Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-01-13

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-01-13. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016 (658 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• I enjoyed reading this report (as much as one ever enjoys reading about arbitration matters) and found it informative. Thank you GamerPro64, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Kelapstick, and Seraphimblade. --Pine^✉ 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Blog: Inside the game of sports vandalism on Wikipedia (1,909 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• Beyond the sarcastic jokes and playful vandalism by enthusiastic fans is the more serious and constant problem of the insidious vandalism of sports statistics and information on player's bio's. The intention of the vandal is to trick the unsuspecting sports fan and our reader into believing false information. Without the careful and vigilant watchfulness of hundreds of concerned editors to rehabilitate these abused articles, these "traps" would lay in wait for their next victim. Anyone that watchlists sports articles will verify how often these articles are attacked. Buster Seven Talk 17:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this could be one place where Wikidata and automated systems could help. A lot of sports statistics (and statistics in general) could be brought in automatically from external databases to Wikidata, and distributed to the articles via templates - if we could find enough Wikidatans (Wikidaters? Wikidatoi?) interested in sports. Then, bots could also check whether the data is correct - less work for humans. This could be good also for Wikipedias in other languages where people wouldn't have to seek data in less reliable sources if they could be sure that Wikidata has it correctly, translating the templates would suffice. --Oop (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Football is littered with issues of inpropriety http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/sock-puppets-attacking-football-data-in-south-east-asia/ Gnangarra 04:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF (1,497 bytes · 💬)

Engine

I don't want to become a part of a knowledge engine. I want to be a member of a community that makes and shares educational resources.

Wikipedia's search engine isn't very good and should be improved. But building a new project to collect information even less structured than Wikidata is far from our needs and wishes.

I agree that the board should have several members from educational backgrounds. Technology is a tool, the strategic goals are educational. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Discovery is actually devoting the lion's share of its resources trying to improve the existing search, and that's reflected in Discovery's quarterly goals. An example of our work towards this is the completion suggester beta feature, which we recently rolled out, which improves the search algorithm used for the type-ahead search. We're also trying to improve search for multi-lingual users with language detection. It's an incredibly common misconception that the "knowledge engine" represents some new and significantly different direction which does not involve significantly improving our core search, and that's why we've now stopped using the term. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Editorial: We need a culture of verification (7,957 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• To do this systematically (as we should) requires a little bit of planning. We need a way of recording that references are checked, and by who. Secondly it would be valuable to use quotations, to speed up the verification process. Thirdly we need an automated system to evaluate the trust that should be placed in the verifiers.
• It's important to understand the problems that these three facilities would solve:
  1. It is no good verifying references at random, and not recording the verification - that's inefficient, it duplicates effort and misses items.
  2. Given a quotation it is easy to see if the quotation supports the statement it references. And it is trivial (if an electronic source is used) to verify that the quotation is accurate.
  3. Fake verification is as bad, or worse than, fake references. However fake verifications are likely to follow specific patterns, notably a small clique of new users or single purpose accounts supporting relatively few editors, probably part of the same clique.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

All of Rich Farmbrough's very sensible suggestions are based on an unstated assumption, namely that references can be seen to apply to a specific claim (such as a sentence, or perhaps a whole paragraph). However, the encyclopedia still contains many thousands of older articles with a list of unattached citations, listed at the end of the article with no connection to any paragraph. Therefore, a vital precursor to verification is to convert unattached citations to specific (attached) references, using inline ref tags to create traceable "little blue numbers". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another aspect is that it would be useful to not just link to an entire work (e.g. "to the entirety of the sixteen volume collection", to use the Thoreau example) but to deeplink into the relevant section, phrase or paragraph instead. For out-of-copyright and openly licensed references, this could be achieved by importing the referenced texts into the relevant Wikisource and using section links or anchors. For scholarly open-access articles, the OA signalling project is trying to build a workflow that would facilitate that. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Demur. By far the bigger problem is that some editors see "ambiguity" in a source - and parse it to reach their own preferred result. Short "quotations" do not necessarily properly represent the view of any author at all, and the result is that the "automated system" using such quotations will simply rubber-stamp horrid misinterpretations of what the work actually states as fact. And the acceptance of "facts in headlines" as proof that the claim is in the body of any source.

Rather, I suggest that:

Edits by "flagged authors" including, but not limited to, IPs, authors with under 300 article edits not marked as "minor", and any editors flagged as being found to have committed plagiarism or major multiple copyright violations, be placed in "pending" status" until a reviewer then examines them for accuracy and copyright status. And all edits giving "foreign language" sources, video sources without accurate transcripts, and "not findable" sources should also be placed in that limbo.

Which, I suggest, is more readily do-able than the initial suggestion above. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We find a problem- so the first reaction is to use a few more terabytes of memory to provide a global resource that unnamed virtual editors are going to do complex sql matches. No. No, lets see what practical- in my everyday editing I verify dozens of references using online sources as I clean up sections or zap cn's. I use {{sfn}} in the main and place the simple tag |p=34|or |pp=34-35| as needs be I could add |four tildes or |v=exact| or |v=dubious| |v=POV |v= fail, at the same time. We need a simple traffic light code, to inform the reader the quality of the reference. So with a little help from our coding bunnies we have started to address the problem. But is a tool we need before we can start. Clem Rutter (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

While we also need improved tools, I think it very important to point out that a verification foremostly requires detailed work by editors having some domain knowledge on the subject they are checking or who at least are willing to do the leg work to pick it up on the way. So those editors cannot check just the validity of the references, they actually need to look it up, read its content and compare it to the Wikipedia content using it as a source. This is very tedious and time consuming process, which also requires a different attitude from the "tag and forget"-approach. With regard to the latter, we probably also need a more sensible (or at least prioritized) approach to tagging. Right now I still see a lot of purely "formalistic" tagging, meaning editors often without any domain knowledge of the material they are surveying simply tag any paragraph or statement that doesn't come with footnote. They do not seem to spent time on the article to figure out, whether the paragraph just contains obvious domain knowledge, where sourcing isn't necessarily needed or whether a neighbouring footnote might cover that material as well. This can result in unnecessarily long maintenance lists, which contain a lot of articles that upon closer inspection may have no real sourcing or correctness issues. So we need a sometimes more sensible approach and probably also a way to prioritize sourcing/verification issues better.

There is one tool, which has not been all that popular in the English wikipedia, which however maybe important for verification/consolidation attempts and that are the flagged revisions. So far they are mostly used as protection against vandalism. However the original idea also considered an "verified flag" indicating that a particular version of an article was fully fact checked/verified/sourced at that point. So it might be a good idea to revisit the idea and options of flagged revisions. Maybe even a more fine grained tool is necessary where you can break it down to individual section or footnotes. However tools which are very complex with have a lot of options can in practice also become more of an obstacle than a help for the majority of editors.

Another important aspect for a verification drive is to get a large number of editors to help with it. For that the (online) access to the sources is critical. So we probably need to extend (and possibly simplify) the use of Wikipedia library and the resource exchange request. Ideally all regular Wikipedia editors should have access to all (online) resources.

Finally there isn't necessarily a contradiction or conflict of goals between expansion and consolidation/maintenance but they go hand in hand as we do verify articles while we expand them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: This week's featured content (1,758 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

@Armbrust: thanks, I enjoy reading the Featured content reports. --Pine^✉ 17:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Armbrust Me too, thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Altered the caption to the Grace Road photo. As far as I know, the first ground was in Wharf Street, somewhere near the music hall where Joseph Merrick appeared on stage. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xanthomelanoussprog: It's funny. The list says their first match was played on Grace Road on 17 May 1894, while Wharf Street isn't mentioned at all. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm interpreting the club website correctly, the club was formed in 1820 and played on St Margaret's Pastures, an already established ground. Wharf Street was opened in 1825 and closed in 1860- but I get the impression that the club was a user of the ground rather than a proprietor. The web page seems a bit confused to me (but it's early in the morning!) Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In focus: The crisis at New Montgomery Street (11,188 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• It is not possible to discuss the details of failure to maintain confidentiality in an open forum without providing more information to support better guesses. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Thank you for the investigative journalism, transparency and keeping the community informed. For myself, a good executive for Wikipedia is someone from the education sector, with an ethos of non-profit, like a professional librarian or professor. I never understood the move to SF - WP should have moved to DC which is where most global non-profits are HQ. Or keep the technology at SF and move executive to DC. In SF, Wikipedia will be under constant pressure from insiders to collaborate with their connections at Silicon Valley companies. In DC, the collaborations will be with other NGOs and the government itself which is the best way for NGOs to survive. -- GreenC 19:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • San Francisco (including the greater Bay Area and its ugly cousin in SoCal) is the de facto world leader in innovation. If you can't understand the move to SF, then I suggest you need to get on a plane and walk around the city to get a handle on the pulse of technology. Furthermore, the ethical dilemmas at work in this field have been a problem since the 1960s, and have never been resolved. There is zero innovation inside the Beltway, so your comment leaves me confused. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It's no secret that the lease on the current office space ends in September 2017, and the WMF is looking at options. As for reasoning to move to SF in the first place, this mailing list post seems like a good summary. Anomie⚔ 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I used to work around the corner, and I think it's a great location. While they would have been happier in the Mission, that bird has probably flown. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's quite obvious the SF area is the technology world capital but it is not at all obvious Wikipedia is primarily a technology organization. Did you read Liam Wyatt's "Battle for the soul of the WMF" in the same Signpost issue? Wikipedia is about education, learning etc. Wikipedia is not a technology organisation in the style of a dot-com company. As for DC, it's a catch term that means the Washington metropolitan area -- DC proper has about 700,000 people, the metro area has almost 10x that, it's all the same conglomerate (Richmond to Baltimore). Other than SF, there is more high tech in DC than anywhere in the country, and far more of non-tech organizations Wikipedia should be partnering and working with. Wikipedia will likely end up in DC eventually because legislation drives innovation. -- GreenC 02:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I strongly disagree with it. It's now 2016. All organizations are technology-driven—except bureaucratic, government agencies. Those that are exceptions to the rule are at this moment busy taking over Palo Alto, they are not in DC. If you believe that legislation drives innovation, then there isn't really anything else to talk about, as that statement is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Not all organizations are technology organizations, even if they rely on technology. -- GreenC 03:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

All modern organizations and business sectors are driven by technology. That does not make them a "technology organization". Your friends in Washington are operating in Silicon Valley for a reason. Look at Palantir Technologies as only one example. Heck, Silicon Valley itself was created by military funding. Innovation isn't legislated, it's nurtured like an infant and allowed to grow and experiment like a teenager. When the timing is right, a mature idea is unleashed on society by an individual or group. You need the freedom to fail repeatedly and the ability to take risks. The government model doesn't work that way and lacks the necessary agility and ability to turn sharp corners. That's why innovative companies like SpaceX are doing the job for NASA. Government could work, but it doesn't because it has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point but this isn't the place to discuss. No one is advocating centralized bureaucratic control by the US government of Wikipedia. But as stated earlier, there is a reason most of the major NGOs are based in DC (area) because they understand that to enact change (or make progress) they ultimately need proper legislation. You brought up Elon Musk, Solar City is no longer operating in Nevada because of unfriendly legislation. Those who ignore government will be out competed by those who control government (in that case the fossil fuel industry). -- GreenC 16:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your example actually supports my point. Government has been hijacked and co-opted by special interests, in this instance, by the Koch brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council who are opposing solar energy across the US to support utilities in individual states, often in opposition to federal positions. Moving to DC would only help those inside the Beltway. Innovation isn't helped by legislation, it is hindered, and the example you gave proves this point. ALEC and other interest groups lobby Washington to stifle innovation, not promote it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's right, government drives innovation. It may drive it off the cliff as in North Korea, or it may drive it to the moon as the US government usually does. Regardless, if your not influencing the driver then you are at a disadvantage as Solar City discovered. -- GreenC 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide me the name of a single company in Silicon Valley that attributes their successful innovation to the government. Just one, please. Your claim is absurd. The government is the last entity on the planet that anyone points to for innovation. Where's the fiber to our homes, the free or cheap unlimited data, and the universal Wi-Fi? Please. You want the Wikimedia Foundation to move to DC to help influence legislation? To what purpose and for what end? Public policy making is inherently a non-innovative process, which depends on stable, unchanging environments. It's the exact opposite of where we need to be and is a proven failure when it comes to technological innovation. Might as well just close down the WMF, because it will have the same outcome. What you are arguing for is the death knell of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Most of the big NGOs are based in Washington for a reason. Wikimedia is not a Silicon Valley style dot com company and treating it as such is a recipe for trouble. See "Battle for the soul of the WMF". -- GreenC 03:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please point me to the most significant "success" achieved by a so-called NGO in the last year. Good luck with that, btw. You couldn't answer my question about which Silicon Valley org attributes their innovation to the government because there isn't one. QED. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia is a non profit (NGO), it's not a tech dot-com company though certain parties wish to treat it that way. The innovation discussion has mostly been your personal politics, are you Libertarian? The discussion reminds me of my college-era Ayn Randian roommate. In any case the Washington area has plenty of technical resources it's second only to Silicon Valley. An emphasis on innovation presumes that is the core mission of Wikimedia but as explained in "Battle for the soul of the WMF" that is far from a given. Washington is home to a majority of institutions that Wikipedia should be (and is) partnering with. Library of Congress, National Archives, educational, legal issues such as copyright and privacy - these are all things best served in Washington. -- GreenC 18:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to answer every question I have asked. Again, please point me to the latest successes of NGOs in Washington. I'm going to guess that you can't because they are too busy sucking on the large teat of the pendulous Capitol Hill. That's the problem with being in DC in a nutshell. I am not a libertarian in any sense of the word, as my contributions demonstrate. Btw, the term "dot com" hasn't had insider currency for almost 16 years, so you sound silly saying it. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Alas - for a second I feared I was reading a blog post at Infowars. Or at the website which must not be named. Collect (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, as someone from DC, please don't come here, the cost of living is as high as San Fran, and the group think is worse. (don't need no AOLification) even though they say all the servers are in Chantilly Virginia. and the NGOs are here for the World Bank money, not a big funding source. go back to Florida, say a nice college town like Tallahassee, get some spanish speaking culture, in the sun. (although, did you notice how many employees are remote?) Duckduckstop (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee (9,500 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• There have often been questions about board relationships with Google. For example Jimmy Wales strong support, that ran to serving on a seven member Google advisory committee, over the European privacy laws.¹

We can disagree, as a community, over these laws, but it is not good for a board member to become a spokesman for a third party, even, or perhaps especially when that third party has donated millions to the WMF.²

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

• Yes, this kind of thing gives politicians board members a bad name. Happy New Year! Paine  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• What ilk, these. Not as though they realize it yet, but the current trustees will be best known for defaming the WMF. I can't wait for more grandiose ridiculosity in the years to come. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• The blame seems rather more to attach to Schmidt than to underlings who were doing what they presumed was a legal act. Trying to insert this as an argument against a new trustee appears to be one more example of "what dirt can we find" "celebrity gossip-mongering" than anything else. The proper issue should be "if faced with any conflict between proper goals of the WMF and Google, how would he act." For what it is worth, I suggest that the "Caesar's wife" standard is more often suggested than followed. Collect (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I would expect a "Senior Director of Human Resources and Staffing" to have a better understanding of the legal issues surrounding employment than Eric Schmidt, whose background is in software development. the wub "?!" 14:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Contrariwise - most "at will" employees who disobey a direct order from their boss will not say "I know more than you do on this" and expect to keep their own job. Might I ask if you have ever disputed a direct order from you boss when he had the power to fire you "at will"? Collect (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

In the (extremely unlikely IMO) event that my manager asked me to do something illegal, you can bet I would dispute it, and take advantage of our whistleblower policy. the wub "?!" 11:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So he's just a spineless lackey? And why is that any qualification for a board post? And yes, I did dispute orders from my direct boss, that's something usual, if you know better. And if he insist on illegal stuff, he should sign it himself. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dispute"? Or specifically say "No way in hell will I do this"? Bear in mind he was an "at will" employee, not protected as such. Collect (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If he was not protected, he probably got more than enough money to compensate for that. He should have gone to the work council and made this illegal stuff internal public, may be, if he knew enough, even go the court. And I wonder what labour court would have kept such a layoff legal, if he had contested it there with the support of his union.

Regarding dispute vs. no way: Did he know it was illegal and was complicit anyway? So he has no moral. Or was he not aware of the illegality? Than he was not fit for the job, and definitely not made from the wood needed to be a board member of a humanitarian, ethical, educational, non-profit organisation. He may fit into something like Google, a ruthless privacy raping data hydra, but not to Wikimedia. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

He may well not have known of any illegality - your first assumption thus fails. That you think Google is evil incarnate has no bearing on this at all. Going to "the work council" does not show an indication of knowledge of American law about "at will" employees, who generally have no such "work council" to go to - in fact executives are not union members as a general rule. Collect (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If he was someone working on minimum wage and had to fear for his next warm meal if he disobeyed, I would have some pity with him. But he was probably someone earning enough money not to have to care for the next year, so no pity here. And as two side notes: the first company I worked for, a energy company, was 98% unionised, with all directors members, and yes, I think a hire and fire mentality is antisocial. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 17:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• We have an article on this defense, although it is not kind: superior orders. The key for good internal control is a board which sets a tone at the top of ethical integrity. And when I say ethics, I mean it: board members should ideally not skirt on the the grey line, much less cross over into illegal acts. He may not have known it was illegal? Hard to believe, but speaks to competence. When you're that successful, you can afford to make ethical choices. II | (t - c) 17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait, the Wikimedia trustees trusted GOOGLE search results about a former GOOGLE employee that participated in GOOGLE illegal operations that GOOGLE obviously doesn't want to show?? Aren't our trustees experts in technology?--MisterSanderson (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence for Arnnon Geshuri

A vote of no confidence has been raised centrally at m:Vote of confidence:Arnnon Geshuri. Please vote or add comments there.

If someone has a good idea for where best to notify the English Wikipedia community these days, perhaps Jimmy's talk page remains the most politically active, I'd welcome the link being shared on. --Fæ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Taking your request seriously, I added the link to the community vote at Mr. Geshuri's article but was quickly reverted which seemed, well, a bit dark. I have asked for comments at the Arnnon Geshuri article Talk page. Jusdafax 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• There are people saying that, maybe, some members of the Board of Trustees were stupid enough for not searching Google about Arnnon Geshuri before voting for him. To avoid such a setback, let us search Wikimedia about the launcher of the present initiative. Among the results, we get:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fæ
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ3
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ4
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(5)
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ(2015)

Who is telling us that Trustee Arnnon Geshuri, unanimously elected by the three community selected Trustees (and the seven others) should have been more vocal about potential clouds ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A cat can look at a king. I'm not running to be a WMF trustee, so not expected to meet the same high ethical standards or have any remarkably rare talents. You are missing out quite a bit in your summary, my achievements in my time as a trustee and Chair of WMUK and Chair of the Chapters Association when we improved and evolved those organizations would be worth a mention surely, and maybe you could put effort into reading between the lines? Thanks for your interest. --Fæ (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed: Transparency (5,146 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• It is, perhaps, inevitable that boards need some in camera time (see, though, Ricardo Semler's book Maverick for why this may be less than one would think). However the more that can be open "warts and all" the more community trust is engendered. I see no reason that the open part of board meetings should not be live streamed, as some other organisations have done. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC).
  

• Who funded the visual editor with a restricted grant? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  Was this common knowledge? I remember the general outline of the VE deployment dramahz, superprotect, and so on, and it seems as though this would have changed the tenor of the discussion considerably had it been known. Choess (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  VE was funded by 3.6 million from the Stanton Foundation [1] in 2011. From my understanding it was not a restricted grant but I have heard rumblings that this funding was part of the reason for the early roll out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying, James. My reading of Sue's blog was that she has no problem with restricted grants, provided they're for something we'd be doing anyway. We do have to be careful not to let the tail (funder) wag the dog, though, and avoid taking on projects that will consume resources (ED's attention, legal time, floor space, etc.) to the detriment of higher-priority projects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

  My reading is she felt they need to be strictly managed and accepted with care. They are not a problem per say but can easily turn into a problem. If the WMF is required to chose between a funder and a super majority of volunteers I hope they would think long and hard before siding with the funder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• How was the media viewer funded? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, DocJames. Yes, we need as much transparency as default, even if we find it difficult. We edit transparently, warts and all. Anyone can see our mistakes, we've learned not to care. Most especially with the financing, it is important for transparency as far as possible. WiseWoman (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• DocJames, do you believe your cultural experience as a Canadian contributes to and informs your perspective on transparency? I ask, because I'm wondering if American business culture, or the culture of Silicon Valley in particular, places less emphasis on the importance and value of transparency. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I sort of approached the board believing that many of the values we as Wikipedians hold would be shared their as well. I think it was more of a WP community perspective versus a Silicon Valley perspective rather than any single nationality per say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• This Op-ed by User:Doc James gives the impression that James Heilman has nothing substantial to say about his six months sojourn aBoard and his ousting. One can argue if the intersideral void is or is not an useful model of transparency, but this is rather not what is usually implied when using the word transparency in its political meaning. Pldx1 (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This op ed is not specifically about my ousting per say or specifically about my time on the board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016 (3,101 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

• I believe that one has to pay for other people’s work. I pay to the plumber, I pay to the lawyer, my employer pays me too. We are all paid for what we do. My mother worked as a doctor until she retired in the 1980s; I don’t expect any of their patients to come and pay me or any of my siblings until the 2030s. We did nothing, we are entitled to nothing.
  Then we have copyright protection. I understand that the authors have every right to live off their works. But why does somebody that did nothing to make those works exist have a right to earn money from them? It is true that some heir promote the diffusion of the works of which they own a copyright, But even when it is not the case they are still entitled to that money, for something they didn’t do.
  I recall a book by Enrique Jardiel Poncela. Excluding the title, the phrase that is written with the biggest typeset is a mention about his heirs being the owners of the copyright. Jardiel Poncela died in 1952. We are still paying to the heirs, who added nothing to the creative process. Anne Frank sadly died before she could publish her book; her father did a great effort to publish it. Due to this effort I find fair that he earn money from it. But what did Otto Heinrich Frank’s heirs did that entitles them to make money out of somebody else’s book, and in this case out of somebody else’s suffering?
  I don’t care what laws and lawyers say about the legality of such a profit, I know it is not fair.
  B25es (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi B25es, thank you for your comment! Maybe you can better understand the idea behind this rule by looking at the situation from a different perspective: Artists can make money by selling the rights to their work (a book, for example) to a publisher. The publisher is often not a person but a company and it acts in the interest of its shareholders, who want to see a steady profit come from the investment they have made in the company. And for such a long-term profit to be possible, copyright is required to outlive the artist. Now you can argue wether this kind of capitalist thinking is adequate for the field of copyright law, of course, but the law is what it is. Free knowledge activists from all over the world are trying to put an end to copyright term extension and they are currently suffering a major blow with the implementation of the TPP. Hope that helps, --Gnom (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Intellectual property" is "property." By the argument advanced, one could not leave a business one started to one's heirs, nor one's house to one's heirs. Their are assuredly societies which have tried that system, but they rather seem to be unsuccessful at attracting people who write, or build, or seek to own anything at all. Collect (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report (2,842 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2016-01-13

Discuss this story

This really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most: Deaths, entertainment (movies, TV, sports) and politics (including nation states). Even Stephen Hawking's listing is probably due to the film about his life. I've read criticism that too much attention has been given by editors to popular culture but it looks like these are subjects that readers frequently come to Wikipedia to read about. Perhaps few people will want to read about Chris Kyle 10 years from now compared to more academic topics. But while Wikipedia is not the news, readers are seeking the latest, verifiable information on subjects in the news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that "this really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most" is supported by the evidence. It may very well be that, for example, no one particular smart phone, supreme court decision, or geographic feature gets as much traffic as Chris Kyle, but traffic for all smart phones, all supreme court decision, or all geographic features lumped together get more traffic. Counting the traffic to individual Wikipedia pages is an unreliable indicator of interest because some topics are contained within a single page while other topics are distributed among many pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Serendipodous: thanks for the commentary. I find it interesting to see how our viewership changes over time. --Pine^✉ 17:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• It shows what we (Earth people) have in common. (E.g. I have read a lot of the article on the list and a lot of chemistry articles too, my neighbour has read the list too, and a lot of folk dance related articles ...) Christian75 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't go to the Internet for cat videos. That's what Tom Bergeron and Alfonso Ribeiro are for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)