Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-12-04

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-12-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review (4,037 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-12-04

Discuss this story

• The arbitration report of Argentine history, while accurate of what is going on, does not accurately reflect what has happened up to now. Perhaps separating the IBAN matter from the TBAN clarification request, and expanding on the former, might be helpful. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not so much the goal of the Report to reflect "what has happened" with the clarification and amendment requests as to give a general idea of the topic, and a link for those who want to read more. Of course, reflections are always welcome in the comments. —Neotarf (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "An editor who had previously requested an interaction ban with the filer asked if he was allowed to comment and was subsequently blocked for one month in a separate action at arbitration enforcement." part makes it seem like he was blocked for asking if he was allowed to comment, which is not the case. He was blocked for posting an opinion (he didn't actually wait for ArbCom to okay it) to the ArbCom page, which uninvolved editors saw as containing personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No. I counted 11 direct quotations with diffs. The clerk's edit summary is specific: "Removing per request by arbitrators as violation of his interaction ban." Two arbitrators found the submission to be a violation of the restriction, and one of them requested AE to enforce it. —Neotarf (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• I, for one, found Wolfowitz's election guide useful. It's a shame ArbCom decided to be legalistic and remove it only to placate the incumbent ArbCom members up for re-election that KW was pushing to vote against. And yet, we have editors being bullied on wiki and leaving in frustration and the same ArbCom doesn't care. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• I, for two, support that. Interested voters can look up the history. I didn't write a voters guide but collected answers from the candidates regarding a fact in the case for which I am policed, - the answers are promising, , even from those seeking re-election, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The arbs are individuals, you can't tar them all with the same brush. And no one should be bullied; not editors, not arbs, not Jimbo. —Neotarf (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Now that the election is over, and this page is about to archive, it might be a good time to add a shameless plug for my own election guide.—Neotarf (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions (9,215 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-12-04

Discuss this story

• WMIL also had its budget effectively reduced because in 2012–13 it spent its allocated budget + about 15% in carryover from the previous year, i.e. 115% of its budget. This is more than the budget it received in 2013–14 and therefore needs to cut back on programs. The problem here is that the FDC structure has much more stringent reporting requirements than pre-FDC, which means that chapters need to hire staff to handle these things. This automatically and very significantly raises the operating expenses of each chapter (for small chapters usually above 100%). This eats into each chapter's ability to actually carry out programs that benefit the movement, which in turns gets criticism from the WMF. If the WMF wants chapters to have both a very high level of reporting and the ability to carry out great programs, it needs to take into account the added expenses incurred by its own recent requirements. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Hi Ynhockey, I want to stress that WMIL has its FDC allocation INCREASED by nearly 30%. Your allocation from the FDC last time was 549440₪, and now it is 709000₪. Thus, WMIL has received 29% more than it did the last time (effectively, minus 1.48% due to minimal inflation). Naturally, it is possible, that if your budget in 2012-2013 was inflated by a one time carryover, even the ~30% increase in funding from the FDC does not cover your intended growth. Pundit|utter 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is actually not true that "most editors start" on Wikisource by uploading a djvu. I have been on Wikisource for four years, involved in a major project you mention, and never have I uploaded a djvu, a procedure that requires some skill with large files in the typical case. The point is that uploading is far from being the bottleneck: proof-reading is by a very large margin the key part of getting a work available on Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wikisource: I'd like to mention the interviews available here: Interviews. Yann (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the Conflict of Interest and India; Wikimedia India has replied on the talk page of it's FDC proposal. The Signpost team is yet to respond to the Conflict of Interest that was raised over there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that you're only linking to the WMF blog post for the German court decision, considering that it paints a considerably rosier picture than just about anyone else does about the situation, and it's a major issue that could use a prose summary by the Signpost. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is where we could have done with another writer/researcher. We were unable to cover the matter properly, but decided it was sufficiently important to warrant a mention in the "In brief" section. To cover it properly would require in-depth research; I sense a different take by the WMF to that of the court. Interesting, but we received opinion that in the grander scheme it's unlikely to make a signficant difference to the question of liability. Tony (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm surprised to see the FDC guardrails characterised as a rule here - they are a guideline, not a rule. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You're quite right; I've changed it accordingly. I do note that the framework document says that "the FDC will follow" it, although the possibility of exceeding the range is specified as requiring stronger justification to the board of trustees. Tony (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Steffan Prößdorf -> Steffen Prößdorf Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Corrected, thanks. Tony (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Some clarification from the FDC on WMDE: There is indeed a difference between WMDE's "carry forward" (the $675,000 USD) outlined in its proposal and a general issue of (potential) chapter underspends from previous FDC allocations. As you know, we do not yet know the underspends of the chapters--since they are still carrying out activity with their current funds through the end of December. They have only loosely predicted what their underspends *might* be. That is why the FDC will need to publish their guidance on this issue separately. However in WMDE's case, WMDE is already saying it won't use those particular funds because the activity has been canceled, and instead, WMDE will apply the funds next year. WMDE may have significant underspend in addition to this--time will tell. Pundit|utter 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This was all very confusing for an onlooker who wants to make sense of how the trajectory of FDC funding is playing out. I wish there had been more explanation, and inclusion in the summaries for each recommendation the predicted size of underspend on which the FDC based its calculations. Was this a predictable scenario—that underspends and therefore calculations of percentage change over the previous allotment difficult to arrive at at the time of recommendation each year? Tony (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
• the German community banned what had become the mainstay of Wikisource uploads on all language versions: what is colloquially known as "dumping". The English site still allows dumping, but encourages the use of the new technology. What is dumping? It's not clear to me in the text. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dumping, as far as I can make out, is the practice of uploading raw sources, without accounting for provenance. Tony (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Many Wikisources allow copying text from, for example, Project Gutenberg and pasting it directly into the mainspace. On English Wikisource this is not the preferred method but it is acceptable if there is some attribution of the source on the talk page. (This was actually the main way it worked in the early days.) German Wikisource does not allow this at all and requires that all of its text is based on scans (policy comparison). In contrast, about 28% of English Wikisource has been proofread from scans using the Proofread Page extension. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Inflation

"Wennersten confirmed that local currencies were used in applying the guardrails guideline."

Don't forget inflation. It nears 30% annually in Argentina, for example. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That is economic suicide. I don't know to what extent the FDC should shoulder 100% of the uncertainty of fluctuations in exchange rates and inflation rates. The FDC has a fixed budget in $US, and it doesn't seem fair to other applicants that a large margin of uncertainty should have to be built into allocations. It's not an easy problem, but the practices of other international bodies might be instructive. Tony (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia (10,703 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-12-04

Discuss this story

• So Wikipedia is run by an Oligarchy. Wonder who they are, Wikipedia:List of cabals? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My Wikipedia essay, You are not a reliable source, disagrees heavily with the second section, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-12-04/Recent_research#Does "cultural imperialism" prevent the incorporation of indigenous knowledge on Wikipedia?.--Launchballer 10:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the whole concept of an "oral citation" runs afoul of WP:Verifiability which is a core policy.--ukexpat (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As long as there's a reliable recording of the oral citation - say someone does an interview on a camcorder and posts the video to YouTube - I don't see a verifiability issue. Obviously the context of how it's used is important, but I see little difference between citing one person's observations that are written down (which we do all the time) and one person's observations that are spoken into a microphone. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes how would we deal with fringe ideas without any support? If is not clear how oral citations would work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

By using {{cite interview}}.--Launchballer 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with oral information (assuming it's recorded) isn't WP:V, it's WP:POV, or, particularly, WP:UNDUE, as well as WP:NOR. If someone says "We've been using X to cure Y for thousands of years", or "We've had elections for village chief for hundreds of years", and this is "published" on YouTube, how is this different from a home video recording where someone remembers that (famous) person X said Y to him/her, sixty years ago? (In short, the point our content policies isn't simply to require documentation; otherwise we'd accept writings by anyone about anything as being a valid source for what goes into Wikipedia.)

More generally, Wikipedia policies increase the average accuracy of articles by excluding information that has a more-than-average likelihood of being wrong. And without such exclusions, debates on talk pages would be far lengthier, and far more likely to drive away contributors who do think that Wikipedia should emulate the classic encyclopedias of the past, minus the more egregious faults such as imperialism and sexism. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We accept opinions in articles all the time; that's what movie, book, and video game reviews are. No modern movie would make GA or FA status without a reception section that relied on the opinions of reviewers. We choose only those reviewers that are best credentialed, but they're we're still taking someone's POV and giving it a heavy amount of weight. In cultures that rely almost exclusively on oral history, that oral history is what's considered the accurate history of that culture. The person in charge of keeping that history is often trained extensively for that role, in other words, is best credentialed to present the cultural history of that culture as depicted by that culture. I'm not saying that we should just pick some dude off the street in downtown Atlanta and say "tell me about the cultural history of the Wolof people", but I am saying that if we have interviews of the cultural leaders of various groups, it would be entirely appropriate to include that information, couching it by making it clear that this is their own recounting of the information. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• No question that the definition for "reliable source" will be somewhat different in different domains of knowledge. WikiProject Med, as Doc James rightly points out, needs to consider a more restrictive definition, if it wants to provide statistically valid, evidence-based medical information to the thousands of people turning here for medical advice.

Eric Miller of Zepheira has a lot to say about how to cite for authenticity and trust in the new Bibliographic Framework Initiative (BIBFRAME) Update - November 22, 2013 from the Library of Congress. I think that if we take Eric's insights as our point of departure, we could cite a much wider range of sources with good results. Djembayz (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• The person who wrote "The article presents several valuable and thought-provoking examples of how the rigid referencing rules of the English Wikipedia go to extremes and do not necessarily reach the goals of ensuring notability, verifiability and reliability." should be encouraged to submit an opinion piece to the Signpost or learn to write objectively. That kind of partisan commentary and others like it have no business appearing in this publication. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• "What drives people to contribute to Wikipedia?" Well if they're like me they have a burning desire to waste a few hours for no greater purpose then trying to add or subtract some trivial thing in an article that they feel will help the project as a whole, only to be rebuffed by the greater whole of the registered user who feel your edit(s) were somehow "unconstructive". TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• 60% of the respondents note that the articles about their clients or companies have factual errors they would like to correct; many observed that potentially reputation-harming errors last for many months, or even years. This statistic poses an interesting question about Wikipedia responsibility to the world: by denying PR people the ability to correct such errors, aren't we hurting our own mission?" - This assertion fails WP:SPS. Based on some of my encounters with PR professionals, for some of them the definition of "factual errors" includes anything they don't like seeing in print about their clients. We've got a guy in California, for example, who insists that telling the reader how his client is rated by organizations who disagree with his political party is "libellous and an attack". --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• How PR professionals see Wikipedia "40% of the 2013 survey respondents had engaged with Wikipedia through editing ..., compared to 35% of the 2012 survey respondents" So PR editing has gone up while the general editor decline is still going down. That doesn't seem good. When the PR editors outnumber the volunteer editors, I expect there'll be some interesting changes to our policies. Maybe we should try to get more volunteer editors? Just a thought. 64.40.54.20 (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Maybe we should try to get more volunteer editors? Just a thought." Good luck with that buddy, we've been barking up that tree for 5 years now. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Being "the subject of a book that was included in the Library of Congress" is almost meaningless in itself... AnonMoos (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Re: so-called "Cultural imperialism." First, as all the news that the two auctions of Hopi Friends in France have raised, tribes don't necessarily want all their intellectual property and cultural patrimony shared with the general public. If information is published in a reliable, secondary source, I use that as a good barometer of whether the information is acceptable for public consumption (this doesn't always work, but it's a baseline). The self-published works are far more dicey. I can't find any mention on web of book, GI-Dee-Thlo-Ah-Ee Of The Blue People Clan, being published by the Cherokee Nation (who didn't ratify their constitution until 1975, so it'd be surprising if they were publishing books a year prior). Native peoples are purely capable of publishing books through proper channels, for instance Diné College Press or Chickasaw Nation Press affiliated with University of Oklahoma Press. It's not like requiring citations to be published leaves out the Native voice. That's why there's so many entries at List of writers from peoples indigenous to the Americas. BUT... unfortunately, people do attempt to use Wikipedia all the time to push their POV and legitimize dubious historical claims about their organizations. The craziest example I've dealt with was User:Aniyunwiya with Cherokee Nation of Mexico. Nothing in her/his sources backed up any of her/his claims. (And yes, 90% of non-Natives claiming to be Natives claim to be Cherokee, followed by Blackfeet, Delaware, Apache, followed by obscure historical tribes from the East Coast.) In the end, verifiable truth must win out. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who (7,240 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-12-04

Discuss this story

Who is writing, editing and ultimately taking responsibility for these? Thanksgiving is completely not OK, and the description for Tendulkar is not anywhere near 'good' either. NW (Talk) 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You can direct any comments at me. It would be nice if you could be more specific. It's also important not to confuse the Signpost, which is in the mainspace and thus subject to Wikipedia rules on neutrality, with the Top 25 report, which isn't. Serendi^podous 08:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No one was saying it wasn't meant to be neutral. But referring to a functional Native American genocide as "long, tempestuous and occasionally abusive relationship with its native population" is incredibly diminishing. It isn't funny and serves no productive purpose. NW (Talk) 17:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost most certainly isn't in the main space, nor is it required (unless by its own policies) to be neutral. If this page is meant to be neutral, it isn't doing a very good job. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not to nitpick or get away from the discussion at hand, but the Signpost isn't in mainspace, nor is it subject to WP:NPOV. I assume the point you're trying to make is that the Signpost aims to maintain journalistic objectivity and professionalism, while WP:TOP25 is a less formal endeavor. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 08:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Er, yeah. That. To be honest I wasn't the one who decided to make this a Signpost article, and I've never been particularly keen on writing it. I think "journalistic objectivity" is absolute bollocks and any attempt to attain it is just stifling free speech. In this era of Fox News and Conservapedia, when reality itself has become a topic of political debate, I don't see what the value is in maintaining a middle ground. So I've always had a problem adapting the list for this page. If someone else wants to have a go, they're welcome. Serendi^podous 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep doing what you're doing, Serendi^podous! I look forward to your reports every week. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think what NuclearWarfare is taking issue with, and what I've taken issue with for a while (but have been biting my tongue because, frankly, the Signpost has bigger issues) is the lack of professionalism on this page. There is going to be, of course, a difference of opinion as to how serious this page needs to be, but I find that the bad (bad as in not actually funny) jokes and casual tone do a disservice to the Signpost, which otherwise generally tries to be serious. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes Signpost comments intended to be funny have been controversial and generally should be avoided. Instead of discussing this here I suggest Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom since it's relevant to multiple Signpost publications. --Pine^✉ 06:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really want to do this anyway. close it down. Serendi^podous 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Argh. Another cool part of Wikipedia dies. Just so you know, I've always enjoyed the traffic report, mainly for its tone and style. It was a bit of relief from the generally crusty, way-too-literal tone that dominates Wikipedia. Bobnorwal (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's rarely a good idea to end anything on the say-so of a small number of vocal opponents. Powers ^T 21:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not what I wanted, but that's your choice to make. I long ago stopped contributing to the Signpost because I stopped finding doing so enjoyable. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Serendipodous I hope you continue to write this report. It's good to know what articles interest our readers and I like reading your comments about what might have made the world interested in particular articles each week. I appreciate your work. --Pine^✉ 06:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only second? Damn. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep it going, please, maybe with some kind of disclaimer at the top. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie (670 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2013-12-04

Discuss this story

Thanks Mabeenot for another outstanding report – quite different than the 2010 report on the same wikiproject. By the way, since I am interested in finding patterns in "missing wikipedians", I checked the histories of those who interviewed with you in 2010. To my surprise only 3 of the seven are still active (at least one edit in the last 30 days). XOttawahitech (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)