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 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Could the next issue please carry a note about the WikiCup? We're accepting signups for the 2012 competition, and will be throughout January. I'd be happy to write a blurb (hell, even a whole article) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like something for the 'Brief notes' section of N&N. I shouldn't touch it, as I'm signed up for the Cup, but it shouldn't be a problem for the other editors. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe even a feature on the history of the WikiCup, written by you? =) Will get a brief nod in N&N and a sidebox in Wikiproject interviews, most likely. ResMar 23:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to write a history of the WikiCup- I intended to do it to coincide with the end of 2010's competition, but the real-world got in the way and I never got around to it. It'd be great to do one at the end of 2012's competition. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For the blurb- signups are welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups. Though the competition starts on 1 January, signups will remain open throughout the month. Rules can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring (I will update them in the next few days). Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page, or can be directed at one of the judges (The ed17 is the other judge). J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be cool to have an article about how the resource exchange has helped editors access high-quality sources this past year. Over the past year we've successfully obtained several hundred sources (books, journal articles, old newspaper clippings, government documents) that editors needed but weren't able to get on their own. It might be interesting to look at how editors have used these sources to improve articles. Our volunteers have access to some of the world's best libraries and can use them to track down even pretty obscure stuff. The resource exchange is a little bit buried so I'd like to see more editors know about it. GabrielF (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

+1. I've used the RX in the past and found it helpful. --Gwern (contribs) 16:38 22 December 2011 (GMT)

The Signpost refrains generally from non-news features like these unless there's a current angle, but if someone was willing to write up an article I'd certainly consider running it. Skomorokh 22:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just completed and written up a little research project of mine: http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-editing-community-is-dead-who-killed-it

Summary:

1. Talk pages are where references/links/citations go to die; less than 10% ever make it back
2. In just the sampled edits, millions of page-views are affected
3. Conclusion: putting references/links/citations in an Article's Talk page is a bad idea (compared to External Links)

Numbers, source code, and lists of edits are provided in the link. --Gwern (contribs) 04:44 22 December 2011 (GMT)

To me, this seems to be a strong justification for Wikipedia:Be bold. (However I don't think it should be portrayed as an outright condemnation of talk page usage, since there are many cases where bold editing leads to edit wars or other problems.) Dcoetzee 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think BOLD should even enter into it - the standard practice should just be that if one doesn't have the time to integrate a reference, to list it in External Links or Further Reading. That is all. --Gwern (contribs) 19:13 30 December 2011 (GMT)

This is quite interesting indeed; the fusion of research, argument and personal confession makes it difficult to analyse as a coherent whole, but I think either splitting out the research aspect as a standalone, or converting it to a research-based essay aimed at the median editor (rather than the presumably inclusionist audience of the blog version) and it would make a fine candidate for Signpost publication. Skomorokh 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Stierch was named a community fellow.[1] She will be focusing on editor retention and increasing female participation. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/News and notes, cheers. Skomorokh 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Loriot_Signature_Background Bulwersator (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

An interesting situation, will keep an eye in case it develops further. Skomorokh 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In this study by Jon M. Stacey, 2,400 random articles were analysed to test whether the proportion of misspellings remained constant. Conclusion: unclear, because bigger sample and improved technique needed.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into this and listed some of what I perceive as flaws at User:WereSpielChequers/typo study. If the Signpost is interested feel free to use it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You might wish to comment at the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/Recent research.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys still planning on publishing the Sue Gardner interview? Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The interview was published in the January 2 issue. Skomorokh 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Movieline's Julie Miller served up a wry "Tribute To the People Who Write Excruciatingly Detailed Wikipedia Plot Summaries For Movies That Suck". Gobonobo ^{T C} 02:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Not earth-shattering news, but will keep it on file in case something in a similar vein crosses our desks. Skomorokh 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 and Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates Bulwersator (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Overtaken by time's passage, it would seem. Skomorokh 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be awesome if you could mention this in the sign post: Wikimedians to the Games is an content improvement effort that is part of the History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia GLAM project. It was modelled after the British Museum programme, the Derby Museum Multilingual Challenge and the Wikipedia:WikiCup. Wikimedians to the Games (W2G) is a an opportunity for two Australian Wikimedians to go to London and cover the 2012 Summer Paralympics held in London for Wikinews, Commons and Wikipedia. And yeah, a mention in the Signpost would be fantastic as it starts on 10 January 2012. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Overtaken by time's passage, unfortunately. Skomorokh 11:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would certain suggestions be removed while others are left? I submitted a legitimate suggestion about the deletion process needing to be retooled...and now it is gone. It was in regard to Ben Breedlove's page and I also had very strong comments/questions about what Wikipedia is really all about as far as a source of knowledge. It is seeming to be more of a very censored site...If you offer up that people can leave suggestions for a story on SignPosts, why would you just delete them at your descretion? Apparently, one can only leave suggestions that you allow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs)

First, to clarify, you're no doubt referring to this edit of yours. It was removed by User:Mindmatrix, saying "this doesn't belong here".

I agree with the removal because your edit is about whether a particular article should exist, whereas this "Suggestions" page is for items concerning Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general. You ought to pursue the matter about the particular article via this deletion page, not here. If you need advice/help on this, do please ask me on this page--A bit iffy (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I ask you to please reread what I wrote. It was about the deletion process being basically fair or not. Yes, it pertains to Ben Breedlove's page. But if you would please go to the page discussing deletion, carefully look at the two most vocal people in favor of deleting it, you will see that their reasons have more to do with opinion and also contain innappropriate, sacrastic comments...including something about puppies!? I would love to be able to comment on that page, but so far cannot figure out how. The same with "contact us": I can't find a way through that link to actually contact someone. I am not comuter savvy, just trying to get what I feel is a very important point across and find it near impossible here. What I had written that was deleted was very much about the deletion process of a page. I think that warrants a second look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.235.150 (talk • contribs)

OK. If you think the deletion process for the Ben Breedlove article is being handled improperly, then explain why at this link - that really is the best place. Click on "Edit" there and type your comments in at the bottom. For deletion policy in general, there's a page at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and you can make your own suggestions for a change of policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Sometimes wrong judgments are made as regards whether something should be deleted (it happens), but I've no idea whether that's the case with Ben Breedlove. I haven't looked at what arguments etc. people are making re Ben Breedlove because I don't have the time to understand what it's all about. In any case, please don't pursue this matter on this Signpost suggestions page - thanks.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructions, I was able to "vote" there. However, I still feel that the Deletion Process and other processes are worthy of a news article. What Wikipedia is supposed to be all about, it's guidelines, it's policies on debate and respect...These are things that are most definitely slipping away from original intentions and I believe that is worth an article. I took the time to read what the purposes and intents were to be for Wikipedia. They were pure and admirable. Who's making sure that it stays on the original track and that human nature doesn't spoil it?

We don't have a Signpost article every time people get overemotional about a deletion discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just updated the assessment levels for Wikipedia:Vital articles, and written a short analysis. Is this worth a mention? A brief mention could read something like: "For the second year running, the number of good articles has increased significantly on the list of vital articles, while the number of featured articles declined slightly. There are now 76 of each, out of a total of 991." Lampman (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting info. I would have thought it deserved a mention. Probably too late now though; just wanted to express my interest. Leonxlin (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

See this post on Wikisource-l. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of this: meta:Fundraising and Funds Dissemination/Recommendations? Big thing, started by Sue Gardner. --92.204.78.60 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is a draft; it is yet to be finished. ResMar 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We have another round of analysis ready to report from the WP:UWTEST project. Anyone interested in covering it? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really for any specific edition, but, if you're interested, Wikiproject Cooperation has been expanding significantly since I started it two days ago. I'm not quite sure what else to say about it, I think any importance for it is self-evident. Let me know what you think. Silverseren^C 20:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The project is a potential problem for WP:GLAM. It operates against WP:AGF. Would hazard a guess this will be before ArbCom in six months, especially as it appears to advocate WP:HOUNDING and is not based on community driven consensus. --LauraHale (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

...what? It advocates hounding? I'm quite confused. I think you might be misreading it significantly, we're working with the editors in question, not against them. Like i'm currently mentoring one and sheparding the Cracker Barrel article through the processes to get it to GA. What does any of this have to do with WP:ABF and WP:HOUNDING? Silverseren^C 20:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've spoken with Laura and we've clarified the scope of the Wikiproject by changing how it's written, so that it doesn't interfere with GLAM or any other projects like that. Silverseren^C 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The ACLU has started a lawsuit against the public library in Salem, MO on the grounds that it blocked several pages, including the English-language wikipedia's Wicca article, from being able to be accessed from the terminals in the library. Stories related to the incident can be found here.

I would love to see perhaps some sort of opinion piece, perhaps, if he so chooses, with some comments from Jimbo, regarding this, and would be willing to contribute myself if such were to be desired. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

File:WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg Smallbones (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Where's SOPA and PIPA when we need it, just think under those we could close Getty Images :) Gnangarra 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • SOPA and PIPA aren't needed. Just have the WMF send Getty a DMCA takedown notice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there's a deletion discussion about this image at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg. There's even a claim that our use of this image could not possibly be justified even under the claim of "fair use." The image has also been deleted twice from the article Copyfraud. Smallbones (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading en.wikipedia's Recent Changes with a fine tooth comb targeting inappropriate edits by Stewards and WMF staff, only five edits were made that could in anyway indicate normal encyclopaedic activity, even from the limited pool of users with the capacity to do so. In three instances, a mistaken assumption underlay the normal editing; in one an outstanding request prior to the black-out; and in another a matter of reasonable disagreement between editors. In all cases collegial editing, and the Discuss portion of the BRD cycle solved matters. Even in extreme circumstances, core policies and collegial editing worked. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My fine-toothed comb isn't as fine as yours, but I'm curious about the final entry and article before the blackout, and correspondingly the first ones afterwards. kencf0618 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, Golan v. Holder was decided in the U.S. government's favor (during the blackout). This will potentially affect thousands of files on Commons. A deletion request regarding ~3500 files has already been initiated.[2] Kaldari (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership

Is due to be launched in a day or so and should get some mention in the next issue. Talk is of it running for ten to thirty days. Alarbus (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Included in N&N for 1/23. Thanks for the suggestion! --Aude (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have written an opinion piece critical of the SOPA blackout, and would like to present it as a suggestion for the coming issue of the signpost. It can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Martijn_Hoekstra/Open_letter Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument that the blackout violated Wikipedia's stance of neutrality seems a bit naive. To quote Kat Walsh: Wikipedia's articles are neutral, but its existence is not. Wikipedia depends on a legal infrastructure that allows us to host user-contributed material. If that legal infrastructure is damaged, Wikipedia will have to change into something very different than what it is now. Kaldari (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

As the piece argues: taking a public stance this strong harms the perception of neutrality. I don't like SOPA one bit, but Wednesday we stopped reporting neutrally on all topics, and presented a partisan opinion to the world instead. I argue that will affect the perception of trustworthiness of Wikipedia as a medium.

As far as that Wikipedia would drastically have to change if the legislation passes, I do believe that to be fear mongering, and don't believe it for one second. If it is true, then we better start having discussions on how we need to change right away. It's all but certain that legislation such as this won't pass any time soon. And what if SOPA would have passed? I don't have any indication that our next move would be to go black until we know how to handle the new legislation or anything of that kind.

But as it goes with opinions, people agree, others disagree. I'm not expecting that this opinion is universally held. If I did, I didn't have to write it, it would be obvious to everyone. The question is: is the signpost willing to publish this opinion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest that they do, just to give the minority opinion a chance to be heard. I'll also note that this (or similar) opinion was highlighted in the American press (e.g. in an AP article), without mentioning that it was clearly a minority opinion among editors. Smallbones (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If the Signpost is going to cover opposition and concerns about the blackout (and I think they should), I suggest including a mention of User:Scott MacDonald (the content of the page and its petition, not the editor himself). That is another strongly argued stance. And to add my own view, what is in flux here is not Wikipedia's neutrality, but its reputation and the general perception people have about it. The really big danger is that something like this blackout happens again, and too soon (quite possible given the reaction and feelings among some elements of the community). That would really be a game-changer in the way the general public perceive Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Which actually is exactly what I'm arguing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The opposition to the SOPA blackout seems to have been vocal enough that it should have been mentioned. It's a shame that it wasn't, and it seems to be too late now. Leonxlin (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While it's too late for one context, a "slow news" (meaning thoughtful, reflective) type retrospective on the SOPA opinions, especially the opposition which was under-reported, strikes me as a fine idea. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If the signpost is interested, I wouldn't mind collaborating to create a reflective article about the aftermath of the SOPA/PIPA protest, including it's effects (seemingly hugely successful), it's opposition (taking along Scott's protest), the current stuff about ACTA, and reflecting on how this precedent might influence both the future of Wikipedia on the issue of taking public stances and what this means for Wikipedia as a medium. With the amount of interpretation and speculation, this would clearly still be opinion though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Today's NYT op-ed "What Wikipedia Won't Tell You" even makes the subject topical again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please arrange for the next WikiProject report to be about Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.
—Wavelength (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We have nominations for those. ResMar 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Which page is the right page for posting such a nomination?

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The US Supreme Court upheld the Uruguay Round Agreements Act while we were all on strike, which could potentially result in the deletion of thousands of files from Commons which are PD in their country of origin but not in the US - commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36273 (yes, this is a Wikipedia review link. The domain expired: http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36278)

Wikipedia Watch is well-known amongst Wikipedians, especially early ones. Some might even enjoy the fact that Wikipedia Watch is gone, but Wikipedia Watch has done some good as well. Wikipedia Watch's had a strong influence on Wikipedia (eg. Essjay controversy). A portion of the next issue should be dedicated / commemorated to Wikipedia Watch's memory. Wikipedia Watch's passing shouldn't go unnoticed or unreflected. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36273 (yes, this is a Wikipedia review link. The domain expired: http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36278)

Daniel Brandt has nullrouted all links from Wikipedia to NameBase.org in order to encourage the deletion of the NameBase article. Over a hundred links, many of which are references or external links for further reading in article, now don't work. This would've hampered the work of students and researchers using Wikipedia as a "starting point" in their research if I hadn't used WebCite in order to create archives of those NameBase pages (e.g. [3]).

This isn't the first time that Brandt used the WR as mouthpiece to have an article related to him deleted. He requested the deletion of the Google Watch article, and he succeeded.

NameBase's mission is similar to ours. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia accessible to anyone, and NameBase is supposed to be an index of material of interest to investigative journalists and researchers that's accessible to anyone. Now Brandt is denying access to specific targets.

The issue should also contain instructions on how to use WebCite in order to get around the nullrouting. This will help users to continue using useful NameBase references and links in articles.

I don't believe that Brandt's abuse of his sysop powers at NameBase should go unreported. Perhaps if news about this were to spread, Brandt's Public Information Research colleagues will learn of this and ask him to stop. As long as there isn't anyone complaining, Brandt will continue to do things such as this. If Brandt believes that he can scrutinize us and hold us accountable for our actions, then it's only fair that we scrutinize any action of his that has a direct effect on Wikipedia (I would consider the nullrouting of 122 links on Wikipedia to be a direct effect and concern).

This information would also be useful to anyone wondering why NameBase.org links on Wikipedia don't work. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow that's pretty terrible. Nevertheless the Signpost isn't an advocacy platform. I have some doubts as to the newsworthiness of this. Dcoetzee 00:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&page=Terms_of_use

Wikimedia's new Terms of Use is "going before the Board." This will affect every contributor once finalized. Geoffbrigham did an extremely fine job. He responded to the concerns of the users, and he has made many, many revisions. The draft Terms of Use are much better now than what the draft was in October 2011. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&diff=3306599&oldid=3306562, http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&diff=3307171&oldid=3306599. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I do not know if I am at the right place, but maybe someone can mention the Teylers Challenge, see: Wikipedia:GLAM/Teylers/Multilingual Challenge and announcement writing contest. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13#Template:Rescue. --NYKevin @729, i.e. 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss coverage of the Research Works Act? (I'm not being sarcastic; I missed a lot back when I made an effort to follow events on Wikipedia, & I know I miss a heckuva lot more now.) According to this blogger, who also provides a description on the process how scientific research is published (useful for those of us not in the know), this proposed bill would severely curtail if not end the practice of publishing results in open access journals. In brief, it is a means to support a dying business model through special-interest legislation & another threat on open access to information. -- llywrch (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"I was a child-rapist who sodomised boys in Belfast, my crimes being covered up by my masters in British intelligence". By Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent on Tuesday January 24 2012.

See also: Wikipedia as propagator of Sinn Fein-IRA. "You can see it in the endless reiteration of a SFIRA narrative on Wikipedia". By Kevin Myers in the Irish Independent on Tuesday January 10 2012.

Kevin Myers' article was vandalized 4 years ago and he's been writing about it ever since. This is hardly newsworthy. The 2nd article might be worth mentioning though. Kaldari (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, since he keeps writing about it in third party sources, we can cover the vandalism of Kevin Myers' article in Kevin Myers' article. I think it'd make his head pop. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I doubt that his own opinions are sufficiently weighty for the article Kevin Myers, however, the article Public reception of the wikipedia article "Kevin Myers" may now be notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Folks, may I point out that when someone is prominently libeled, they tend to retain a dislike for the entity that defamed them? Especially when it's repeatedly touted? Deriding this reaction is a reason why it is valid. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

True, Seth, but most of them don't repeatedly write about about it. We're not the ones who keep bringing it back up, he is. My point is that he's pushing very hard to keep it in the public, so I sarcastically suggested that we oblige him. Wikipedia (or more accurately, what was in all likelihood some idiot twelve year old) did this guy wrong, but his logic is way off here. If someone had spray painted the same nonsense on the side of a train in London, by his logic he'd be writing about the evils of public transportation, or how the city of London is dysfunctional and that the rest of the world should stay away from the city. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing his point, and further, doing something which shows why he's right. An "idiot twelve year old" is put on the same basis as a world-renowed expert in terms of ability to write a living person's biography. When you say "We're not the ones who keep bringing it back up, he is. ... so I sarcastically suggested that we oblige him", to be blunt, the message which comes across is "Too bad we libeled you, now SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP about it, OR WE'LL DO IT AGAIN, WORSE, ha ha ha!". It's a nasty, thuggish, sort of sentiment, and you can see I'm pushed to his side in terms of rhetoric. People have a social right to critique Wikipedia, to provide evidence against the ongoing evangelism and flackery, most especially when they've been personally harmed. The implicit threat that Wikipedia might be used to retaliate against them for doing this, proves why there's a problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If a person is distressed by what they perceive to be libel, they have recourse. When a thing is mentioned repeatedly in the press, it attains notability and weight. These are independent of each other. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP mandates a "high degree of sensitivity". That's directly opposed to cheap-irony gotchas. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As poor a reflection on Wikipedia as it might be to say this, public figure decries Wikipedia's treatment of biographies is neither novel or illuminating per se. This instantiation of the general problem does not shed light on much we don't already know, alas. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See the call for candidates that went out on Saturday. --Dami (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Included in N&N for 1/30. Thanks for the suggestion! --Aude (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See "Circadian Patterns of Wikipedia Editorial Activity: A Demographic Analysis" on http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030091. Pine^talk 08:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, it's an interesting paper, but it was already (briefly) covered as preprint in the September issue of the research newsletter. If someone wants to contribute a fuller review, they are welcome (go to the draft page and the coordination Etherpad for the upcoming issue), but considering that there are quite a few other interesting items to cover while one of the regular contributors will mostly not be available this time, we will probably have to leave it out otherwise. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I didn't recognize the title from the last report. Pine^talk 09:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to those of you whose suggestions have gone unresponded to of late. I have been out of action for the past four weeks, but hope to give due consideration to any stories listed above that are still viable, and to make sure all suggestions are swiftly vetted and replied to in future. Thanks to all of you tipsters for contributing; speaking as an article writer, your suggestions are invaluable to making the Signpost's coverage relevant and interesting. Skomorokh 16:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The newest engineering report has details and links of the San Francisco hackathon that happened too late for last week's Signpost to cover it. Sumanah (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Covered at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/Technology report, thanks Sumana. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A Forbes piece in which one contributor advocates adding dynamic features like live webcams and stock tickers to Wikipedia articles, and advocates that users of Wikipedia do more to contribute. Dcoetzee 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Covered in this week's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/In the news, thanks Dcoetzee! Skomorokh 02:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

An opinion piece by a PR professional, currently on front page of Campaign Asia-Pacific. Dcoetzee 06:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This topic is making the rounds, as would be expected from PR flacks :-). See also "Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered briefly in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news; I don't see that the debate has progressed meaningfully, however. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I have a new blog post up on the WMF blog that contains some news that I think should be interesting to Signpost readers: [4]. You can see the link to Wikimedia Commons from the NARA press release. Thanks! Dominic·t 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Included in N&N for 1/30. Thanks for the suggestion! --Aude (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Could the featured content of other Wikimedia projects be included in The Signpost? Either in Sister Projects or as part of Featured Content itself? It would give some additional attention to the sister projects and should not unbalance the existing content. (Wikisource, for example, only has one featured text a month, and had none at from October to January; this month's text is Picturesque New Guinea.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Extra content requires manpower which requires someone willing to do this, and we are understaffed as it is. ResMar 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

WMF sysadmin Asher Feldman wrote:

I recently switched us over to a chained replication topology to make the mysql portion of eventual site failovers simpler, and to reduce the number of slaves reading from our active masters. In order to see the current topology and slave lag at a glance, I threw this together:

http://noc.wikimedia.org/dbtree/

Mouse-over a cluster name to see which wikis are on a given cluster, and click a host to get ganglia graphs.

Thought readers might enjoy. Sumanah (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned only very briefly in Tech, neat nonetheless. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and we're putting together a series of offline and online events related to women's history on Wikipedia and other projects. It'd also be really cool to see Signpost content in March related to women on Wiki :) Learn more WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration SarahStierch (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a number of questions that I'm interested in reading The Signpost's team's response to.

I've posted them on the Village Pump.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#What about ACTA?

I'm sure the Wikipedia community would want to know what's going on about it.

Me too. The Transhumanist 02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking here. ResMar 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it as dangerous as SOPA and PIPA?
2. How did Wikipedia's SOPA initiative miss it?
3. Shouldn't it have been the ACTA/PIPA/SOPA initiative? Should we be worried?
4. What are the ramifications of ACTA's having been signed?
5. The European Parliament's appointed rapporteur resigned over this. Has anyone (WMF, Signpost) contacted that person for a statement?
6. How transparent were ACTA's negotiations?
7. How will ACTA affect Wikipedia?
8. How will it affect the Wayback Machine? That's the best place I know of to see historically accurate past versions of Wikipedia pages. (Templates screw up historical views of pages on Wikipedia).
9. How and when would ACTA go into effect?
10. What is happening in the Wikipedia community and in the Wikimedia Foundation about ACTA?
11. What articles about ACTA is The Signpost working on?
12. What, if anything, should Wikipedia do about ACTA?

The Transhumanist 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone decides to cover it =S ResMar 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 - over 20.000 files moved during drive
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_30#Template:Persondata - template persondata (one of the most widespread templates on Wikipedia, with over 800,000 instances) nominated for deletion
  • And Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Template:Cleanup Bulwersator (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
• User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images - again, my project (list of articles without image in infobox where image may be imported from plwiki)

Bulwersator (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created a shoutbox template that doesn't completely screw up your talk page, at Template:Shoutbox sidebar, with very simple and clean installation. People have been trying to use shoutboxes here since at least 2009, but they've always been weird floating boxes that got in the way of other content and features. Fixed! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't read the Signpost enough to know, but is there normally a chunk dedicated to technical events? If so, we might want to put in a blurb about the interwikis not working; see the "Interwiki links" section of WP:VP/T, any of the (currently nine) uses of the work "interwiki" at WP:HD, and the "Article created on en.wiki that forces to tr.wiki" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive738. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah, there's a weekly Technology report, which (now) has this (part) covered. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1202/Scholarly-Authority-in-a-Wikified-World.cfm

©Geni 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news, thanks Geni. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been a hot topic recently among the larger chapters and on Meta.

Ongoing discussions on Meta about the future of movement-wide fundraising have included public drafts from Sue, discussion from many chapters (including two formal position statements from the UK and German chapters), and hundreds of discussion threads. Phoebe collected some of them into a wikibook. The Kurier ran a short note from WMDE's director pointing to their own statement, which included outside marketing research they commissioned on the value of locally-based fundraising in Germany.

This weekend it is on the WMF board agenda, so I expect a lot of ongoing discussion on Meta until then, and perhaps further comments by Sunday after the in-person meeting. – SJ + 02:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a fascinating topic, though it may require a significant amount of legwork to do justice. We alluded to it in last week's "News and Notes", but if I can find someone willing to put the work in to unpack the story properly, it could feature in coming issues. Thanks a great deal for the tip Sj; these developments don't always command the attention they deserve. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I managed to find someone :) Covered at length in our "Special report". HaeB hopes to follow up with an interview in the coming weeks on movement roles. Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New York Times' Bill Keller wrote an opinion piece on Wikipedia, Wales and SOPA entitled "Steal This Column". Gobonobo ^{T C} 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Will be covering in this week's In the News; stories in major publications get too our desk fairly quickly due to Google News, but if anyone spots interesting coverage of this issue elsewhere online, please do let us know. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There was good analysis a bit earlier on many specialist blogs e.g. Sunlight Foundation "It is tempting to be euphoric and say that the day Wikipedia went dark in protest marks a new turning point in the dynamics of power in Washington. But as is often the case, the reality is both less dramatic and more complicated." PPC Associates "The SOPA blackout was about as organic as the masses of North Koreans crying in the streets upon hearing of Kim Jong Il’s death. Behind the scenes, the SOPA protest was a well-organized campaign, fueled by the lobbying arms of major Internet corporations." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered in "In focus". Thanks for your invaluable help Seth, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Submit your presentation for this year's Wikimania until March 18! Presentations can cover five different topics, including GLAM, Culture & Community, Copyrights, Education, etc. For more information, please visit: [5]. Scholarships are now available until February 16, apply now! [6].

Pls add this, this is super important! On the behalf of the Program Team, --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning:

• Wikimedia DC, US Department of State Partner to Host Wikimania 2012 at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Also, a reminder that Wikimania travel scholarship applications close February 16. The call for participation is open until March 18, and registration is open. We invite and encourage Wikipedians to attend and participate in Wikimania. --Aude (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered in "News and notes". Thanks for the tips, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Former Board member Angela Beesley has left Wikia. See announcement on community.wikia.com. Dunno if we cover Wikia news at Signpost. I'd jump in and add it, but that has the nasty side effect of dragging me into writing next week's issue... which I'm too busy for at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's relevant not for "Wikia news" per se, but a combination of her previous prominence of a board member and other roles in Wikimedia. And I also speculate there's more to the story than is stated, given she co-founded Wikia. Amusingly, she's almost literally said the resignation cliche that she's leaving to spend more time with her family ("I want to work on something locally that better reflects my interests as a new mother ..."). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is indeed more to the story, I'm not seeing the news angle here; Beesley has not had a high profile within Wikimedia in the past few years, and despite Wikia's success in identikit pop culture wiki farms, I'm not convinced this represents anything of significance for Wikipedians per se. It strikes me as gossip, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the significance is more in Wikia's status as (quoting Trader Daily / Wales here, they said this, NOT ME!) "... his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it.". Just descriptively, Angela Beesley played an extensive role in that effort. And that she's now abandoning it is an interesting datapoint. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this till now, and I agree with Seth. Angela's long-term and deep connection with Wikimedia, and also Wikia's shared history with Wikimedia, make this a noteworthy event; the lack of a recent high profile notwithstanding. (I'm not sure I exactly buy that, though; she has chaired the Wikimedia Advisory Board for some time, attended the last Wikimania, etc. She maybe hasn't been as active as in the past, but she hasn't exactly been inactive.) This is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear about in the Signpost.

About her reasons for leaving, though -- what is she, a politician? Since when did spending time with one's family become fodder for skepticism even for us Wikipedians? :) -Pete (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Details are on the Wikimedia UK blog (CC-BY-SA, so feel free to copy-paste-modify the text there if you want). Mike Peel (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered in "News and notes". Thanks for the tip Mike, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can it be mentioned somewhere about getting people to help with the new page patrol backlog. It's getting quite long now, almost 30 days (see for yourself) we really need some people cutting it down. If you can mention it somewhere I'd be grateful Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We hope to be covering news of the Foundation's initiatives on NPP in the coming issues, so we can certainly highlight this point. Thanks for the tip! Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to self: Wikipedia:NPP Survey. Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

GLAMcamp DC took place this past weekend. Check out meta:GLAMcamp DC. I believe a blog will be written by Lori Phillips (US Cultural Parnterships Fellow) this week for the WMF blog. Major outcomes will be posted there. SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blog post is here: [7] -Pete (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Advocate is due to name Mike Halterman as one of their "40 under 40" for 2012 — the most influential in the LGBT community.

Per this report, they cite his work on Wikinews where he produced a few Featured Articles prior to going on to launch his own magazine. --Brian McNeil /^talk 03:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A potentially interesting read could be derived by a recurring "investigative report". I'm not implying a search for scandal or an aspersion machine, but rather from a pool of thoughtful inquiries, we could present a thoughtful answer. Incorporating standard journalist practices, interviews and key commentary, to a well formed conclusion, has merit. It wouldn't affect policy or consensus, but it could provide abundant reason, a perpetually worthy resource. My76Strat (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Now find someone to write it. ResMar 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Right - My76Strat (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There's been a bit of a controversy recently over the Egyptian government's arrest of members of groups such as Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and others. The charges are that these groups have been working to destabilize Egypt on behalf of the CIA, Israel, Jewish lobbyists, and the other usual suspects. The NYTimes has a story about the case the Egyptian prosecutors have built and it has this sentence in paragraph two: "The case, for example, cites documents seized in December from one group, the International Republican Institute, that included Wikipedia maps of Egypt showing the country divided into four parts."[8]. As this story develops further, I'd be very curious to learn more about how the Egyptian authorities interpreted material from Wikipedia as evidence of an American plot against the country. GabrielF (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Will keep an eye out for developments in this story, thanks Gabriel. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia Have an Accuracy Problem? Nobody Ent 15:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The most interesting sentence in the whole piece: we hold [Wikipedia] to a standard that is higher than any other source. We don't want Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't handle these kind of situations, like the Messer-Kruse/Haymarket issue, very well. I wrote an essay on this issue two years ago. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned in "In the news", thanks all. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See the Portuguese Wikipedia "Village Pump". Very sad news. Steven Walling • talk 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe User:Pietro Roveri can be listed at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, but he seems to have been active only in Portuguese.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite sad indeed. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As part of a blog response post "A number of commenters held Wikipedia up as providing comprehensive information about the legislation, but even Wikipedia missed, or simply chose to ignore, many of these changes (for example, saying on its information page, "SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to" despite the "No duty to monitor"" (personal disclaimer - I oppose SOPA. I also oppose the Wikipedia misinformation campaign.) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Seth, thanks for linking what looks like an interesting blog post. I'm the primary author of the Wikipedia page you linked, at least the version that ran the day after the SOPA blackout. I want to address your point from two perspectives:

• "Misinformation campaign" -- not an accurate description. Speaking for myself: I worked on that specific page in loose collaboration with some Wikimedia staff and volunteers, both online and offline. I did so with a continual and painful awareness of the limits of my understanding of SOPA, but also that the page was being viewed by literally millions of interested people, and that it was in very bad shape. The staff members I talked with were too busy with other pages to pay much attention; I distinctly remember asking Erik Möller if he had a moment for a question, and he said simply "no." There was way too much going on for anyone to focus too much on the exact wording of any one point. As for the on-wiki activity, you can see for yourself that there was active discussion on the talk page, that the main "Learn more" page was protected, and that I was (on that one day) the only administrator who chose to make extensive edits. For what it's worth, I considered unprotecting many times, but on a controversial page viewed by millions of people, I was not eager to invite a flood of controversial edits. Nobody else suggested unprotecting, at least not that I saw. So, "misinformation"? Quite possible! It's entirely possible there were and are factual errors on that page -- even that the errors derive from my bias. But, "campaign"? No. Not at all.
• On the specific point you identified, I don't think it's an error. I based that point primarily on Clay Shirky's analysis and the Kahn Academy video that were prevalent at the time. It may well be that SOPA contains language that asserts what the RIAA now claims, but that is not enough to falsify my point: indeed, the central problem with SOPA and SIPA, as I understand it, are the unintended (but easy to anticipate) consequences. If you'd like to work together to get the language right and draw that point out more fully, please let me know -- I'd be happy to dig into it again.

In closing -- while I fully appreciate that two wrongs don't make a right, I have to say it's ironic to hear. The MPAA highlighted the SOPA blackout's (paraphrase) failure to enlist big sites like Facebook as a sign of failure. Chris Dodd spoke of Google pulling the strings for the blackout (widely reported, for instance LA Times and Hollywood Reporter, if memory serves). If there is a misinformation campaign going on, I think there are more likely places to look for it. -Pete (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I'm actually very interested in this process, and some of the things you wrote are quite intriguing to my efforts to understand details (personally, it fascinates me in general regarding politics to try to figure out who is blatantly lying and who sincerely believes what are in fact lies because they either trust the liar or are misinformed, and yes, I know one can get into unfalsifiability paradoxes, but it's a fact that politics has lots of lies). I'm not sure this is the right place to give my whole perspective, which is both extremely heartfelt and bitterly cynical. But, yes, there was a massive misinformation campaign, and yes, it was driven by Google. Chris Dodd is completely right there, even if everything else he ever said is wrong. Note, to be tedious, this is not a strawman statement that everyone got direct orders from the Googleplex. But it's corruption in the "Lessig" sense, that money talks, and then shouts down opposing voices. Now, basing anything on Clay Shirky, et. al., well, I want to be polite, so I'll just point you to the essay "Wikibollocks". I realize I'm probably not being very convincing, since I'm torn on loyalties here (again, I oppose SOPA) and very burnt-out on trying to be true to truth. It's going to be a long slog to make the anti-scaremongering case. Remember, I don't get anything for this, except grief. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Seth, without diving into a lot of detail just now, I'd like to concede a couple of your points -- though I don't think they undercut my own:

• I've certainly seen inaccurate points made by opponents of SOPA, and while I don't know it to be true, it's certainly possible that some kind of misinformation campaign was in play. But: I don't think it was central to the broad arc of the SOPA story, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia community participated in any effort to spread misinformation, and I am quite confident that my own role was not part of any such campaign. And to whatever extent misinformation is the story, it is important to balance any discussion of impropriety among the opposition with the misinformation spread by the MPAA and its allies.
• You're right to suggest that Clay Shirky is not an absolute arbiter of truth. I've found his thinking compelling in some cases, and less so in others. The blog post you linked was written in 2010, and has nothing to do with SOPA; it's the analysis presented in this video, not Clay Shirky as an infallible source, that I found persuasive.

I have just now reduced the protection level of Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Learn more. If you see errors in accuracy, I encourage you to fix them. I share your more general interest in political processes, and would enjoy diving into a more detailed discussion, when time permits; but at the moment, I have a lot going on, and would rather limit my focus to fixing any specific errors. -Pete (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pete, thank you, I understand your kindness by your lights in reducing the protection level. I appreciate the gesture. However, I am at a loss to convey to you how unappealing it would be to me to spend hours of my life arguing with whoever happens to be the most uninformed but obstinate editor interested in the topic, with it all possibly being used against me someday, way after it would make any difference, and the whole process taken as further proof of Wikipedia's openness! (it's like some sort of multiple levels of infinity of negatives). Anyway, I agree with you that the whole SOPA story has plenty of misinformation on both sides. It's the politics of the use of (to phrase it darkly) one set of "Google lies" (Wikipedia in danger!) to oppose "MPAA lies" (world economy theft!) which gives me such unhappiness with politics. I'm being somewhat indirect in my point about Clay Shirky, the idea there is his arguments may be emotionally appealing but are lacking in substance. Here's one rebuttal on Khan. Obviously, that source has loyalties and alliances too, and so it goes. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

But that blog post utterly misses the point of the argument it purports to debunk. (It also picks one of the more heavily original-text-based arguments to make the point that opponents have not read the text of the bill. Very odd.) It's one thing to contradict an argument, another to defeat it. To do the latter, the blogger would have to actually address its substance. I'm sure if you watch the Khan Academy video again, and read that blog post again, you will agree the blog post fails to address the central argument.

update OK, I looked into it more closely, and I see my strong words immediately above were unwarranted. Sorry. There is indeed a logical hole in that Khan video. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with the notion that opposing a piece of legislation necessitates reading it in full. All kinds of bad ideas get proposed, sometimes by voluminous writers. Such a high bar for opposition would allow a whole lot of junk to get passed. I think the converse is much more important: before mucking with the legal structure that enables the Internet, those proposing new laws should invest the time to understand how it works in its present form.

I hear you on the misgivings about getting embroiled on the page I linked -- fair position. -Pete (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This latest Sherman piece is a pretty pathetic defense of what is basically indefensible. He either ignored or ducked the many criticisms of his piece. (See this takedown by Mike Masnick at techdirt) Regarding the 'no duty to monitor' claim, Masnick said: this is another part of the bill that was blatantly dishonest. It included statements about how there was no duty to monitor... but then left open the possibility of liability or compliance costs for not doing enough, or not being proactive. In short, Wikipedia was quite correct in its description. Raul654 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading the bill and the Manager's Amendment, I do not see how Wikipedia would qualify for the "No duty to monitor" provision. In the original text, this only applies to payment network providers and internet advertising services. The amendment expands this provision to entities "described in section 102(c) or 103(c)", which appears to add (DNS) service providers and internet search engines. If this amendment was intended to cover sites like Wikipedia, I do not see it. Perhaps there is some indirect association if one deciphers the text in a certain way? In any case, even if the amendment was intended to exempt Wikipedia, I do not think it is reasonable to fault them due to the complexity and ambiguity of the bill's text. --btriffles 68.43.151.176 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the debate has advanced appreciably, as far as Wikipedians are concerned. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest adding graphics to some of the regular pages in the Signpost that otherwise are text only? I think it would be easier to show you what I have in mind instead of trying to describe it, so I've created an example here. Pine^talk 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An image of the interior of a town hall does not contribute relevant information to a discussion of proceedings of the Arbitration Committee.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to have a literal illustration of Arbcom at work. The point is to have some sort of appropriate clipart for that page. A committee room setting is one idea. Pine^talk 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A picture from Dawn of the Dead would be more appropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This could be used, perhaps with the caption: Participants await their fate at English Arbitration proceedings. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Crusader Kings II to be exact http://www.gamercast.net/crusader-kings-ii-review .©Geni 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's the money quote:

"A rather neat feature that will be very interesting to those a little less historically versed than others is the new knowledge base of Crusader Kings II that comes from Wikipedia itself. If there is a page on Wikipedia for your vassal or bishop, then you can look it up no sooner than it takes to click on their name. The inclusion of this feature is fantastic for the more curious of players that appreciate knowing who they are playing as, or who is sieging their land, it’s a surprise no other grand strategy title has done it already."

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Covered in "In the news", thanks to you both. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That'll be covered in the next issue of the discussion report. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently running a poll to find out why so few people are putting in requests for main page featured articles. I'd appreciate a mention in this week's signpost. Raul654 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Noted in the discussion report, thanks Raul. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter is now at over 600,000 articles. Recently, a tool was made to help that number go down. Now, after two attempts for a bot were shot down, one editor made a plea for more people to get involved in this. So, why not the Signpost? Just asking people to try to do ten each would be okay. It isn't that hard. -- BCS (t · c · !) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd cover in Tech but I really need a news angle. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:51, 4 March 2012 (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 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20