Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-01-11

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-01-11. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

2009 in review: 2009 in Review (2,557 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-11

Discuss this story

One idea for future years in review:

• include a summary of developments in wiki 'zines, contests, and {featured content / "* of the day" feeds}

The featured content stats probably need to be generated by a script. The zine and contest notes might be gleanable now. Each is an active community effort to foster or highlight certain types of contribution, and could be handy to one describing a project in 60 seconds. Size/scope of article and image contests, and development of communication channels like Wikimedium (and changes in the Signpost, however self-referential), would also make good reads. +sj+ 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestions. We need more stories about article contests ({{sofixit}}!). A quick summary of the changes in the signpost is in this week's letter to the editor. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the wikicup, too. Forgot to include. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's unbelievable that a year after Jimmy's request, flagged revs still hasn't been enabled. How complicated could this possibly be? de.wiki have had it for years! --Zvika (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Two-words response: user culture. Circéus (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• this week's News and notes actually has an item about that; there are actually technical complications to implementing flaggedrevs the way it was voted in here, on a page by page basis. The code had to be rewritten, it turns out. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia is focusing too much on the Wiki and not enough on the "pedia" part. Belugaboy535136 Talk to him!! 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Here here, it's more like a guru game nowadays for many people YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Books: New Book namespace created (760 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-11

Discuss this story

This is a most exciting venture...great idea. bibliomaniac15 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, creating its own namespace? I'd rather order them as subpages of Wikipedia:Books or something...ResMar 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From the editor: Call for writers (1,247 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-11

Discuss this story

Hello Wikipedia I want to be a writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architvats (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, a writer is not an editor...ResMar 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. When the editor said writer, he meant writer for the in-wikipedia "newspaper," The Signpost. If you want to edit... just find a page that interests you and work on it. Glacier Wolf 16:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more (5,189 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-11

Discuss this story

• Regarding the plagiarism article, it could work in some cases, but in others the article is written in British English, or another form of it, so could be less difficult to spot. Majorly talk 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• When I was in high school all of my friends would copy and paste from wikipedia. The teachers could tell immediately but did nothing except give them failing grades even though in some cases the content was right. The teachers could tell that sentences were copied by simply searching for the content on wikipedia. It was effective. NarSakSasLee (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! it was same here, when I was in high school. --Saqib ^talk 13:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• If WND reports on it, you can be fairly sure it's not true. So, congratulations Jimbo, for presiding over the most neutral source of information available! (Opinions are not necessarily those of the Wikimedia foundation)
• It's hilarious to me how many people apparently still aren't aware that Wikipedia is edited by a bunch of people, almost none of whom are under the employ of the Foundation. Note the tagline- "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Mr. Farah, the people adding the libelous comments to pages related to WND are called 'vandals', and they are routinely blocked and reverted. Controversial figures are common targets. --King Öomie 14:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Schoolchildren told to avoid Wikipedia" - a typically misleading headline. Here's what the Ofqual advice actually says:

Using Wikipedia as a starting point

‘The free encyclopedia [sic] that anyone can edit.’ (Wikipedia, 2009)

Wikipedia can be an excellent starting point for research. However, unlike traditional encyclopaedias anyone can add information on any topic, even you! It may not necessarily be authoritative or accurate. In some cases information may be completely untrue.

You must always check the facts in a wiki article

■ check the reference list for the article.

■ carry out further research to find the referenced articles.

■ use the history and discussion pages accompanying an entry to help evaluate whether you can trust the information.

■ you can find a pre-checked Wikipedia collection of 5,500 articles targeted around the national curriculum at http://schools-wikipedia.org.

■ never use Wikipedia as your only source.

which I think is fair enough, apart from the "[sic]" which implies criticism of the use of American spelling on a US-based website and may confuse some students. (As an aside, I was also somewhat amused by the unintended ambiguity of the statement "anyone can add information on any topic, even you!") The document also offers this advice on using the internet in general for research:

Points to remember

■ anyone can publish online

■ sources may be untrue

■ sources may be inaccurate

■ always check the relevance

■ always check the reliability

■ be critical of all content.

Ask your teacher or school librarian for help if you’re not sure.

As for Joseph Farah's article in which he apparently holds Jimmy Wales personally responsible for all vandalism, defamation and incivility on Wikipedia, I'm sorry I wasted minutes of my life reading it, but I have to admit I did laugh at his spectacular non-sequitur when he decided to take the opportunity to criticise Wikipedia's non-censorship of sexually explicit images. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• They're particular about that spelling, eh? A [sic] tag used for an AmEng spelling? Crazy. No wonder they noticed the copy-and-pasting. --King Öomie 17:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The [sic] tag is appropriate in more ways than one.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across a journal article where the author had used "[sic]" whenever material that he quoted from used non-gender-neutral language, e.g., "one man [sic] one vote". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more (855 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-11

Discuss this story

Re Global sysops, what does "3 months of registry" mean? – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Account at least three months old. That's for voting on the issue, not becoming one. --King Öomie 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think that needs to be clarified. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I {{sofixit}}'ed it. :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)