Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-25

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 2015-02-25. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation (1,155 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Please prune the response page <g>. Collect (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've stopped using my iPod Touch as much, and am becoming far more hermitesque than I once was. I would reckon in about ten years I will only be using the Web to check my e-mail, use Wikipedia/Wiktionary and to read up on a few things. And I will be doing all of those things from my desktop computer. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Writer's note, the Signpost will be covering this story independently in next week's edition. ResMar 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong. (4,981 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Where is the list of new FLs? Jim Carter 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jim Carter: there were no new FLs in the week that is covered by this report. --Pine✉ 09:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pine: What is this? Jim Carter 09:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jim Carter: that will appear in next week's report, I assume. Note the statement near the top of this report: "This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 8 to 14 February, 2015". --Pine✉ 09:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there "labour violations" in the United States?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't use multiple English styles in a single report. Featured content consistently uses British English. In theory. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it "Gaguin couldn't sculpt" but "can't paint"?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee - you are allowed to edit it. Hafspajen (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, though, it's not obvious that the edit should be allowed. Like "labour violations".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I look at it again and I feel like there's a very specific meaning intended by the writer, and changing it would change the meaning. It's not clear which should be changed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"because I'm tired of black boxes when we feature images of video game consoles."[edit]

"because I'm tired of black boxes when we feature images of video game consoles."

can someone please explain this image caption?

— Cirt (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Adam means is, since I know he was the one who wrote that, everytime there's a new Featured Picture about a video game console, its usually one that's in the color black. Like the PS4, Sega Genesis, or the ColecoVision. Just a popular color for consoles usually. Though using the Japanese version of the Saturn was a nice idea, all things considered. GamerPro64 15:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay it was kinda confusing, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The North American version was another black box, and we've shown so many black-boxed game consoles in the last year... Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery: Far from home (1,905 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Isle of Grai? [ I think I've spelt this wrongly] painting. J W Turner should be J M W Turner Apwoolrich (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this comment to its new location since this report is being pushed out one week. @Gamaliel: see above. --Pine✉ 04:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm This is embarrassing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like something I myself would do. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot (1,658 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

I think Vox needs to give H.G. Wells a chance. For Wikipedia to achieve world peace, we have to have enough people in enough places making enough contributions that people can learn the crooked motivations behind every warmongering jailmongering politician of every stripe in the world, and learn the ideological and practical successes and methods of every popular movement throughout the world. Of course, world peace is reached only through apocalypse; ours is whether we can get enough people who simply want to see all the data and every point of view that we can fight off the shills and reputation management agents to keep the information in the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we didn't have time to include the Vox story this week. Look for it here next week. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I just added it, as I had meant to finish that In brief before publication. (And then I spotted this discussion ...) Andreas JN466 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm (17,756 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Hats off to the editors; this is some actual in-depth journalism, of far better quality than most "newspapers" of comparable staff and readership. As to the content, if Lafayette only created a sample size of 8 before deciding Wikimedia is the biggest one of this category then their report was a bit of a puff piece. That said, I agree with this article's implication and the deleted wiki article's statements (viewing deleted articles is the best part of being an admin) - while "participatory grantmaking" might be a neologism that pretty much only Lafayette uses, it does seem like the idea, sans name, is a real thing that's been around for a while, and Wikimedia might be one of the larger(est) organizations to use it, under whatever terminology. Unsurprisingly, this leaves me thinking the same thing I usually do with a Kohs report- he has once again turned a molehill into a mountain, and found malicious conspiracy in otherwise minor coincidences. About what I usually expect from a guy who has carried a 5+-year grudge for Wikipedia not letting him carry out his paid editing work unimpeded. --PresN 05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: - It seems rather unfair to label Kohs in this way. If the Wikimedia Foundation were to respond to his requests for comment prior to his authoring news stories, then certainly fewer molehills would turn into mountains in his mind. It speaks volumes that the Wikimedia Blog editors won't even publish a comment of his on their blogs. How is that "open and transparent"? As for your theory that his grudge is "for Wikipedia not letting him carry out his paid editing work unimpeded", it sounds like you don't even know the history of MyWikiBiz. Kohs endeavored from the start to disclose every one of his paid clients and suffer the community's decision-making process on any of his content submissions. Jimmy Wales said that was unacceptable, encouraging Kohs instead to post content on his own site, then let other Wikipedians copy it over to Wikipedia, even if that meant the risk of losing proper attribution for the content. Then two months later, Wales reneged on even that small compromise. You do a disservice with your descriptions of Kohs, especially in a forum where he is not permitted to respond. - WilmingMa (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REVERTBAN I've reverted a long-time banned editor who responded here.
As he has been banned for egregious violations of our rules, including vicious personal attacks, it would be unfair to say that he is being denied a chance to respond. He can just do it elsewhere, which he does all the time, at length.
I'll ask the Signpost editors to keep the banned editor's comments off this page, as much as possible. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that with 21 edits, something strange is going on, but the SP has traditionally taken a very liberal approach when it comes to article comments to avoid the appearance of censorship. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In exchange, I don't think it's too much to ask that if he's allowed to comment here, we don't have this farce of him referring to himself in the third person. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WilmingMa: I'm not arguing anything about whether Kohs should have been allowed to do open-air paid editing work on Wikipedia (I'm actually fine with that, given sensible restrictions). I'm saying that, when they said he (you) couldn't, most rational people would have been annoyed/angry, sure, but then they would have found something else to do, rather than spend 8 years complaining about Wikipedia, writing articles about invented conspiracies about Wikipedia, trying to self-promote at Wikipedia conferences, and bitterly complaining in any venue that would have him/you that Wikimedia won't return your calls any more. --PresN 19:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Greg does more than criticise Wikimedia. Banning him from that conference was stupid. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add an editor's not indicating that a Google search for [ Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia ] finds the page in question.
Note that I used brackets plus spaces rather than quotation marks. Quotation marks give you a different result if you include them or not, leading to awkward "without the quotes" instructions. Square brackets (plus spaces so they are not interpreted as wikinarkup) work the same on Google whether you include them or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated the piece for deletion; I didn't think it was a GNG pass looking at it. I'm a little disappointed that process wasn't followed and that the AfD debate was snowed shut so fast — it opens the door for Deletion Review doing that sort of thing — but it doesn't seem that the piece would have survived a full-length debate in any event. I for one am glad that Mr. Kohs is keeping an eye focused on WMF and their waaaaaaaaay too cozy relationship with paid consultants and professional service suppliers and the tendency for these (not just in this case, but in general) to manipulate WP content while at the same time engaging in a business relationship with WMF. Kudos also to the Signpost for the work of reconstruction of this tangled web. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR (USA) /// Carrite (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Participatory grant" used in 2005 textbook [1]
  • This 2009 source gives a nice definition and says it takes place in a number of European cities [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the irony of Kohs' complaining about "conflict of interest" is sharpened by the good reporting here. These types of errors (and let us hope they are errors) are common in the leading articles posted on Wikipediocracy, even those written by somewhat more thoughtful authors. The groupthink there, though the individual creeds may vary, is pretty plain to see, and detracts from what could be a useful critical tool. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: - Do you imagine that the good reporting here was enhanced by the reporters' access to responsive commentary from the Wikimedia Foundation staff? It's not really fair to critique Mr. Kohs' reporting when the subjects refuse to reply from their lofty (and "open and transparent") perches. What would you suggest Kohs do, in order to regain access to the Foundation's communications channels? Grovel? Apologize for past misdeeds? Or, do you imagine as I do, that the Foundation would never re-open dialogue with Mr. Kohs, no matter what, because he is simply too talented at spotting embarrassing misdeeds of the Foundation and its affiliates? - WilmingMa (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine anything. Perhaps something both you and Kohs would be wise to emulate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
Per WP:REVERTBAN I've reverted a long-time banned editor who responded here. (RF's response below was to the banned editor) Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment above, I've restored the comment above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have problems where a survey produces a graph from as few as "2 responses", produces graphs from varying numbers of responses where the results are clearly not validly comparable, and releases a "study" which was not even proof-read (graph showing $21 million "average" budget in 2011 is clearly a sore thumb). I am also concerned that some of them appear to have many "group decisions" made by a group of "1", and that some give out as little as 25% of their budget. In short, the report was not quite ready for prime time, and the Wikipedia article seems all too much like an effort to burnish the report's shine. If one does not have some statistically useful number of responses, one does not publish. Alas. Collect (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have edited this Signpost article to include a direct link to Kohs's Examiner article, using a URL which, as suggested on Wikipediocracy, circumvents the spam blacklist. The reasons given for ever including examiner.com on the blacklist at all, seem to me to be exceedingly weak, especially since the nominator for the blacklisting admits that he was "not aware of any concerted spam campaign", and not to meet the criteria for listing currently given in the guidelines. In any case, it's obviously ridiculous to forbid this Signpost article from linking to Kohs's.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • wow, is that the best you can do? it's face-palms all the way down. should WMF editors now check in with wpcrazy to edit their work? if they don't eat the cooking, then they will be even more detached from the UX. how many people you wanna get fired? is the gotcha wpcrazy adding to the battleground, rather than helping to change the dysfunctional culture? should that not be the goal? there is legitimate criticism of the WMF, that is not advanced by such a hatchet-job. Duckduckstop (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a little harsh. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A more tactful variant, as I agree with the above poster that it is important for WMF staff to brave both the UX and the community. Without reading thoroughly and in detail: a PR piece that needed more proofreading and more thorough research, a decision to declare yourself/your client a winner, staff working on their own time, and an attempt to create an article about a marketing buzzword phrase that didn't turn out to be of sufficient quality-- all happening when a key employee is leaving for health reasons. This does not sound like something over-the-top nefarious; it sounds more like PR people who are trying to puff the organization up while they are struggling to keep up with their workload. Not saying there's nothing to criticize-- but rather pointing out that we do need a WMF staff, and throwing tomatoes at them every chance we get is "not cricket," it is unsportsmanlike. --Djembayz (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment, in response to "should WMF editors now check in with wpcrazy to edit their work?" This is precisely one of the topics at issue in the proposed merger of Outreach Wiki into Meta. In fact, it was User:Ijon who first raised the point about how maintaining a more professional tone with GLAMs is important for GLAM and WMF staff discussing partnerships-- something the average editors here don't necessarily realize. --Djembayz (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone else find it ironic that the only person mentioned in this article with an actual conflict of interest is Greg Kohs? Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not following you there... Kohs has his business, such as it is (it's a really small fish in a big ocean) and he's still pissed that he tried to be a good guy and Jimmy Wales personally banned him off way back when. Long grudge and so forth... Still, he's not associated the PR firm financially benefitting from its relationship with WMF or from the creation of a new semi-proprietary concept. He's not a WMF employee, glorifying their employer with a blog post sourced out through blatant Citeogenesis... He's just a dude who is pissed at the hypocrisy of him being banned while WMF employees and paid PR peeps flout common sense by distorting WP content for their own betterment. So, I respectfully suggest: try again. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Kohs' article miraculously convinces the Wikipedia community that his ban was hypocritical and unwarranted, and it is then overturned, he clearly stands to benefit financially. Thus he has a conflict of interest. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Carrite said he doesn't - just that he's not the only one. Squinge (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I say something that is slightly tangential to this story? I can't help pointing out one obvious problem in Lafayette's report: their assumption of a black line etched between so-called participatory and non-participatory grantmaking. In the UK, the EPSRC, at least for some schemes, allows applicants to contact them for advice on framing their research funding applications. I believe that applicants typically receive feedback on their budget from the grantmaking organisation, and modify their budget, before it goes to the selection committee. This and similar bodies have enormous spends compared with WMF grantmaking, and this does rather suggest that the distinction is not simple—perhaps even not useful. Against this, some grantmaking bodies conduct their processes strictly at arm's length from applicants, which has a different set of advantages and disadvantages.

    I haven't read the Lafayette report properly, but it looks as though they weren't given a tight brief for critically focusing on the weaknesses and opportunities for improving outcomes of the WMF's grantmaking schemes. [Disclosure: I regularly review PEG applications at Meta.] Tony (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. This is the sort of article focus that would help those of us who are not non-profit or philanthropic professionals understand a little more about the issues involved with grantmaking, and the pros and cons of different approaches. --Djembayz (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "concrete criticism of the article text I composed":  Granting the avowed intention to document rather than to promote, there is a serious drawback to adopting the buzzword/neologism of some research consultancy as the title and frame for constructing an article. There is a strong tendency, whether intended or not, for the article to become a WP:COATRACK for the firm's views, subjects, and/or (subsequent) clients.

    To avoid this pitfall one might search for other works on the field (which the firm's 12014 paper avers has "proliferated over the past several decades") that do not use the same terminology. Failing that (supposing the same paper is correct that "there has been little research or documentation"), one might look for an existing article on a broader topic that encompasses the subject, to which some brief notes about this aspect might be added. Otherwise the article is prone to be so narrowly focused on one firm's view that neutrality is elusive. A narrow frame is always an attractive place to hang coats.

    [Thanks to The ed et al. for a fascinating report.] ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own (11,839 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

The text above says[edit]

The text above says "I looked for attribution of Wikipedia in the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses and a release of this book under an open license as required by Wikipedia, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses retails for $375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license." This contains an important fallacy: that by using some paragraphs of text from Wikipedia in a 900-page multi-author textbook somehow legally requires the entire book to be released under an open licence. The CC licence is not viral and was not designed to be. Additionally, a licence has no legal power to compel anyone - because if they don't obey the terms of the licence then the benefits of the licence cease to exist along with those terms. Without those benefits, they are simply in the same situation as if the textbook had lifted some text from another all-rights-reserved book under copyright.

I assume "attribution of Wikipedia" is a simple mistake since Wikipedia is not the author -- attribution belongs to all the (many) authors who wrote that text collectively. But it is a mistake many publishers make in their attribution when they do give it.

Have they taken sufficient text for this to be considered a copyright violation? I am no lawyer but if this is less than a page of text taken from part of an article and used in a 900 page book, I very much doubt it. And even if it was a copyright violation, it isn't the WMF legal team who could sue because WMF do not own the text. That belongs to the various authors who's work was taken. Perhaps WMF legal would offer to help those authors sue -- but what award would a judge give to two or three random people? What are their losses? They gave the work away for free. Just a few hundred words? It isn't like they stole a 50-page chapter. This seriously is not worth the legal expense. However, if we believe the text taken is too minimal to be copyright theft, the most the authors of the textbook are likely guilty of is plagiarism. Naughty. Slap on the wrist. Reputation harmed. But not illegal. Possibly Oxford will be more cautious about accepting work from those authors again.

If they want future editions of the book to be free of legal issues while retaining the same text, then some attribution would be added and at most the chapter by those authors would be released under a free licence. It depends how integrated the text is with the chapter. Alternatively, they could just offer those two authors $100 to waive their licence terms, which would probably be much more attractive option to everyone.

Another example is if someone uses a picture from Commons then they should provide appropriate licence information and attribution. But it only makes that one picture free (i.e., someone could scan or photograph the picture from the book and publish it again with a free licence) -- it doesn't affect anything else. -- Colin°Talk 11:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the author was a little optimistic to hope for either the chapter or book to be released under an open license, but it does no harm to ask. The article does not imply that there was a legal requirement to release anything new under on open license.
As to whether the amount of text would constitute a copyvio, certainly that is debatable. The size of the book or chapter it is in, however, is irrelevant (were it otherwise Wikipedia, being so large would be able to copy almost anything with impunity). It is a significant portion of the work (article) copied. Moreover the question could be decided in English courts, American courts or indeed any country where OUP publishes. Would there be sense in suing? Probably not, but if the practice were not reined in, it might provide motivation.
Regardless the text, unattributed, constitutes plagiarism.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC).

It is, moreover, dictum that copyright does not attach to mere logical statement or compilation of facts. To the extent that the statements of numbers are such compilations, they are not covered by copyright no matter who publishes them (sports leagues which assert "copyright" over scores and stats are not on firm ground, AFAICT). OPU may indeed have found a lazy employee who plagiarized a bit - a student would get suspended at many schools - but it unclear as to whether the Wikipedia article has any literary value. By the way, Wikipedia is so often used by newspapers etc. as to make concerns now a tad risible. Collect (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To echo the comments below, this is an incredible find. It seems that the author of the chapter, who copied major sections from Wikipedia, is more responsible than the publisher, who can't be expected to source-check every submission. OUP's reported inaction, however, begins to put them on the side of defending their, and their author's, actions. If contact with OUP is ineffective, perhaps it would be appropriate to contact the author and/or his employers about this action, taking full caution about British libel laws. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to source-check every submission. Running it through Turnitin would be sufficient to pick up stuff like this. Of course the PR outcome of admiting to needing to run a $300 textbook through Turnitin would cause its own problems.©Geni (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am not under the impression that they need to release the whole book under an open license. They do need to release the one chapter however under an open license as much of it was more or less from Wikipedia (from a few different articles in fact).

Yes simply attributing Wikipedia is not technically enough, but at least it shows someone is trying and that is good enough for me. People can then come to Wikipedia and figure out who the real authors are which we do not make easy. But that is our own fault.

Yes we asked for the whole book to be release. And yes I considered this a very looong shot which it was. Those not the least bit surprised that they refused as they have no legal requirement to do so.

I agree that "release of this book under an open license" should be "release of this text under an open license" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: they don't "need" to do anything. They haven't broken a criminal law. Only the authors of the copied material can sue, and they are both unlikely to do so and unlikely to win enough to bother with. Photographs are a different story with a track-record of achieving pay-outs. Has anyone ever received court-awarded payment for re-use of text contributed to a multi-author free-content project? So they have broken some moral/ethical laws but in practice they "can" continue to publish that book with the small amount of copied material. There is Notice and take down for digital content online, but I have no idea if any country has the powers to block continued publication of book that is 99% original text. And as I said, any company faced with such a legal challenge would offer cash before even paying for one hour for an expensive lawyer's time. As for "attributing Wikipedia" being enough, well that might be a reasonable sentiment for multi-authored text but sure isn't enough for a photographer who's work is attributed to "Wikimedia". -- Colin°Talk 13:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, my point is that fussing over legal and licence-related issues of the incorrect re-use of Wikipedia text is somewhat pointless. It will only induce an ulcer. The more fundamental issue is the moral one of plagiarism. And on that issue Wikipedia is at least, if not more, guilty than professional publishers. -- Colin°Talk 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were three cases of plagiarism from the Wikipedia in academic books this past year in Germany, all three have been taken off the market. One was a book about sea battles, one on the history of computing (!), and one about a Venetian printer; they were published with supposedly respectable publishing houses C. H. Beck, Springer, and Wagenbach. Apparently, the editing process, should it actually take place, does not include checks for plagiarism. Portions of the plagiarism have been documented on the VroniPlag Wiki: [3] - [4] - [5]. There was quite a discussion about this in Germany, the editor from Beck who was responsible for the book attended the WikiCon in Cologne to discuss Wikipedia and academic publishing. Apparently there are those who find Wikipedia in its present form "unciteable" or only a collection of "facts", and thus take texts and pictures at will. Wikimedia Germany determined that indeed, only the (many) authors of an article could sue for breach of copyright. Interesting is that in Germany, if they were to sue, the use of the text is considered unlicensed, as OUP did not follow the rules. That makes a settlement much more expensive. VroniPlag Wiki also has a collection of doctoral theses that have at times quite extensive, unattributed use of the Wikipedia in doctoral dissertations. One 61 page thesis in medicine has 13 pages taken from just one Wikipedia article [6]. I have suggested, only partially in jest, that Wikipedia needs to be granted an honorary doctorate for its widespread use in academia. WiseWoman (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes German masters thesis in public health that was mostly based up our article on obesity was finally pulled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great contribution[edit]

Great contribution from Doc James, thank you.

— Cirt (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Cirt. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. The second of two great op-eds from Doc James in the last month. Gamaliel (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fourth the motion! Paired with the fantastic analysis of the participatory grantmaking article in News & Notes, I'm going to call it. This week's Signpost game: strong.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired (5,776 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Great article! I especially enjoyed reading the one about the university students :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

What? No "Notes" section to accompany "References"? I read somewhere that they're to be found in most articles. - Dravecky (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've only seen them in a few articles.
When I was a university student we didn't have Wikipedia, or even the Internet as it exists today. How DID we do research? I can't even imagine it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on reading thousands of Wikipedia articles, & the experiences of me & my friends as a student, I can tell you no one really teaches students how to perform research for a paper. At least not in an systematic, orderly way. And by "no one", I mean no school system in any country. (And if college professors are so up tight about a bunch of nobodies writing what has become a major reference work, maybe these goofs ought to put more effort into teaching their students how to perform research. After all, Wikipedia is written by the product of the educational systems they are part of.) -- llywrch (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the aforementioned Finkbeiner test is an objective test to be reckoned with. Considering that the science is still dominated by men, indicating that a particular scientist is a woman is important. Interestingly enough, the test was conceived by a woman who apparently is not happy to be called a woman and proposes to erase such mentions from historical annals, which is puzzling. Brandmeistertalk 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the students' (correct) response too.

The geo-data by Oliver Keyes mentioned is not accessible at the moment, seems the account has used up its data allocation. It would be nice to be able to see the stuff somewhere else? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: yep: too much love from Twitter users! I'm going to spawn up a new instance with higher usage limits as soon as I get some bandwidth. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: IT LIVES! @Pine: if you want to steal some maps for a longer report, feel free! I've got another release (this one covering user agents) in the next few days. Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would love to see computer algorithm values for article quality! We already have a readability of Wikipedia link, but this sounds more like a utility value? The project "grades" seem rarely changed, and too broad to be of much use.

2. The "student vandalism project" was always going to fail - they tried making really blatant edits. The problem is more generally with "partial wrongful edits" where the edit does not instantly jump out on a watchlist as being horrid -- but more subtle in tone. The teacher should have simply told them to modify refs to make them lead to completely different topics -- which would be a far better test of how we actually find problematic editors IMHO. Ref changes do not get caught as well as they ought. Collect (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Template:Sfn ... I'd like to see that thing locked in a cage while some freak from ISIS brings on the torch. Seriously, in the 90s they sold dongled software for multiple hundreds of dollars that was easier to reverse engineer than a Sfn footnote. More than once I've resorted to just copying the plain text from the article as output and fuhgeddaboutit. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Wikipedia has found out to its chagrin, making bogus edits (and indeed entire wars) up about ancient history is much more difficult to police. I can easily imagine Bogus edits consisting of altering the birthdates of various Asian nomadic tribal chiefs would be shrugged of. :(

Clubot passed the Turing test. :) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • About the study of gender bias in wikipedia: I would like to suggest for a wikipedia researcher to conduct gender bias comparison of wikipedia and other 'pedias, as well as various collections kinda "1000 Mostest Influentialest..." books and lists (eg Forbes). This would hopefully shed some light whether wikipedia is so misogynistic or the whole our society is/was. Another item of inquiry is to compare EB1911 with modern edition. Still another, investigate how M/F ratio changes with the time where subjects of bios lived. For starters, just count the numbers of male/female bios. I am sure other comparisons of M/F ratio can be done. -M.Altenmann >t 04:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Magnus, Max Klein and Andrew Gray have been doing a lot of work with these sort of questions. Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial? (1,045 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Could you add the standard tag line above the chart? Here is an example:
For the week of February 8 to 14, 2015, the ten most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
It provides some context to know the dates this chart covers. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 13:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-25/WikiProject report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-02-25&oldid=1125230251"