Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-10-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: The complex phenomenon of leadership in the wiki world (826 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2016-10-14

Discuss this story

Thanks for the great overview of the challenges Pete: this is a really good description of why and how this conversation is an important one to have. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is "manoeuvring" spelled right?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. :) -Pete (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content: Variety is the spice of life (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-10-14/Featured content

In the media: Alright Wikipedia, I'm ready for my closeup (13,181 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2016-10-14

Discuss this story

As a thought exercise, it would be interesting to know what Special:PredictFuture returns when you put in a question (how does one format it?) about future Wikipedia events. Pity that the software does not exist yet, it sure would make RfA and other processes somewhat easier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re Gene Weingarten, anyone working at a major newspaper can get a professionally taken photo (new, done as a favour) up on WP in about 15 minutes. Once a better photo is up, it will stay there. But then you have to find something else to write your column about.... My favourite dreadful photo willfully allowed to remain at the top of the article for years by a subject in the media is the great Greg Dyke, former Director-General of the BBC (article versions up to about 2011). But then afaik he never moaned about it, and the student-wolfman-at-breakfast remains lower down. Johnbod (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...where it will be deleted as a copyright violation, because the photo was taken by someone else and we'd have no evidence that a free license or work for hire apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And then the subject either a) gets to devote personal time to a self-taught crash course in copyright law and Wikipedia policies in hopes of eventually getting their desired picture up b) keeps reverting/reuploading, eventually being told off and/or blocked, wasting their and others' time and leaving them with a bad impression, or c) just gives up. What y'all need to realize is the average person doesn't know the first thing about copyright law, and assumes everything online is a free-for-all. After all, Facebook doesn't care what license your images are under. When the article says "Weingarten had suggested that many other public domain photos were out there", I'm virtually certain that what he meant was there are lots of photos of him online, because this is what most people think "public domain" means. If you don't believe me, ask some random people. While you're at it, ask them if something needs a visible copyright notice to be copyrighted. The average person doesn't pay close attention to most things, especially if they're things they perceive as not personally important, a category I think Wikipedia policy gobbledygook falls under for most. I think I can confidently say those long template messages left on talk pages go unread by most recipients. Something I think might be helpful is a chat widget like the ones found on many online stores. Even my bank's website has one. Integrate it with the existing IRC help channels. Put it on project-space pages (i.e., not articles). Half the time, one of the issues for non-editors is they don't know where to go for help. A prominent thing that says "Click here for assistance" reduces the cognitive load involved in finding help. Also I think living persons should be allowed to veto use of an image of them. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a picture can easily create a bad impression for readers. I'm a little surprised no one has tried to smear someone they don't like by getting unflattering pictures of them into Wikipedia. (Or maybe they have, and no one has figured it out yet!) If they don't have an image in their article, all you need to do is obtain and upload your desired image, taking care of course to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s in the file and licensing information. If it isn't an image you took, just lie. You'll only not get away with it if the actual photographer finds out and cares enough to send a takedown request. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense! Obviously the photographer has to upload it. We are not talking about "average people" here, but media professionals. Trust me, newspaper photographers have perfectly adequate understanding of copyright law for this, at least as it relates to their own work. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do they also know that this applies to Wikipedia? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they will. And the notices, fiddly though they are, all make this at least entirely clear. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This supposes the photographer is kept in the loop about the intended use of the photo and the copyright requirements. Certainly possible, but I suspect a much more common scenario is the subject just asking the photographer to take a picture and give it to them. I also wonder whether internal policies would cause headaches. The company probably doesn't want random employees using their staff photographers as free labor on demand, so it's quite possible the person wanting the photograph might need to submit paperwork. And they might require a formal copyright release, and possibly approval from a higher-up to release the photo under a CC license, because they of course don't want their photographers to make a habit of releasing all their work under free licenses. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said as a favour. Of course staff photographers photos in worktime are (typically) all supposed to belong to the employer, but there's always the lunch hour. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting point that so-called professionals might not be really that professional. Perhaps we should organise some Wikipedia/Copyright sessions as continuing professional development.Leutha (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dyke eating breakfast at the University of York, 1975!?! Johnbod, that's hilarious! Well, I think it's a decent picture, but given the article's topic, it's amazing! And Leutha, your CE idea isn't bad at all. I say kick that idea upstairs and get it done! — Geekdiva (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems to me, both the "old" and the "new" photo are quite good. I've never heard of Gene Weingarten before (I'm from Switzerland), these are the first photos of him I've ever seen (I think), and I can't really understand why the first one would seem particularly unflattering. Because he's wearing a t-shirt? Because the photo's crop is not very good? Because of the way he looks into the camera? Both photos may have advantages and disadvantages. But actually, isn't the second one less suited as a portrait? There are elements that may be seen as distracting from this purpose (the microphone, the man in the background). But it's certainly an acceptable photo as well, and if he's happier with it, no need for a big fuss, yes. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Gene Weingarten's entry, it wasn't just the picture that was problematic. After seeing this kerfuffle in the news article he wrote and on Twitter, I worked on some basic scrubbing of his Wikipedia page -- which still could use some TLC / better citations. I even reached out to Weingarten via Twitter and email and I think he was relieved to have the assistance. The Wikipedia article is now in better shape for all of this, but it shouldn't need to be like this. The underlying chronic issue is about better outreach and education about Wikipedia, which seems to be a common problem that goes largely unaddressed until someone publicly whinges. Not good for anyone, especially Wikipedia. I believe the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia could do a lot more to fix this problem, because OTRS is obviously not cutting the mustard. Yes, I suggested a solution here. OTRS is not transparent, and more concerning, doesn't involve a very wide swath of editors. I understand people who do OTRS are doing a hard job, and I applaud their efforts, but it is not seeming to be solving the problems very well. As usual, the burden seems to be on too few, and old practices might need to be reassessed for effectiveness. So I think this ongoing issue could be addressed better, but hopefully this issue for Weingarten's page is stabilized and addressed for now. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that stories like Weingarten's are happening all the time. Maybe we could/should include a section about how a BLP subject might provide or nominate a better photograph of themselves in WP:BLPHELP? Chuntuk (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the old picture is terrible. True, I'm used to seeing a cartoonish illustration online. I've been reading his column for years dating back to when The Charlotte Observer ran him. Then I had to read in the Post at a library. Then the library where I have time quit subscribing, though if the section with his column was missing I had to go online anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not wish to censor the use of pictures of living biographical subjects, I feel they should be distinctive enough to differentiate them from people who could be confused with them and do sufficient justice to their natural appearance; I am still waiting to see a more suitable picture of Sir Peter Bottomley at the infobox on his article rather than the present one of him in a cycle helmet, which obscures his hair and makes him look too like Sir Tony Robinson, a politically antithetical person to the British Conservative MP. (I did make suggestion in the article's Talk page.)Cloptonson (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the reader is using the beta Hovercards: "...to the infamous post capture photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pictured). (Mohammed...has a much more flattering picture of himself on his Wikipedia article.)" I'm enjoying using Hovercards a lot. It helps me verify that I'm linking to the correct article in an edit preview, for example. However, it does ignore the first image on a page if that image is in a template—say, Template:Infobox. So hovering over the link to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed pulled up the infamous photo (the next one down the page outside of a template) and not the "more flattering picture" at the top. FYI! — Geekdiva (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geekdiva, the reason Hovercards doesn't return the image in the infobox of that article is because the image is not a 'free' image. After a long discussion it was decided that the software (API) Hovercards uses should only return free images. I hope that helps explain the occasional non-sensical image appearing in Hovercards. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CKoerner (WMF) In this case, the image in question is free, though. Is the cause not the infobox issue that Geekdiva suggests? -Pete (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peteforsyth Whoops, I should have been more clear. I was referencing the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed article Geekdiva mentioned. Sorry for the confusion. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the mistake was mine -- I misread the initial comment. Thanks for clarifying, though. -Pete (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: Challenges for WMF fundraising; Indian flora windfall for Commons (4,356 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Judging from headcount in the group photo, it seems that gender bias in Wikipedia is greatly exaggerated. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's fair to say the attendance at a conference like this is representative of the Wikipedia editing community as a whole. Interesting point. Go Phightins! 19:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if it were, there still looks to be a pretty hefty male overrepresentation in the photo, to my eye. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the only conclusion you can draw about the gender gap from attendance at this event is that people who like Wikipedia enough to attend a 3-day conference about it (and all the socializing, learning, presenting, listening, brainstorming, etc. involved in that) are a little more representative of the general population than are the active editor base (still not actually representative, of course -- at the most basic level, it is WikiConference North America). A lot of people in this photo are not active Wikipedia editors, but people who use Wikipedia, teach about it, work in other non-profits, volunteer in other open culture projects, and otherwise see the importance of the project. Librarians are one contingent always well represented at this sort of event (at least those I've been to), and which is itself majority women. That's not to say the gender gap/gender bias on Wikipedia isn't improving, of course, but I'd be hesitant to come to any conclusions based on off-wiki events like this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$2.7 million is raised in Australia and not a cent goes back. What a rip off. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And whose fault might that be? Tony (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One important factor that affects "fundraising challenges" is the fact that the WMF is spending 300 times as much (52596782 ÷ 177670 ≈ 296) as it was spending ten years ago. Does anyone here believe that the WMF is accomplishing three hundred times more than it accomplished ten years ago?

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They spend the money on all the wrong things, Salaries and junkets for one thing, for the bloated staff list, and expensive outside consulting and research; not nearly enough on essential engineering, design, and software support for critical issues - still expecting the volunteer community to do most of the development for free as well as provide the content that ultimately gets the donations, and not enough on scholarships for meetings, conferences, and grants for worthwhile off-Wiki initiatives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear and to clarify a somewhat ambiguous wording: the video was not sponsored by WMCH (it was volunteer work, like 99% of the work to date). The chapter supports Kiwix itself (hosting fees, hackathon costs, etc). Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thank you, Stephane. Tony (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

← Back to 2016-10-14

Discuss this story

Recent research: Wikipedia Dispute Index a mixed bag; how motivations differ among contributor roles (1,417 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2016-10-14

Discuss this story

@Nettrom: Nice article on emergent roles. One nitpicking question -- in the final sentence of the third paragraph, you state that role embracers have lengthier participation if they move on to a second article. But your definition of a role embracer already presumes that they work on more than one article. Did you really mean "article embracers" there? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: You are absolutely right that they by definition have to work on multiple articles, thanks for catching that! I checked the paper, and it is referring to the "role embracers". Their primary finding is the longevity of the participation, with a secondary finding that the role embracers will focus on the second article they work on. I've rephrased the sentence to reflect that. Thanks again! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the authors' comment on the "Emergent Role Behaviours ..." paper here. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017 (1,944 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2016-10-14

Discuss this story

I'm looking forward to the 2017 Wikimarkup editor. Hopefully switching between it and VisualEditor will be clear. It'll make it easier to teach newcomers. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Wikitext Editor has a problem. Preview is broken-by-design. The current wikitext editor gives accurate previews because it uses the exact same render-engine that is used when viewing an article. The new editor uses Visual Editor's engine to display the preview. This is a design error. It means that there are a large number of random problems. Red links, black links, and external links all incorrectly render as plain blue links. It has some issues with refs, it can split one line into multiple lines, it can display lines in the wrong order, it can dump raw wikicode onto the page, and many assorted other issues. I'm asking the WMF if they will fix this.... asking if they will switch the normal article render-engine instead of the Visual Editor render engine for previews. I haven't been able to get an answer on this yet. I think we should NOT deploy a new wikitext with broken previews when the current wikitext editor gives perfect previews. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the current W3 markup notes for a void element (in this case <br>), the backslash character "/" before the closing ">" character remains optional.[1] (It's also true at HTML 5.) There's no reason for Wikipedia to enforce that behavior via a bot. Praemonitus (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Debates and escapes (2,092 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Trump[edit]

Trump: "because he is doing or saying eye-opening things." I am not a native English speaker, but I'd rather say "because he is doing or saying wikt:jaw-dropping things." Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker, I concur. --MattMauler (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a native English speaker I might have said eye-popping. Even though it would be technically malapropos for something that is not primarily visual, it would reflect my gut-wrenching feeling that I can't believe what I am seeing. I agree that jaw-dropping is more straightforward. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump didn't just defend his comments about Alicia Machado after the debate, he attacked her all over again in derogatory terms. She's made a video in which she speaks out to condemn his comments and humiliation of her when she was Miss Universe and since then. She proudly says, "I am a citizen now and speaking out. I'm voting in this campaign - join me in voting for Hillary Clinton."Parkwells (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox[edit]

The important point of the story is that Knox's extended study abroad, though expensive, likely helped her to become fluent in Italian. Although The Signpost dislikes portrayal of her as a femme fatale "Foxy Knoxy" might be the femme fatale the readers need, not the one they deserve. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

← Back to 2016-10-14