This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

The NYTimes reports that Wikipedia got a letter from the FBI requesting to remove the FBI seal from the Wikipedia and MediaWiki Commons. Mike Godwin has replied something along the lines of "Learn to read the law and see you in court". —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what I love about Mike Godwin. :-) Dcoetzee 06:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Also reported at BBC News. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is already being written up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-09/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming here to suggest this, except with the headline "Mike Godwin pwns FBI". Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a facebook advert now in rotation highlighting the same skirmish. It reads "FBI threatens Wikipedia - The FBI has threatened legal action if Wikipedia doesn’t remove their seal from its site. Read more at CNN Tech." This may go viral soon, the media seems to want to take up this issue. The funny thing is, Fb has the FBI seal as the picture in their ad and it is also shown in movie credits. So I guess this administration will have to sue them too? Yahoo has the story on their start page now too.. CaribDigita (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Grants of £5-£100 are now available to Wikimedians to help their Wikimedia activities. An overview is available on the Wikimedia UK blog, with more information (and the application process) available on the WMUK website. I would be more than happy to answer any queries about this (I'm one of the organisers of it). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this year's chapter grant process deadline has officially past, grants submitted now will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The process was recently expanded to include consideration "in a limited way" of grants submitted by "volunteers and like-minded organizations" that follow the grant requirements, as well as just chapters. Barry Newstead, the new head of Global Development at the Wikimedia Foundation, has taken over the grants process and intends to experiment with grants to non-chapter entities in the future. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 09:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

An article about The Independent quoting unreferenced Wikipedia information reported by The Guardian. ISD (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Wanky Balls" is currently trending on Twitter. At the time of writing it is the third highest trending topic. ISD (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of (Don't know if this is some kind of Conflict of Interest ;) that I published lots of pictures of the February 27 Chile earthquake damage, but they were not mentioned on "in the news", is it too late for that? :-) Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 23:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wan Li Book, a leading Hong Kong publisher (sadly they don't have an en.wiki article yet) recently published a book which plagiarised 100+ pictures from Wikimedia Commons without any acknowledgement. I'll put a story onto the "special story" section and see if the editors like it. --Deryck C. 12:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting story. Unless the write-up becomes really detailed, "News and notes" is probably a better place for it (I assume the content will be similar to [1]? The Signpost's writing style is a bit different though, and perhaps examples of the images in question would make a nice illustration). Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's exactly the article which I would like to submit to the Signpost! Feel free to use it the way you wish, as it is indeed CC-BY. I suppose you're more capable than I am to move it from my blog to the Signpost; I will join in the editing afterwards.

As linked from my blog post, zh:Wikipedia talk:香港維基人佈告板#萬里機構挪用維基編者圖片 has a list of pictures plagiarised from Wikipedia and Flickr. Deserving particular mention is File:TaiPo New Town.jpg by Samuel Chan (zh:User:CX257), a Hong Kong/Belfast Wikipedian who took this aerial shoot of Tai Po while flying between his two homes on an Airbus A340. The picture was plagiarised and given half a page in print, and given the inherent value of an aerial shoot, the legal proceedings concerning this picture will be fun to watch. --Deryck C. 14:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update - the deputy chief editor of Wan Li Book Co. has posted a public apology on zh.wikipedia. --Deryck C. 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Truth-o-Meter, 2G: Andrew Lih wants to wikify fact-checking, Niemann Journalism Lab

Skomorokh 16:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We just hit our 3000th featured article. Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing courses launched. --candle•wicke 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pending changes trial has concluded, and editors are encouraged to vote/comment here. Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 14:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an article from the Daily Kos about FOX News editing their own Wikipedia articles to make them look more favourable. It comes in light of their donation of $1million to the Republican Party. ISD (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Daily Kos is a reliable source, and in some ways this is interesting in that they seem to be lobbying for one POV in a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if Fox News is really doing what they are saying, it is a gross violation of Wikipedia rules, and media fairness (what else is new for Fox?). My only question is how Daily Kos knows that the article edits are from Fox? In short, very interesting, but needs some digging into. Smallbones (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See:

http://www.brandts.dk/page.asp?objectid=2033&zcs=3

For context:

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-08-23/danish-museum-holds-controversial-manga-exhibit

This edit received a lot of media attention in Canada after Member of Parliament Denis Coderre (who was recently hailed as a likely replacement for Quebec Premier Jean Charest) was alerted to it on August 24th via his Twitter page. The IP was traced to a Canadian correctional facility, and Coderre requested a full investigation into the matter. Here is the news story on Canada.com. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This was also included in the 25 August broadcast of The Current (loosely title Wiki Wars), about this edit, the editing classes mentioned above, and a group of edits made to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II from editors in the Department of National Defence (Canada) (previously covered here by the Signpost). The archived broadcast should be available on the CBC website soon (likely here; if not, search for today's broadcast here). Mindmatrix 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sent a Letter to the Editor to the Montreal Gazette about the life expectancy of such malicious edits. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a itn highlight, and another to the series of malicious high-profile article edits. Man, pending changes never felt so sweet =) ResMar 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interstingly enough, an admin was coming around right after to fix up Pending changes on the article. A few of malicious edits followed. ResMar 04:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[2]. Tony (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. Kaldari (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very, very cool. Smallbones (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

UoM really seems to be a front liner huh. ResMar 16:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A script was developed to tweet Did you know articles about India to the DYKIndia account.This can be used by any project team to increase outreach of the wikipedia content.Gerard's blogpost on the same. Srikanth (Logic) 05:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone didn't see this coming? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is well in advance, but would it be possible for me to have article space for an article on the 2010 WikiCup, which will be concluding on October 31? If possible, I'd love a full article in the issue immediately after October 31. I'd be more than happy to write it myself. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why you wouldn't be fine writing a special story for that week, on top of the regular N&N, ITN, etc. You're not the sort of person to POV-push (don't ask me how that would work even if you were), which would be the only concern for me at least. Unless I'm missing something. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 11:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if it's neutral then that would be very interesting and I shouldn't see why anyone would have an issue with it. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Solgen loses case for relying on Wikipedia as an authority" Nikko Dizon, Philippine Daily Inquirer - "MANILA, Philippines--For going to court with an argument culled from Wikipedia, the Office of the Solicitor General has lost its case in the Court of Appeals asking for the reversal of a trial court's nullification of a couple's 19-year marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[3] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[4] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This was already covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-23/Technology_report#In brief (thanks to the delay in the publication of last week's issue ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an article from The Guardian about confusion between Wikipedia and Wikileaks. ISD (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The confusion isn't helped by the fact that Wikia Inc., the legally completely separate company but an (n.b. Trader Monthly said this, not me!) "effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it", owns the domain names "wikileaks.(com|net|biz|us)". It's clear if one knows the topic in great detail, that this is not on behalf of Wikileaks. But to be fair, on first glance, it is confusing. After all, there's often confusion between Wikia and Wikimedia Foundation. To have Wikia owning so many wikileaks domain names, but not connected with wikileaks.ORG, is something that might lead to understandably if mistakenly thinking there is a connection between all those wiki- places. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo made a statement about this in his interview: "People, don't send me any secret documents." See current ITN story. ResMar 02:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With the promotion of Portal:Barack Obama, this brings the total number of Featured Portals on Wikipedia to 150. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, see what you think of the draft. I put it at the top of the featured sections. OMG, there are three more portal promotions. It's a waterfall. Will do the others later. Tony (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Four portal promotions? Yeah, that's huge. I feel bad for Tony, he has to labor all night to put that in. Lol. Nt: Mine is one of them. ResMar 03:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to be interviewed and talk about the featured portals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Produced by one James Bridle a 12 volume set of all the revisions of the Iraq War in book form:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stml/4931488183/in/set-72157624693833091/#/

©Geni 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

info from the person behind it here.©Geni 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Audio from dConstruct talk

slides from presentation —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers, there is a deletion movement going on to remove unnecessary Transfomers articles. There are lots of them. NotARealWord (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See this link for the interview...not much on Wikipedia in the article, which is mostly about Jimbo's opinions on the news industry and technology, but still...it is Jimbo. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The novellist Michel Houellebecq claims that stealing from Wikipedia is not plagiarism. Source from The Independent. ISD (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

given the independent's issues with regards to reporting wikipedia of late it might be best to try a different source.©Geni 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem, since this is already all over the French press. By tomorrow it should be covered by most international newspapers. Some details: This first came up in an article on slate.fr. The author of that article (and discoverer of the plagiarism) actually has a good opinion of the book in spite of the copying. He noticed that three passages sounded remarkably like Wikipedia, compared them, and found that they were indeed copied (except for small stylistic changes). The article has detailed comparisons and links to stable versions of the French Wikipedia articles.

Apparently it was announced on Monday that Houellebecq's book will get the Prix Goncourt. Thus in a sense the French Wikipedia is about to share a literary price!

Most commentators seem to agree that the copying was legally dubious but artistically legitimate. Hans Adler 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism really is a big word here. It is more likely copyright infringement due to the lack of clear quotation and attribution. The most interesting question in my mind is wether deliberate usage of 'large' sections of wikipedia text makes his own work CC-BY-SA 3.0. I think it actually might when it is done is such a deliberate way. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheDJ, and further, (disclaimer: IANAL) the claim of copyright infringement is dubious in that he has a reasonable argument for a transformative fair use via using the passages in a literary context. Yes, he really should have put blockquotes and an attribution. But I don't see that he was intending to deceive anyone, which I follow as the core of plagiarism. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to fr:Fair use#Équivalence en France it appears unlikely to me that the French fair use equivalent applies. It covers parodies etc. in all cases, but literal quotation only with clear attribution. Hans Adler 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

While I was Huggling today, I noticed a backlog on AIV, which I thought to be unusual, since most of the time, AIV has either two of three requests, or is empty. Could this be a sign of the forecast "Admin drought" caused by excessively high standards in RFA, or is this a fluke? Click on the Image for a screenshot. Ronk01 talk 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Not sure where to ask, but I felt here was the closest thing I could find. Is it possible to put out a Signpost "call for help" in analysing some of the data we have on WP:PEND. This would be invaluable in furthering a somewhat mired discussion. User A1 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Flat out incorrect. Going inactive is not the same as resignation. You should strike this. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, yes, he went inactive. But that happened in the midst of the case he was working on, very abruptly, while continuing to be very active on Wikipedia. That is strange and worth a story in the "unexplained anomalous events" section. Count Iblis (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Rlevse has now resigned. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

For the past day or so, a discussion on Jimbo's talk page regarding the future of the PC trial. A second straw poll is being discussed. Probably something that should be in the Signpost. Ronk01 talk 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

While reviewing a new article, another editor and I unearthed this - [5] and this - [6] While the concept of for-hire Wikipedians may not be new, an article on this somewhat subversive mini-industry would be of high interest to many Wikipedians. The Interior (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have a monthly or bimonthly article on a specific Wikipedia policy (NPOV, BLP, NOR, ...). In the article it would be possible to study how well people follow the policy, its impact and its drawbacks. A somewhat philosophical point of view can also be taken for some of them. This would be a nice invitation for the readers to think through our core values, and a way for the newcomers (and ignorants!) to learn about Wikipedia. Cheers, 92.134.158.93 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Care do to a piece about the http://glamwiki.org conference? also announced on foundation-l and the WM-UK blog at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk Cheers, Witty Lama 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh falls for wacky hoax about Judge Vinson "The News Journal has never written such a story, despite a Wikipedia reference that was on the Internet on Monday and Tuesday and claimed such a story existed. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that can be changed and edited by anonymous users." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Screencast. §hep^Talk 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

[7] - I will be running a poll from Monday->Sunday on what to do between now and November 9th. I am currently seeking feedback on the wording, but since the poll will go live on Monday, probably the best thing for the Signpost to do is cover the actual poll?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Monday is the publication date for each new issue, so it will come out too late to alert readers to the RfC. But the poll itself will surely be newsworthy enough to justify a mention. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Chaos theory is given as a reference in a Nature (466) article on high-temperature superconductivity: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/466825a . Don't know if this has happened before. I think this is pretty remarkable, but my tweet about this occurrence didn't make any waves, which surprises me. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this count as a project? Simply south (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Does what count as a project? Kaldari (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He could be referring to WP:SBWA (Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association) in which case, no I wouldn't count that as a wikiproject or any kind of project. -- œ^™ 21:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing that the word association game (which has absolutely no benefit to the encyclopedia) has several times more participants than most WikiProjects. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that middle part especially as it is a way of learning about new things but i am not going to go into the same everlasting argument. How about doing WP:FUN which does count? Simply south (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the WP:Department of Fun does indeed count and it serves a useful purpose IMO. It's important to have a bit of fun relieve stress once in while, WP:FUN has that relaxed atmosphere and I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of project report on it in Signpost, if only to highlight some of the better recreational and humorous pages that out there. -- œ^™ 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was probably already planned to be covered, but I suggest that in an acceptable issue this straw poll has its results reported. I'd watchlist the poll, but I don't want a bajillion entries showing up on my watchlist. :) Rockfang (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1 000 000th article is fr:Louis Babel. See :fr:Wikipédia:Un million d'articles en français. Dodoïste (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This appeared in Greg Laden's blog! AshLin (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like vandals will have to face consequences in "real life" for the first time in the Spanish Wikipedia. Continued vandalism on the Spanish article of Javier Arenas (Spanish politician) has led to processing the "vandals":

• http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/824479/0/arenas/wikipedia/cambios/ Google translation
• http://www.larazon.es/noticia/7604-dos-nuevos-imputados-por-cambiar-la-biografia-de-arenas-en-wikipedia Google translation
• http://www.terra.es/tecnologia/articulo/html/tec25815.htm Google translation

--Ecelan (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have thanked Ecelan for this message. Tony (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.glasswerk.co.uk/features/national/10559/Ambassadors+Of+Morocco+-+Wikipedia Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Ambassadors Of Morocco don't have a Wikipedia article, they won't release their debut single (Wikipedia) until Nov. 15, and the site doesn't look like a reliable source. Other than that everything looks ok, and the tune might even catch on (I'll give it a 6 out of 10). Maybe for the Nov. 16 edition? Smallbones (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blurb for Tech update section:

A new version of the CentralNotice extension has been deployed which now supports geotargeting (Bug 21295) and fixes several other outstanding bugs (23476, 24594, 25031, 25100, 25283). Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...and appears to have broken the entire site for a few minutes initially  ;)

([8][9], [10], [11],[12])

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be my fault :( <Slaps self with trout> Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why the site crashed. Well, good job I guess; we writers never get to crash Wikipedia D: (or delete the main page, either...) =) ResMar 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The open access PLoS Computational Biology academic journal released a how-to guide for scientists to help them collaborate productively with Wikipedia (Disclaimer: I am one of the authors). --Cyclopia^talk 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the paper to Commons; it looks like it will be a useful resource for Wikipedians doing various kinds of public outreach.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The German press reports on the print-on-demand publisher "Bucher Gruppe" (apparently the German arm of Books, LLC, using a mangled version of the German word Bücher, "books") which sells some 54,000 books on Amazon, all low-quality machine-created collections of articles from the German Wikipedia.

The books are usually just alphabetically ordered dumps of Wikipedia categories, with a machine-translated general introduction about Wikipedia and a machine-created index of poor quality, and without images.

The newspaper articles were prompted by a web page by Andreas Weigel which details Weigel's experience of buying a book from Amazon only to find that it contained six Wikipedia articles that he had written himself.

AxelBoldt (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article also reports that German, Swiss and Austrian scientific libraries have bought at least 417 books from Bucher Gruppe.

AxelBoldt (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

An error in the Wikipedia article on the recently deceased Norman Wisdom has appeared in several newspapers. See report in The Guardian.

Also in the The Register. A quote from Rodhullandemu‎ would be good. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good reminder not to trust The Register and in particular Andrew Orlowski as a source. In its current version (WebCite), the Register article reads:

The White Cliffs of Dover factoid was inserted not by a drive-by vandal, but by a Wikipedia Administrator - a high Operating Level Thetan in the Wikipedia bureaucracy. This particular admin goes by the handle "RodHullandEmu" - real names are not necessary at Wikipedia, which doesn't really do accountability - and describes himself as a computer programmer.

RodHullandEmu was making cosmetic changes to an earlier edit of his, but slipped in the bogus information without anybody noticing, on September 2nd.

(links as in the original)

In the diff link (WebCite) that he presents as proof for RodHullandEmu's guilt, Orlowski seems to have overlooked the "11 intermediate revisions not shown". In fact, the actual 15:51, 2 September 2010 edit by RodHullandEmu looks rather different - just reverting some vandal's addition.

Instead, the bogus information appears to have been added first in this edit by an anonymous editor on August 24.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Register's article has been "corrected" (WebCite archive copies of both the original and the changed version are here). The above passage now reads:

The White Cliffs of Dover factoid was inserted here on August 24th. Attempts to remove the factoid were made, but a Wikipedia Administrator - a high Operating Level Thetan in the Wikipedia bureaucracy - stepped in to preserve the bogus information. So well done to admin "RodHullandEmu" (real names are not necessary at Wikipedia, which doesn't really do accountability) who describes himself as a computer programmer.

The "stepped in to preserve the bogus information" does not seem to be true either: None of the edits by RodHullandEmu after August 24 reinserted the "White Cliffs of Dover" information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

An article on the vandalism would be inappropriate per wp:DENY, an article on the register's partial retraction of an error would be useful, and a salutary reminder of why it is best to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym rather than under your real name. ϢereSpielChequers 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another register link - [13] -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the International Baccalaureate marking guides appears to have nabbed stuff from wikipedia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11496969

©Geni 00:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that's interesting - it's not the students who are copying from us, it's the graders! Smallbones (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#10.2C000_GAs:_a_time_to_celebrate_and_refocus_on_our_mission.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See nl:Overleg gebruiker:Rododendron - Foxie001 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Aparently candidates for iceland's new constitional comitee are listing themselves on wikipedia in lue of the state listing them on it's official site: http://blog.lackaff.net/?p=187

©Geni 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times appears to be using a Commons image to illustrate their obituary of Benoît Mandelbrot. The image, which is featured on Commons, is the first in a series illustrating the Mandelbrot set, a species of fractal described by the late mathematician. The New York Times credits the image to "Wolfgang Beyer"; User:Wolfgangbeyer created and uploaded the image on Commons.Erudy (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sue Gardner's announcement. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian Police recieved a call saying Wikipedia contains extremist material.[14]. Spongie555 (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be the basis of SC ruling?. utcursch | talk 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The order of nominations at T:TDYK has been reversed following a suggestion by User:Mjroots at WT:DYK#Thoughts on DYK noms, including the declining rate, an initial 1-week trial and a further 1-week extension of the trial, and general consensus that the change is benificial. Mjroots (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note - trial ends at 23:59 tonight, no rush for this week's signpost if it creates too many problems, next week's edition will be fine. Mjroots (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Introducing the newest Wikiproject, WikiProject:North America!

Created on 24 October 2010 at Articles for Creation. Please put the word out. Thanks, Sven Manguard _Talk 05:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A Escondido councilwomen demend not notable, The Councilwomen said she expected it and comented more on it. A wikipedian is also talked about in the article since the wikipedian deleted the article. Here is the article, [15]. Spongie555 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this might be old news once the next edition of the Signpost comes out, but meta recently got an updated main page. The work is largely based off of a Main Page design that MZMcBride wrote for strategywiki some time ago, but there were many other users also involved in discussing and implementing the different aspects of the new main page. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Aparently in responce to an email I sent them (they used the source I suggested)this image has finaly had it's description updated in line with the conclusion of this debate Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_November_2#Identifying_a_submarine.©Geni 21:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The following is copied from User_talk:Svick# Random Break 2

Svick has created a WikiProject cleanup listing for wikiprojects at the toolserver. The program written in PHP and MYSQL will run weekly and provide list all articles that are currently tagged for cleanup/maintenance. The list which is available by wikiproject, category, by category month, by article name, article quality, and article importance is also available in CSV. The program will act as a replacement for WolterBot. The original PHP/MYSQL prototype was coded by Smallman12q who will help maintain the code. The source is available at github. To add your WikiProject, please leave a note here.

Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

An article from Nature about biologists editing Wikipedia. ISD (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Wikipedians. To begin, as this is my first post, let me introduce myself. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I love God and people. My qualifications to post here? I am not an expert as recognized by society in general. I am a college student who thinks about what's going on in the world today, and (apparently) on Wiki. You may call me TKC but don't confuse that with The King's College. I am The King's creation. The aforementioned fundraiser caught my attention, and approval, to a degree. I like the idea of a community voluntarily supporting itself, but I don't like the model. I don't believe that the fundraiser will be successful if left to the discretion of individuals who have only partial information on how much is actually being donated. I daresay, even with the Signpost/promise system, the freeloading issue may be manifest-- NOT for lack of generosity but because a majority of Wikipedians might believe either (1.) Someone else will donate enough to cover the costs of running Wiki, so why should (insert self) donate? OR (2.)Nearly no one will donate and Wiki is going to become a pay-service in the near future regardless of whether (insert self) donates. Thus, I estimate that the amount given by even generous Wikipedians will fall below the maximum potential for our community, under the current model. But I don't mean to depress without offering solution. I am currently enrolled in an introductory economics course, and the authors of our text reference ("The Economic Way of Thinking") have written a bit of an explanation as to why people (who are willing to donate a fair share for say, Wiki)refrain from donating and cause the free loader issue. (Prisoner's Dilemma according to "The Economic Way of Thinking") The problem is that each individual, even if willing to donate a fair share to enjoy the benefits of Wiki, would rather enjoy Wiki AND not donate. OR they would rather not donate and then have to pay anyway... The solution I propose is that we (don't mandate donation) but mandate registration to donate. To clarify, if one decides to donate, the donation is added to a public record so people can see that their efforts aren't wasted. And we could take it one step further. We could set up a "commitment" or pledge-based system that looks something like the following: "Sign up to donate a minimum of $10 today; your card will not be charged until total donations reach $16,000,000-- GUARANTEEING that if your donation is collected, Wiki stays free." Ultimately, this still keeps the option of altruism open... Any billionaire can still feel welcome to cover the cost for all of us if he or she is so inclined, but it will be recorded so we can know how close to our goals we are. And I believe that if people see that both there are other donations and need for more, then people will be more likely to sign up to donate within the protective bounds of this if-then guarantee. Ultimately, we must face the fact that services/products which cost money and are limited resources (will likely be depleted sometime)must be payed for. This can happen via donations from those who have more to give, but it won't likely happen if all of us expect someone else to take full responsibility for it. SO, why not begin registering a goal-based commitment-- We've got about two months, no?

• The Economic Way of Thinking may be researched or purchased beginning at http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Way-Thinking-12th/dp/0136039855/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen ~TheKing'sCreation

You're worrying way too much. Wiki* projects won't close if we don't reach 16 millions, and they won't close if we don't reach 10 millions either. We're not begging, just fundraising. And btw this is not the right place to comment about it. --Elitre (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain where to post this, but as per consensus on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, starting soon article self-nom editors will be required to review DYK nominations, under the new quid pro quo criteria. This was proposed to address workload issues in the DYK proccess, which was the cause of the copyvio and notability problems in DYK ealier this month. However, editors should be notified of the new criteria through the Signpost before any of the changes are fully implemented.--res Laozi speak 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh. With the page rearrangement and now this. I haven't seen the situation at DYK as particularly dire: has it gotten worse since I last popped in? ResMar 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What about including regular updates on editing/editor statistics, eg number of active editors, [16] and number of active admins [17]? Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good for compiling one off statistical analyzes stories, like Prada's Dispatch way back when, however you have to be a sophisticated coder to work the numbers efficiently, generally. ResMar 03:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The website http://en.inforapid.org shows knowledge maps for all articles in the English Wikipedia. These knowledge maps are based on relations between the selected article and others with similar content. They are nice to get a first expression of an article and to start an investigation. The website was built as a non commercial project to show the strength of the InfoRapid KnowledgeMap server.

Interesting pictures - are they freely licensed (as the informational input and the accompanying text from Wikipedia are freely licensed)? Smallbones (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I created a (unofficial) "team" for Wikipedians on the microfinance site Kiva; could this be something worthy of a mention? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's contributions team is launching a drive to rid the encyclopaedia of backlogs! If you'd like any more information please feel free to leave a message for me! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty incredible can't help but wonder if its the other way around .... http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought this was amusing (and showed a bit of sophisticated knowledge of notability).

From a November 25th article in The New York Times, "In Los Angeles, Mayoral Aide Weighs Bid for Higher City Hall Perch":

"Mr. Beutner is strikingly low-key and low-profile (he does not even have his own listing in Wikipedia, though presumably that is about to change)."

"About to change" is a bit imprecise, but four days later, there is no Wikipedia article about Austin Beutner, the subject of that long NYT piece. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking inspiration from GLAM:WIKI London, Science 3.0 has decided that their theme for this month's blog contest should be GLAM - this extends to data archiving of all types, with a lean towards science. Blog posts new or old can be entered. To do this just head to the Science 3.0 Blog Contest and send your links via the form.

Mhahnel (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From the wiki research-l mailing list, the ProveIt extension, which aims to make citing references in Wikipedia easier, has been released. The tool was developed at Georgia Tech by a team of wiki researchers who describe themselves as "a group of Wikipedia editors, researchers, and fans." ProveIt is a javascript extension that can be added to your user script page; when enabled, it allows you to see the list of all references in an article easily, edit them with one click, and displays reference template fields in a visual interface. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On my homeward flight yesterday, I found a copy of the December issue of Corporate Counsel, which contained the article "Citation needed: Wikipedia is vague on GC's move", which included the provocative question "So was the explosive confrontation with the FBI the reason for Godwin's departure?" (The confrontation this article alludes to was over use of the FBI logo this summer.) I'm mentioning this not because I think there is any truth to this speculation (I hadn't much thought about Godwin's departure until I read this article, & afterwards concluded that his reasons were more along the lines of burnout due to dealing with editors, readers, & a seasoning of the usual litigious jerks), but to identify one the source of one theory of why he is leaving/has left. -- llywrch (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious theory, given the publicity of the FBI logo incident. But I think that's just people seizing on what's in front of them, in order to explain an event (post hoc ergo propter hoc). Hypothetically, it's entirely possible the reason is based on information that's not public at all. I have certain speculations, but I've been keeping my own counsel (pun intended). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the FBI logo defense was probably the most popular thing Godwin ever did while working for the Foundation (both with the community and within the Foundation) I think the article is basically just grasping at straws. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikimedia-commons/ -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: this CBC article: Canada's highest court is deciding whether defamation can occur simply by posting a link to defamatory website. Looks to be of relevance to BLP's on Wikipedia. The Interior(Talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald: "Visitors to the senator's Wikipedia page this morning may have been surprised to learn his role as Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness, among other portfolios, had been usurped by some decidedly more colourful titles." Might be useful in relation to this and this and this. --candle•wicke 16:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thread is here: commons:Commons:Village pump#Wikimedia Commons closed down in Thailand.3F. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest issue of Private Eye (No. 1277, 10 December-23 December 2010, "Street of Shame" Page 6), contains the following story relating to a recent incident of vandalism on Wikipedia.

On the day Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding date was announced, Times columnist Hugo Rifkind decided to conduct a journalistic experiment.

He pulled up the entry for "29 April" on user-edited website Wikipedia (yes, there is one) and created an entirely fictitious entry for what happened on that day in 1872: "Queen Victoria rushed to hospital in Inverness after breaking a toe while fly-fishing in Balmoral."

The "fact" was duly reported in the following day's Mirror and Daily Telegraph.

ISD (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent article in Nature (08 December 2010) states : Scientists who receive public or charitable funding should therefore seize the opportunity to make sure that Wikipedia articles are understandable, scientifically accurate, well sourced and up-to-date. Many in the scientific community will admit to using Wikipedia occasionally, yet few have contributed content. For society's sake, scientists must overcome their reluctance to embrace this resource. Nature : Time to underpin Wikipedia wisdom. Interesting. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC) copied from WP:Village pump

Just posted on the BBC News website (link):

The Cuban government is launching its own online encyclopaedia, similar to Wikipedia, with the goal of presenting its view of the world and history.

The new Spanish language website will be officially launched later on Tuesday but it is already up and running with nearly 20,000 entries on ecured.cu

The site says the aim is to spread knowledge without a profit motive.

Updates will apparently be allowed with the administrators' approval but it is not clear who actually runs the site.

I wonder what Stephen Colbert will have to say about this. Waltham, The Duke of 10:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The BBC World Service is broadcast a documentary entitled "Wikipedia at 10". It will broadcast on 14th January, 2011 at 12.00. Here is some more info from the BBC Press Office.

Jon Stewart explores the history and evolution of a truly global phenomenon, Wikipedia, on the eve of its 10th birthday. Now the fifth most popular website in the world, Wikipedia has over 10 million contributors and nine million views per hour. Jon investigates why it has become such an invaluable resource and what the future holds for the site. He considers whether it is a reliable source of information, or a "symptom of the spread of mediocrity and devaluation of research".

ISD (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim Starling discovery: http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z emijrp (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading these diff correctly, it looks like the first stub was WikiPedia and the first fleshed out article was AfghanistaN [sic] (possibly a paste from Nupedia). Also, apparently the original Wikipedia logo had an American flag in it(?). Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The logo thing is not a surprise. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. - BanyanTree 05:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And it looks like the first edit was probably "This is the new WikiPedia!" (on the HomePage) rather than "Hello World!" as widely reported. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I especially enjoyed this early edit: "This is the new WikiPedia! The idea here is to write a complete encyclopedia from scratch, without peer review process, etc. Some people think that this may be a hopeless endeavor, that the result will necessarily suck. We aren't so sure. So, let's get to work!" This quote by Larry Sanger is also very entertaining in retrospect: "None of this is to say that the Nupedia wiki will replace the main encyclopedia; of course it won't." Dcoetzee 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this happens often, but I was able to get some good press in my local paper last week (it might be local, but the TU, Albany's hometown paper, is well-known statewide since it reports on the state capital/capitol). Just a suggestion. Feel free to drop a line on my talk if there are questions. upstateNYer 04:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Great article. Congratulations! Kaldari (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think his death should be noted here. Simply south (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kbthompson. Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be linked there. Simply south (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite a big interview with Wales in The Independent. ISD (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A limited number of free tickets for a talk that Jimmy will be giving in Bristol on 13 January are still available for Wikipedians (with priority given to Wikimedia UK members) - see this mailing list email for details, with a better location URL in this one. Mike Peel (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Ignatius, David (November 29, 2010). "Ignatius: One solution to WikiLeaks -- classify less". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. Retrieved 2010-12-20. It may sound like heresy, given the new Wiki-mania, but the United States could reduce the flap over leaks of classified information by limiting what it classifies -- and working harder to put more of the information gathered by the U.S. government online as a public resource.
2. Nader, Ralph (December 20, 2010). "Wikimania and the First Amendment". CommonDreams.org. www.commondreams.org. Retrieved 2010-12-20. Thomas Blanton, the esteemed director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University described Washington's hyper-reaction to Wikileaks' transmission of information to some major media in various countries as "Wikimania."
3. Jardin, Xeni (December 16, 2010). "National Security Archive director on "Wikimania," and the dangers of demonizing WikiLeaks". Boing Boing. www.boingboing.net. Retrieved 2010-12-20.

Looks like the word "Wikimania" has now been co-opted to refer to Wikileaks-fervor, instead of a Wikipedia-annual-event. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it was an obvious coinage, and the Wikipedia annual event likely has little to do with those usages. Remember, though Wikipedia is the most famous wiki, it's not the only one, nor does it have any legal or even moral claim on the word itself. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, but I have never seen "Wikimania" to refer to anything else other than Wikimania, before. It is interesting and worthy of mention. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the Foundation have a trademark on "Wikimania"? Kaldari (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question, not sure. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, it has indeed gotten a trademark on "Wikimania". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that makes this more noteworthy, indeed. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Announcement from Philippe Beaudette:

A quick announcement: we are temporarily turning off the fundraising banners for logged in users. This will continue most likely through the end of the year. We did some quick checking and realized that most people who are logged in and intend to give have already given. The banners will stay off for a while, and we'll most likely not turn them on until after the first of the year for a final wrap-up push. Enjoy the respite :)

Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hindustan Times : "Making Wikipedia popular in Bengali" , 2010 Dec 15, Kolkata edition.
• Wikipedia enhances its Bong connection December 16, 2010 news.oneindia.in

-- Tinu Cherian - 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Erik, Danese & Alolitha meeting Wikipedians in Mumbai (Photos) Pune (Photos) , Bangalore (Photos)

• Some summaries:
  • Wikipedia meetup in Bangalore, my first one : Mahesh.com
  • Wikipedia Meetup in Bangalore, This time in TERI : CIS blog
• Media :
• Mid-Day : Loads of potential in India: Wikipedia

Danese Cooper was also the key note speaker [18] at the FOSS.IN (largest open source conference in India) , Bangalore [19] , where she presented "The Technology of Wikipedia". Eric conducted a walkthrough for developers with MediaWiki and its extensions. Wikipedia T-shirts were part of the foss.in delegate kit this year. Pin-up badges with Wikipedia logo, press publicity material, T-Shirts with Wikipedia written in many Indian languages were provided by Wikimedia Foundation.

-- Tinu Cherian - 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The anniversary is fast approaching; how is the Signpost going to mark it? I've been thinking that we could ask Jimbo to write an editorial—what do people think of this? What other ideas are there? wackywace 12:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If another Signpost goes out before new year, could there please be a mention that the WikiCup will be starting in January, and people are still welcome to sign up? If you want me to write something, drop a note on my talk page, tell me how much room I have and I'll get back to you ASAP :) J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In issue 260 of Empire magazine (February 2011, on sale date 4th January - I'm a subscriber so I get it a few days early) there is a feature on the new Simon Pegg and Nick Frost film Paul - in a box-out entitled "51 'facts' you need to know about Area 51", number 5 is: "5. Although Bono is not an alien. [Citation needed]". The citation is :O'Neil, Anthony (February 2011). "Rebel Alliance". Empire magazine. No. 260. Bauer Media Group. p. 95. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Wikimedia UK is running an edit-athon at the British Library on the 14th and 15th January, as part of the 10th birthday celebrations. Full info is on the Wikimedia UK wiki - feel free to reuse text from that page if you wish. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Fundraiser finished in record time, meeting its goal of 16 million. Most chapters are still fundraising until the 6th I believe, so if you're in a chapter country, you'll still see banners for a little while longer. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A longtime wikipedian who is a newspaper reporter (that's me) created a WP article about a local park and is asking readers to improve it in time for the anniversary.: [20] - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

--Yair rand (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - source? Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this might count as being original research, but... this source, which was updated at about 12:30, says 9,997,219 entries and I looked at a bunch of the Special:NewPages lists of some of the larger Wiktionaries and found more than 3000 entries that have been created since the source was updated. --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the calculation, I'll just quote you then ;)

WP:OR doesn't quite apply to the Signpost; I just meant to ask if there was a link like this (official WMF stats, unfortunately outdated) where that number could be seen at a glance, or if it was arrived at by adding {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} for each Wiktionary using some other method.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Chronicle has another Wikipedia article ([21]), while APA has launched a Wikipedia imitative ([22]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The first item has already been covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-10/In the news, but it seems we missed the second one last month. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is kinda cool:

http://notabilia.net/

©Geni 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We have tons and tons and tons of media coverage for Wikipedia 10. Here's a start on a listing -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Migrated to tenwiki (after talking with Phoebe). Steven Walling at work 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and for starting that page, it might become a useful collection in addition to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2011 (I had been somewhat surprised that there was no such page on tenwiki about media coverage while writing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-10/In the news#Wikipedia's tenth anniversary already being celebrated in the media).

For the upcoming "In the news", a complete list of media coverage is of course not desirable; we will need to highlight the most notable or interesting items instead, see also the Newsroom. Wikipedians are still welcome to add suggestions here which items should be covered and which quotes are the most interesting,

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The roundup on the WMF blog might be good for picking out the most interesting ones. I think we're going to try and do a second round as well. Steven Walling 01:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This article here tells about a week-long project to get readers to create and improve an article as part of the celebration. (It's the follow-up to the article mentioned above) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost:

I think there's a good Signpost article in this story, waiting for a good journalist to write. Before I get to my point, please have a look at Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy and MMR vaccine controversy, focusing on the criticism emerging of journalists, the media and the Internet, and how they fueled this scandal.

Then notice, that even on Wikipedia, and in spite of Andrew Wakefield being on the mainpage In The News, the McCarthy article has gotten more page views than either Wakefield or the MMR controversy article. That's just alarming on so many levels! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this case is an important and fascinating story in general. But I don't quite see the Signpost/Wikipedia angle yet. That a TV celebrity and former Playboy model gets more public attention than a scholar or a scientific scandal is sad, but not surprising, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia in particular.

About [23]: Sorry that you found these pages confusing. Any idea how the notice "If you have a story suggestion, please add it to our Suggestions page" on top of this page can be made clearer? The majority of users filing tips are already finding it, though.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I did find it, apparently, but then I thought I was at the wrong page and reverted myself, and then I went and found the redirect, and reinstated my edit. The angle for Wiki is that even when an article appears on the main page in ITN, the celebrity gets more hits than the article featured on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

End of moved thread

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost:

I noticed this on the talk page for the Video Games WikiProject and decided that should be mentioned in the Signpost. However, I don't know what to do with it so I'm just gonna put it here. link GamerPro64 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

End of moved thread

I think it deserves a link at least (it's CC-BY-SA as you know). --Elitre (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite nice. Smallbones (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite an interesting interview of someone closely involved in the spanish breakaway over ads:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork

©Geni 18:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's very worthwhile, from many angles. As something of a follow-up, see also Larry Sanger's further comments on the history of advertising and Wikipedia -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Jimbo for his side. Cla68 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone representing the Signpost asked him the same questions he might give more of an answer? Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Signpost writers are not temperamentally inclined to ask questions which would make him uncomfortable, or to press him for answers. Digression - I've really come to understand why "citizen journalism" is deeply limited when it comes to the task of holding power to account. There needs to be some reason, some countervailing power, some institutional backing, so that the questionee feels they can't just ignore the questioner. Otherwise, that's exactly what they'll do. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh even the largest organisations run into "minister unavailable for comment". I'd question if Signpost is really or aims to be citizen journalism though. I suppose some of the interviews might qualify but for the most part acts more as a human powered aggregator.©Geni 19:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like citizen journalism is just like regular journalism. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo removed the thread from his talk page before it could be automatically archived. I've had Jimbo's talk page on my watch list for around four years and don't recall ever seeing him do that before. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost:

Bohannon, J. (2011). "The Science Hall of Fame". Science. 331 (6014): 143. Bibcode:2011Sci...331..143B. doi:10.1126/science.331.6014.143-c.

Bohannon, J. (2011). "Google Books, Wikipedia, and the Future of Culturomics". Science. 331 (6014): 135. Bibcode:2011Sci...331..135B. doi:10.1126/science.331.6014.135. PMID 21233356.

Michel, J. -B.; Shen, Y. K.; Aiden, A. P.; Veres, A.; Gray, M. K.; Google Books, J. P.; Pickett, D.; Hoiberg, D.; Clancy, P.; Norvig, J.; Orwant, S.; Pinker, M. A.; Nowak, E. L.; Aiden, E. L. (2011). "Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books". Science. 331 (6014): 176–182. Bibcode:2011Sci...331..176M. doi:10.1126/science.1199644. PMC 3279742. PMID 21163965. {{cite journal}}: |last6= has generic name (help)

The project linked above uses data from Wikipedia (see FAQ). Might be worth writing a short blurb about it. NW (Talk) 21:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

End of moved thread

I'm on it.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I found out from a local librarian that the State of NC bargained a new deal with the News sources (read Paywall) a few months ago so that any NC citizen with a library card in good standing can now access newspaper archives, academic journals, etc. from their home computers without having to go to the library. I signed on and started using it to verify and its great. Site: www.nclive.org and use your library card number as sign-in.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic news, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2010 “Editing Wikipedia From Inside Parliament” Awards, maybe worth a quick mention in the newsy part. It was in the b3ta newsletter, so it'll be fairly well seen.

IPs from UK Houses of Parliament editing articles, allegedly.  Chzz  ►  10:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It was already covered in this week's "In the news". Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah; missed it. Cool, thanks. Chzz  ►  19:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A cropped version of my photograph was used as the cover image of the Fall 2010 Citizen's Guide to Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania by the National Sea Grant Law Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Pennsylvania Sea Grant. Not sure if this would be worth including in the Signpost or not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Julian Assange Now Owns WikiLeaks.com" This concludes part of the saga of the domains Wikileaks.COM, etc. detailed in Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Throws 300 lb tuna on the deck... Let's eat: Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List (this front page status was confirmed from the "Today's Paper" link I click past midnight) --Bobak (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of juicy quotes in there. Powers ^T 12:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A major article about wikipedia and health has just been published in a high impact international peer reviewed journal. It was written by 22 members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (not including me although I was one of the peer reviewers), and invites the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information. Full text available for free here. — Rod ^talk 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Military history WikiProject met its target of 500 FAs. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_99#500_FAs and Wikipedia talk:MHCOORD#500 FA milestone for more information. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-February/051489.html

Happy‑melon 10:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

user:rock drum and I have been putting together a list of GLAM activities that occurred in January. Hopefully we can make this a monthly activity. In the mean time, do you think this would a useful summary for the first February edition? http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Updates/January_2011 Best, Witty Lama 11:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(See the general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#This_month_in_GLAM.)

Regards HaeB (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We are very good at showing off the milestones for new articles, worldwide, but I wonder if we might mention when an individual editor reaches a x00,000 editing milestone. There is an occasionally updated list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It has come to my attention recently that some of these contributors, who make quite extraordinary contributions, feel under appreciated and I think the community would be interested in their achievements too. Ben MacDui 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, since no one else has commented yet, a tentative opinion: Concerns about editcountitis aside, I actually could imagine this becoming a nice feature in "News and notes". However, some care would be needed in implementing it. As the "[Placeholder]" entries in the linked table demonstrate, not everyone is comfortable with their edit count being highlighted, so users should be contacted first (and it might actually be nice to do a kind of micro-interview, resulting in a blurb of about 1-3 sentences about them, like those about new admins in F&A - example). Secondly, it should be done with some consistency, trying to offer all users crossing a certain threshold the opportunity to be mentioned.

Would you like to take care of this?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This could also be an alternative list to use, as they are all currently active (as opposed to someone who might be semi or fully retired). – SMasters (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Independent --candle•wicke 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Neely v. NameMedia, Inc. was recently decided by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The case involved a man who had posted nude pictures to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY, as well as to other sites, and was suing Google and other companies to stop them from returning those images when his name was used as a search term, among other things. The suit was dismissed, apparently on the grounds that the plaintiff could remove the images from the web if he so desired and that Google had no responsibility to exclude content from the results of certain search terms if it was freely available on the web. I'm not sure if this is related to Wikipedia in a direct enough way to go in the signpost, but in case it is: the recommendations of the magistrate judge are here and the court's opinion, which makes no mention of Wikipedia or Commons, is here.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The images on Commons were renamed per an OTRS request - so that the image names no longer included his personal name. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We already covered his threat of litigation against the WMF, and the (then) planned renaming, in December. But a follow-up might be worthwhile now; thanks for the tip in any case. (Other relevant links: [24], [25].) Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get around to write something, sorry. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This video cites Wikipedia and at the 36 second mark you can see the article and it clearly says "CITATION NEEDED". I got a giggle out of that one. Basket of Puppies 23:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we please have a mention (in the WikiProject tools sidebar, probably, albeit it technically isn't; but wikiprojects might promote it too) of the new Wikipedia:Comment request service. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 00:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Argentina Presidency pictures are in a limbo because of a license change to Non Commercial on the Casa Rosada website.

See commons:CT:L#Template:CC-AR-Presidency or the latest archive of that page in case the archiving bot has already archived the talk.

The Wikimedia Argentinian chapter is apparently a bit slow in showing any interest. Perhaps the Signpost could show some interest by writing an article on this issue, or by interviewing Argentina Chapter leaders.

The same sort of problem (with some differences, though, and a smaller amount of uploaded pictures) is happening with Tartu city pictures. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Tartu City Government images and commons:Template talk:Attr-Tartu.

Teofilo talk 16:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New York Times (8 op-eds): http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia
Feministing (blog post): http://feministing.com/2011/02/02/why-are-only-13-of-wikipedia-contributors-women/
Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2284501/ Powers ^T 00:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this was on my list, but there was not time left before publication. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_External_links/Webcitebot2#Proposal

It would be great if the Signpost could report on this, as it concerns the entire community as well as the Foundation. It's pretty newsworthy, and wider exposure to the community will generate more discussion and hopefully result in action being taken. -- œ^™ 12:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Dan Schneider Interview 27: Larry Sanger Extremely long, but absolutely fascinating and very far-ranging. "Basically, Wikipedia is conducive to participation by people who love playing the Wikipedia game, which frequently involves talking as if you’re aiming at consensus, while playing all sorts of disingenuous games to get your position accepted as “the consensus” position. It take a special sort of person to love that. I’m not one of them." "I don’t know or care who is Public Enemy One to Wikipedians. I’m sure they’re divided on the question. I’d be pretty high on a lot of lists, because the strongest hatred is usually reserved for apostates. On the other hand, a lot of Wikipedians—I’m delighted to say—don’t care about my opinions about Wikipedia, and seem genuinely grateful to me for having gotten it started." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We've been having some discussion of it over on RationalWiki's talk page on Citizendium. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Evading the spam filter tsk tsk tsk. Is from spring 2009 so a little outdates and while there is the odd comment of minor interest I think the the main effect is to make people feel sorry for larry as the interview gets stranger and stranger. Not really something of interest to the signpost that prefers to cover more current events.©Geni 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note "this interview was conducted in five parts, chronologically, as it is written, over a 2½ year span.". It has just been posted, so it's a current event. I give the interviewer credit for trying to discuss Deep Thoughts, even if he falls short. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep it in stock in case Signpost ever does a Surrealist edition. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Had to postpone this until next week. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a self-plug here, but ... A new anti-vandalism paper will be presented on Feb. 21 at CICling 2011. See the abstract and paper. It combines the logic of the WikiTrust and WP:STiki systems with some natural-language techniques. Kinda neat I think, because it was a collaborative approach to collaborative application security. Moreover, this work grew out of discussions at Wikimania 2010. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Had to postpone this until next week. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, probably more appropriate given the publication date, any ways. Let me know if you need any additional commentary. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes 150 Featured Portals on English Wikipedia. Could be good fodder for some sort of special mention. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind, this happened already, per above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

See Meta:Research Committee/Areas of interest/Expert involvement/2011 survey: it's a study conducted by the Wikimedia Research Committee to try and find out why experts/academics/scientists do not contribute to Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects etc.) and what the WMF and Wikipedia community can do to increase participation by experts. For interview/more info, contact User:DarTar and User:Mietchen. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in "News and notes". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost:

I've setup a database table on the Toolserver with gender and email filled in from ~5,000 API requests. One of the quick things I've done is create a gender and WikiProject table. I hope to make some really nice graphs. If you're interested contact me on IRC. — Dispenser 23:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

End of moved part

Some results are in "News and notes". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians will be attending Recent Changes Camp Boston 2011 (Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston MA), March 11-13.

Ward Cunningham is not confirmed attending but has attended in the past.

More information available here: RCC 2011 Boston - Invitation - Dave Crosby (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The wiki Culture.si was launched in April 2010. Texts about the culture of Slovenia are available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, the same license as used by Wikipedia. See Enhance Wikipedia! and Terms of Use. Published by the Slovenian Ministry of Culture and Ljudmila (media laboratory). Unfortunately most of the images are under a non-derivative license. --U5K0 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• The site is selfdescribed in the following way: Culture.si is designed to help professionals explore possibilities for collaboration with Slovene cultural organisations. Here you can find information on cultural producers, venues, festivals and support services in Slovenia, and download images, logos or contacts. Take a look and make a connection! As of Feb. 13, the wiki has 2,171 articles many of which do not exist on wikipedia. I think that this oppurtunity should be taken advantage of and built upon as quickly as possible.--U5K0 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at this and its articles (on Slovenia) look better than the wikipedia equivalents. Since the text is freely licensed, editors with Slovenian interests might want to begin some massive imports - with reasonable editing of course. It's a shame about the pictures being "not quite freely licensed." So a massive importation of the pix is not possible. However, they do properly label public domain pix as public domain. My minor disappointment about the pix is tempered by looking at similar projects in the U.S. that could have had similar freely licensed material, e.g. the Encyclopedia of Alabama of the Encyclopedia or Oklahoma Culture and History which have basic strict "everything is copyrighted" policies. Slovenia is much more likely to get out its message than Oklahoma is! Smallbones (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It not exactly news, is it? Still, maybe we can mention it somehow in the next issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There's been a fair bit of controversy about the deletion of a number of programming language related articles (Nemerle and Alice ML, both of which are now going through DRV) over on the programming section of Reddit and Hacker News. It has also prompted the widely-read programmer Zed Shaw to post Wikipedia's Notability Requirements And The Slash, a post critical of Wikipedia's deletion policy and calling on people to not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation and to try and fix what he sees as problems with the notability requirements. He also announced that he's registered notnotable.com and plans to do something a bit like Deletionpedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added your summary (somewhat edited) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/In the news. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article about Esperanza Spalding's Wikipedia article being attacked by Justin Bieber fans. link. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting lots of traction on Twitter: http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/ghonim-our-revolution-wikipedia Kaldari (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This would have fit in so well with the item about Ghonim in this week's "News and notes".... Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it since this is going to be stale by next week. Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alot of news outlets and media watchers are talking about how Justin Bieber fans defaced Esperanza Spalding's wiki page after she won best new artist at the grammys. [26] [27] (i know not completely reliable sources, but i dont have time to look for more)--Found5dollar (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While it was a run-of-the mill vandalism story, the huge attention might have merited covering it, but it kind of fell through the cracks, sorry. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The next good article backlog elimination drive is scheduled to start on 1 March and is expected to run for the entire month. The coordinators for the drive will be the same ones from last April's drive, MuZemike and Wizardman.

There are currently about 350 total good article nominations that are yet to be completed and around 300 of them yet to be reviewed. By the end of last year's drive, the number of GA nominations remaining was down to 89, with 47 that were not yet reviewed. The goal of this year's GA backlog elimination is to bring the total number of outstanding GA nominations remaining to below 50 while, at the same time, maintain a level of quality in reviews and making sure GA nominations result in further marginal improvements to nominated articles.

As with last year's GA backlog elimination drive, there will be barnstars and for those who review certain numbers of GA nominations, and special awards will go to those who review the most GA nominations in March.

This GAN backlog elimination drive starts on 1 March 2011, which is beginning one month earlier for two reasons: to try and get more editors, many of whom are busier than normal during April; and to help set up another GAN backlog elimination drive, either in September or October 2011, to help keep the number of GA nominations low. –MuZemike 04:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:VPT. Need i say more? Simply south...... 22:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthe info at Bugzilla Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts as News, so I'll let others decide.

A six-minute promo of Jimmy Wales' public lecture at the University of Bristol has been released to the Commons while the full fifty minute version is edited. The lecture was given at the Victoria Rooms, Bristol on 13th January as part of the tenth birthday celebrations. The staging, filming and editing of the event were arranged by User:Steve virgin on behalf of Wikimedia UK and involved BBC Bristol, the University, the City Council and local other bodies.

MartinPoulter (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't get around to mention it, but be sure to notify us of the release of the full version. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In view of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011, it would be nice if Signpost could run a fresh update on the state-of-play of this extension.  Chzz  ►  11:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems that no one got around to do a decent write-up of this. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the wonkette (and they have pics) wikipedia articles are being used inform visitors in the louisiana state capitol building. Further followup by the Gambit suggests no one knows or is prepared to admit how it happened.©Geni 01:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

the plot thickens. Looks like the articles may have placed there when the originals were stolen. The articles have now been removed and repairs to the information stands are underway.©Geni 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Briefly covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is crazy and fun...Take the quiz! Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

20 out of 28 :) Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the overwhelming consensus at this discussion at Village pump (proposals), the refToolbar was turned on for all editors (including anonymous) on February 23rd. If no problems are reported, the refTools gadget will be deprecated shortly (as it is now redundant). Instructions for disabling the refToolbar can be found here. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The refTools gadget was deprecated (removed as a preference option) on Friday, February 25. Universal rollout seems to have gone surprisingly smoothly. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On Bhagat Singh death controversy , rumours , Wikipedia article , news articles & more, See here -- Tinu Cherian - 08:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In a letter responding to a recent Guardian interview of Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales, Ian Grant, Managing director, Encyclopaedia Britannica (UK), disputes a statement claiming "that Britannica had "got it wrong" with regards to providing accurate information concerning his birthday" (wikilink added) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the multiple layers of silly buggers now wrapped around jimbo's birthdate I would suggest their responce is remarkably restrained.©Geni 14:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're British :-). But this has gone so far into WP:LAME it seems to have come out the other side, like the legend of digging a hole so deep you end up in China, e.g. "Mr Wales would provide Britannica with the correct date and appropriate documentation only if it was agreed that his date of birth would not be published". I wonder what in the world that was about (as in, it doesn't make sense to provide documentation on the condition it not be used). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard Date of Birth is still used by some out of date and insecure organisations as part of their ID verification. Most sensible organisations have long realised that DOB is way too easily determined for a large proportion of the population for any sensible organisation to use it for security purposes, but I can understand why Jimmy or anyone else would not want their DOB public if they can avoid it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but this where things get weird. IF that were his reasoning (security), wouldn't he want Britannica to publicize a false birthdate? That is, why make an issue of it with them? And he's drawn far more attention to the matter than if he were taking security measures - or at least, objectively, it appears pretty counter-productive for that purpose. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I may tease him about it if he comes to another London meetup. I suspect there are multiple motivations here, one to point out that Britannica has got it wrong, another to keep the true date secure. ϢereSpielChequers 15:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

were it so simple. Last I checked the closest there was to an official version of events was that jimbo was born around midnight so his actual birth certificate could be argued to be in error.©Geni 16:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Briefly covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/In the news. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I didn´t find anything about how the changes to Googles search algorithm affects Wikipedia. If there are some statistics, this would be a important news.
2. I found this: Hudong asks the Chinese Administration to register a case for the anti-monopoly investigation against Baidu and Hudong wants $120.3 million from Baidu because of wrongdoing. Maybe this will help Wikipedia in China too. --Goldzahn (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here, part 1 has some numbers. With the new Google Algorithm Wikipedia gains 6.2 %. --Goldzahn (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Good find! Noted it on Twitter [28]/Identi.ca, and will definitely cover it in the upcoming issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See also summary overview at searchengineland.com -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

During the next couple of weeks, there will be some tests performed on the account creation process. The goal is to find a process that encourages people who get new accounts to actually start editing, and also to make them productive Wikipedians. The first tests started on February 22nd, and after a relative uneventful beginning, the effects of the second test version sparked a debate on the Administrators' Noticeboard. The next version of the Confirmation page that will be tested looks like this. If you have any comments or suggestions, please join the discussions here.

(Suggestion made by user:SvHannibal, who is a Wikimedia Foundation Fellow, and who can answer any questions you may have about this.)

The announcement was already covered (albeit briefly) in last week's "News and notes". The AN discussion (link) would appear to keep the tests newsworthy though. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Shijualex blogs on Indian language wikipedias – 2010 statistical report http://shijualex.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/indian-language-wikipedias-2010-statistical-report/ -- Tinu Cherian - 05:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/News and notes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

---

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15