chatter doesn't seem friendly, in any event), but as someone coming at the space and the process "fresh" as it were, without activity there in a long while, it just seemed like a convoluted, non-intuitive, and inefficient methodology. Snow talk 03:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: In the various WMUK editathons I have attended as a helper, in each one a part of the standard script has been to advise new editors not to go within a country mile of AfC. Instead editors are being advised to work up pages in their own sandboxes, and then put them directly into mainspace.

The impression I get from the team in the UK office involved with leading such events is that they believe AfC is so badly broken, that the experience for a new editor with any kind of clue is likely to be so negative that it is more likely to drive them away than anything else; so that once new editors have had a briefing on what armour an article needs to be provided with to survive in mainspace (some sources, some indication of significance, some rudimentary adherence to WP structure), newbies are best kept as far away from AfC as possible. And WP gets more and better new content if it is simply added for revision, rather than lost in the blocked sink of AfC. The view is that the best place to tidy up patchy submissions, and to encourage involvement, is mainspace -- not some unvisited ghetto. Jheald (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Wikipédia sommes Charlie (2,690 bytes · 💬)[edit]

a

← Back to 2015-01-14

Discuss this story

"Wikipédia sommes Charlie" implies Wikipedia is first person plural. As a single entity in the third person it should be "est". Collect (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I debated that with myself; I figured Wikipedia was a collective, but maybe that doesn't work in French? Serendi ^pod ous 19:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the notes for that entry are a little over the top - is that kind of editorialising appropriate for this page? I am not minimising the atrocity at all, just the way the notes describe it.--ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article; the NPOV rules don't apply. Serendi ^pod ous 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic report and featured content section are given more leeway than news and notes or in the media so they can make what can be a very dry topic into something worth viewing each week. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the multilingual pun "We (-kipedia) sommes Charlie" myself. Circéus (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News could have had a headline News sommes Charlie which would be a great pun - but that is another matter. Collect (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising the shooting page only got a third of the hits that the Charlie Hebdo page, since one would assume it's the latter that people were looking for. What kept them from clicking through? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just that most of the people were browsing and not all that interested in following the story in depth. Serendi ^pod ous 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Articles for creation: the inside story (624 bytes · 💬)[edit]

But... John Doe is the best-est bass player in the world! 166.170.14.115 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

← Back to 2015-01-14

Discuss this story

I decided not to comment on the individual points here. There's no point talking about the details. AfC is harmful to WP, and should just be terminated. --see my comments on the oped. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]