Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-05-14. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure (9,699 bytes · 💬)

Might I ask please that something is made clearer? The notifications to the new parties were posted on 5th May,[1], [2] over a week before the case closed. (At time of writing it is still not closed but likely to close today.) Perhaps in the circumstances "He explained that he did in fact notify the new parties of these developments" could be changed to "He explained that the new parties were notified on 5th May, over a week before the case closed" or similar. Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. I'm sure LR will be onto this.

Tony (talk)

05:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Done -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the image add here? I would suggest it's confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I also don't think the images add anything, but I don't find it confusing as much as I do 'overly cutesy to the point that it's a turnoff' Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The second case has not been actually been closed yet. People have voted to close, but a clerk has not closed it.--Rockfang (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice decisions. Well done arbs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The "secret mailing list" accusations were made by User:Anupam, not User:Hipocrite who brought the case on the basis that the allegation had been made. In fact Hipocrite himself initially raised the possibility of false accusations, and later came to the conclusion that they were indeed false: [3]. 169.231.55.127 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have not responded to the proposed decision in the case yet. In the proposed decision the drafting arbitrator introduces additional assertions not covered in the evidence phase, and additional diffs, backed up with loaded language that verge on making the drafting arbitrator a party to the case. Since this is new evidence and new accusations (I think it is safe to use the word "accusations" since any pretence that this is an arbitration rather than a prosecution has long since been discarded), I have asked for time to compose a response. Moreover, since I do not intend to spend a significant number of hours a day working on this, as I have on the encyclopaedia proper, I am anticipating this will be more than just one or two days.
Meanwhile if anyone reading this has an opinion on killing Helpful Pixie Bot and Femto Bot, or on my being de-sysopped, they are invited to state it at the talk page

Happy editing! Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

- I've commented there about how this canvassing is inappropriate. Hope that helps. Now please don't do this again. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you would like to re-read WP:CANVASS. I didn't ask for support, I asked for opinion. Support is of course welcome, but so are (even slightly rude) comments on the "other side". Informed opinion is even better. Constructive criticism can of course, be left at my talk page at any time, or emailed to me, but, unless urgent, is unlikely to be acted upon until the case is closed. Rich Farmbrough, 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC).

The "smaller chamber" caption is cute but rather misleading, especially in relation to the story it illustrates. Ten Committee members discussed Altenmann's appeal, and then it went to the community where nearly thirty people discussed the matter, meaning the chamber approached nearly forty participants. That is rather a larger number than would normally decide a ban appeal. Be interesting for a Signpost reporter to look into the records to see if this was actually the largest number of participants in a ban appeal decision. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay! I get it! No cute pictures in the future...throws away box of adorable courtroom photos :P Lord Roem (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are quite a few editors that do not support Arbcom's decision and think their decision against Rich is both stupid and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. At the very least there are several of us that agree that the decision was too draconian for an offense that primarily relies on arguments against minor edits. Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And puzzling, given they have not been able to establish a principle about unblocking one's own bots (principles 7, 8, and 9 failed to achieve passing). "We can't agree on what exactly you did wrong, but you did it wrong and we're taking your sysop bit". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- To be brutally frank, there is so much wrong with the way this case was handled, on so many levels, that I can't even begin to list the problems. Some of them would not have affected the outcome but are stunningly bad. Others might be understandable, but do not reflect well on the arbitrators at all, given that something like this should be carried out with utmost scrupulousness. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
  - Also note that the discussion page has been protected, apparently as well as refusing to wait for my comments on the case, the committee have decided discussion is not a good thing. Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
    - I suspect it was done as much because they are tired of talking about the case as much as they were tired of hearing how badly the case was performed. Kumioko (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
      - Actually, the Committee does that every time a case is closed. Lord Roem (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
        From what I understand, it's only recently become vogue for them to do so. I challenged a clerk about this, and they were unable to provide any link to any discussion or directive that this should be the case. I think the community is forgetting that ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        I don't know about policy, but I can tell you that its been practice at least since January. Lord Roem (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        The only fully protected talk page on any case closed this year is one of the RF case talk pages. One. One other talk page was semi protected for "persistent sockpuppetry". No other talk pages are protected. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        
        There are several discussions even outside of Wiki. I have seen stuff so far on Reddit and twitter as well as the evil Wikipedia report site. The general gist of all of them seems to be that its pretty lame and stupid of Wikipedia to all but ban 1 of 2 editors to make the Millionaires club and complete a million edits. Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem is now an Arb Clerk.... I'm sure there is no relation between that and his somewhat inaccurate defence of the page protection. Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

I'm glad I'm not the only one that found that to be somewhat suspicious. Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week (845 bytes · 💬)

Picture blocks other picture. Dan653 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which one? I don't see it, even changing window sizes. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Err... Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Neville/archive1 - promoted 12 May ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! Hope I have rectified. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice job with all the summaries, as usual. Kaldari (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic (2,243 bytes · 💬)

I'm unclear how the title of this story corresponds to the content of the article. Is it a reference to the new editor's concern about the complexity of the policies & rules? Regards, RJH (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody seriously believe anymore that "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy"? Kansan (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"59 percent of highly prolific editors felt that social problems on wiki are important, falling to 53 percent for editors with > 1000 edits, and only 22 percent of users with fewer than 100 edits." — My take on this is that the feisty backstage Wikipedia culture is apparently not the thing causing the decline in rate of editor retention. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly. I took a different read on that, tho, which was that the very-low-count (new) editors simply hadn't yet had their first experience with a Wikipedia "editorial flamewar" (as good a term as any). When that (inevitably) occurs, it either drives them off or doesn't (the retention issue) — but among those who stay, the majority come to see it as a real problem. And even among us sufficiently thick-skinned, the longer we're here, the more likely we are to be bothered by it. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been here a while and the unpleasantries do take their toll. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agree with FeRD and RJH Smallbones (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Or one could say that no matter how thick your skin is, given enough flamewars -- editorial or otherwise -- it will get to you eventually. -- llywrch (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we need a "flame retardant" barnstar?

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication (14,511 bytes · 💬)

It's so rare that I find myself agreeing with Jimbo, or indeed am able to read quotes of his without getting miffed, that I almost stopped reading halfway through. Jimbo really is a good speaker when he's talking about free culture stuff (as opposed to his quotes on China, also carried by the Signpost, in which his total lack of area expertise showed through). Interesting read, thanks Tony1. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing article, thanks Tony1 (and daniel, of course). This is a crucial topic, I'm happy and excited to see what it's going to happen. Aubrey (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a very informative and well-written article. To complement the statement "As many editors know, a frustrating aspect of using Wikipedia as a serious tool for knowledge acquisition is that article references often link to sources that require a credit card" by some hard data, let mention the recent blog post about the Foundation's editor survey (also covered in this week's News and Notes), where 39 percent of respondents named "lack of access to research materials like scholarly articles or books" among the top three problems that make it harder for them to contribute to Wikipedia. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it very comforting to hear Daniel say that the current publishing practices are not the result of thoughtful consideration of all the options the world gained at the advent of Internet, but rather just the continuation of old practices which have not been reconsidered. I think that many people believe that organizations do things in the way they do to get some great benefit, but the reality is that many communities simply have not yet come to realize what great untapped potential could be enjoyed if more people understood the consequences of adopting open access policies. What an inspiring article this is! As an individual, it makes me feel empowered that by telling others about open access I am doing something with an impact. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I have long wondered why we restrict the distribution of knowledge and images by using the CC-BY-SA license instead of CC-BY. CC-BY is a much "freer" license. It allows a much wider distribution of info and images than CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA is another one of those true-believer religious beliefs similar to the old "non-profit" only license promoters that have gone by the wayside. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, firstly, we do have images that are CC-BY. CC-BY-SA is used for text because it's what is compatible with the GFDL, the previously used licence. GFDL was selected for Wikipedia because it was supposed to be a feeder project for Nupedia, which was by that point GFDL-licensed. Nupedia adopted the GFDL at the urgings of Richard Stallman, a compatible(ish) replacement for their custom Nupedia Open Content License, which was also viral by nature. I'm not entirely certain why Snager & Wales made the NOCL viral, you'd have to ask them; in any case the point is that the CC-BY vs. CC-BY-SA boat sailed a long, long time ago in very different circumstances and with probably very different considerations. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting history. There are many ways to distribute info and images, and some of them may end up copyrighted. CC-BY is just easier to understand, and better all-around. If Wikipedia's text and media ends up in copyrighted material for sale, then that is fine by me. Wikipedia and the original image copyright holders still own the images and text, and so it will be forever free. At least at the source on Wikipedia and on the Commons. I think CC-BY-SA only adds a layer of confusion. Share alike is too much to ask for derivative images, text compilations, etc.. People pass stuff on in their books, blogs, websites, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to bust anyone's chops over this article -- from which I learned a lot -- but doing some further reading on this issue showed me that this article has a major hole in it. The author of this points out a significant barrier to shifting academic publishing from its current model to a more free one: if an academic doesn't publish a paper in one of a select few periodicals, then that academic will have no career prospects. It doesn't take much thought to realize that these key periodicals have the leverage to charge as much as the market may bear -- & then some. The old saw "Publish or perish" should be revised to "Publish with the right publishers or perish." -- llywrch (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- (PS Another blog on this topic is here, and its followup. -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC))
- You are right in pointing out that the way in which academic career prospects are currently intertwined with publications represents "a significant barrier to shifting academic publishing from its current model to a more free one". The Boston Globe op ed that is linked from the article (written by the same Michael Eisen as the two blog posts you linked to in the comment above) puts it that way:

“

The solution is obvious: universities must stop outsourcing vital functions to publishers. They need to shift the currency of academic success from the title of the journal in which a scholar’s works are published to the inherent quality of their research. And they need to immediately stop spending money on journal subscriptions, investing instead in the new forms of scholarly communication appropriate for the Internet age.

”

-- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In most areas of biology, there are open Access journals of as high quality and prestige as any published by the commercial publishers. In the other sciences, this is not yet the case--and the problem is not due to the commercial publishers alone; in chemistry, for example, the overwhelmingly most prestigious publisher is the American Chemical Society, a non-commercial scientific society, but its journals are not open access. The members of the society control this, and have not yet sufficient understood their own self-interest well enough to change it. There is no broad field of science where all the most prestigious journals are published by the commercial publishers. Libraries buy whatever journals the faculty insist on: librarians have the least power of any group in the scientific publication system. The researchers who both read the journals and publish in them, are the ones with the power to immediately change the system. Until now, their focused interest in their own careers has over-ridden their concern for the spread of scientific knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from the journalist. The 11,000 signatures on the declaration will be important if they staunch the flow of top-notch submissions to Elsevier. That would make Elsevier work just a little to attract the best, thus sustaining their high citation levels, impact factors (IFs), prestige, and thus profit margins. (I wonder whether anyone will be checking that the signatories comply with their undertaking?)

A few interesting conundrums are at issue in this historic shift. The hierarchy of journals—whether free, paywalled, or dead-tree—will continue to be underpinned by exclusivity of content. Here, rationing is a commodity, a currency; it's a significant part of how a journal achieves a high IF, which in turn attracts good free copy and prestigious citations. This circular feedback loop operates naturally, but without the right competitive environment the likelihood is that it will end up serving some players in the industry and some knowledge producers at the expense of others. I don't see that this is good for intellectual advances.

It's a greater threat to the dead-tree pay-for-public-knowledge industry if open-access journals, at least in these early stages (like PLoS1) are both picky and not too numerous. As long as enough open access is A-grade, the shift should be self-sustaining. Later, as more open-access journals become available in each field, the hierarchy and competitive forces will be subject to re-organisation.

The situation is yet more complex because of a number of highly unsatisfactory features in the current model. For example:

There's much unfairness between the fields in terms of IFs. Engineering is particularly hard done by high-performing engineering researchers who resent the easy ride their cousins in physics receive. It flows through into disparities in h-indexes too, of course. Because of this, engineers often do poorly by comparison in the running for multi-field awards and grants. And let's not even mention the other fields outside the physical sciences.
There's a problem in scoping: how many superb submissions to Nature and Science have I seen returned with a note to the effect that "this is too narrow for our readership"? Sometimes people are relegated to submitting to low-IF journals for this reason alone. And in such fields as biology there's a geographical problem, too: make stunning advances mainly relevant to Canadian fisheries and you'll find you have to publish in the lower-ranked Canadian Journal of X.
IFs for newly and recently launched journals are often non-existent or relatively low, despite the quality of their content. This inhibits the entry of new journals.

Then there are the journals that cook things to increase their IFs in ways that don't reflect the quality of their content; it's hard to point the finger specifically, but we know it goes on.

The move to open-access might need to take these multiple factors into account: a revolution is a good time to fix up traditional arrangements that restrict the dissemination and re-use of taxpayer-funded advances, generate enormous financially flows from the restrictions, and create distortions that don't always align with scientific and scholastic goals and the notion of career fairness. $Tony (talk)$ 04:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think my single biggest frustration in trying to produce really good content is constantly coming up against paywalls. Google Scholar search finds me the exact thing I want ... but I click on it and find that that bit's not mentioned in the abstract, and I'd have to pay to get the full article. Which I can't afford. I could do so much more, so much better, if I could get to anything I wanted, easily, without having to try and find someone else who has access. Pesky (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV verb

Could we please get a more NPOV verb than "revealing"? I'd say "claiming" would be more accurate, but "stating" would probably be deemed more NPOV. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

By any objective benchmark, it was revealing. I'd have advised Fowler against unloading in that way to a Guardian journalist. $Tony (talk)$ 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, the above article statement, -- The Guardian quoted Fowler as revealing that "being portrayed as the ‘enemies of science’ is 'downright wrong'. It's hurtful to spend your life trying to advance science and medicine and be told you're blocking it." -- is misleading because the Signpost puts into quotes words for which there is no evidence in the Guardian article that Fowler actually said. Then, in case the Wikpiedia reader missed that, the Signpost threw in the word "quoted" in a way that attributed Guardian words to Fowler himself that were not from Fowler. Rather, it is the Signpost, who wasn't at the Fowler interview, that quoted the Guardian's "being portrayed as the ..." characterization of Fowler's statement. The Signpost itself then threw its own POV characterization about the information being "revealing." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for spotting.

Tony (talk)

15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response? (6,100 bytes · 💬)

I actually liked the "bold unread watchlist items" idea, for the short time it was around. I looked through preferences, but I couldn't find an option to enable it. I read the village pump discussion, and is there any way to add it back on without adding code directly to a user page of mine? Also, were there other options besides bolding items (like italics, green stars, etc.)? David1217 (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CUSTOMWATCH, the talkpage and an ongoing survive should be mentioned (linked at the talkpage)
- Oh and by the way: "May 16 at 21:00" - in which time zone? UTC? ^^ mabdul 00:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Good question, and not one I think I know the answer to. I would also assume UTC though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am a big fan of the bold unread watchlist feature and continuing to use it - copy my common.css into yours to re-enable it. Dcoetzee 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

When you write something like "users are now able to 'opt in' to show the changes in bold, italics or other styling by way of personal preference", please indicate where in the preferences the setting may be found. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't using "preference" there in the technical sense, only to mean "choice". So basically, yeah, WP:CUSTOMWATCH. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re AFT5 - this all appears to be old news. It's been deployed on articles since last year. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, yes, I probably should have noticed that. Presumably I merely misunderstood what Mathew wrote, so until he can say for sure what angle he was going for, I'll remove the IB, which is posted below for transparency. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Version 5 of Article Feedback tool goes live to trial articles: Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 has now been deployed selectively on certain pages (for example, Eduardo Saverin). This is for experimentation only, and the developers ask that editors not disable the tool from pages on which it is deployed. A special help page has also been recently created. Feedback collected by the latest version of the tool will then undergo analysis; metrics generated (such as signal-to-noise ratio and what aspects of a page users actually comment on, etc.) will then influence future design decisions ahead of a yet-to-be-scheduled broader rollout of the version.

"the watchlist formatting change was the result of a real local consensus, although questions are now being asked as to whether or not two dozen editors should be considered to have surpassed a requisite quorum for such changes." — Yet another failure of clique decision-making under the blanket of "consensus" made in a political climate where "canvassing" is prohibited. The answer to such periodic failures is the implementation of democracy, which would involve vesting trusted editors to gain voting rights, centralization and publicity of decision-making, and actual counting of actual votes. Since Wikipedia's governance model is highly conservative and an almost textbook definition of inertia, the chances of such changes being made approach zero. But, just so y'all know, that is what needs to be done if such problems are to be fixed. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No licensing problem with CSS Janus - MediaWiki is "GPLv2 or later," allowing licensees to comply with either GPL v2 or v3. So someone who wants to distribute the code (like Fedora) can comply by conforming to the terms of the Apache-compatible GPL v3. This means we don't have to explicitly move to GPLv3 only. Alternately, anyone who wants to comply only with GPL v2 can retain the option of excising the ASL code. We may explore the possibility of explicitly moving to the GPLv3 (or later) as a means of creating a little less confusing situation, but there's no license violation in our current use. See T38747 -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well yes, but the fact that MediaWiki is GPLv2+ (rather than simply GPLv2) is not widely advertised, and indeed the current MediaWiki download page describes how "MediaWiki is free software licensed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License" / the content of COPYING is the GPLv2. Clearly, if code within MediaWiki is not compatible with version 2, that needs to be widely advertised or reusers are naturally going to wander into the licensing trap here, which't isn't altogether fair on them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  - If people have to remove CSSJanus to in order to distribute MediaWiki as GPL v2, perhaps we could provide instructions on how to do so without breaking anything? I might try this myself and write something on MediaWiki.org. Reach Out to the Truth 14:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse (1,986 bytes · 💬)

I frequently meet new users offline, and it is a great comfort to me to know that when I tell someone about Wikipedia I do not have to be their sole guide into the Wikipedia community. Previously I was sometimes shy about even mentioning Wikipedia to some people in some contexts, because everyone knows Wikipedia and everyone always has lots of questions for anyone they meet who calls themselves a Wikipedian! Now I know that when I meet someone and tell them about Wikipedia, I can talk to them only as much as I like and then I can end the conversation by saying, "Wow! You are lucky! There is actually a place on Wikipedia for new users, and they want to answer all your questions! Check out the Teahouse!" This works for the Wikipedia:Ambassador program, at WP:EDITATHONs, any other kind of outreach events, at parties, or anywhere else where people start talking about Wikipedia. This pilot project is off to a great start and I hope it becomes part of the new user experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse is the best and most positive step forward on Wikipedia for some time. It remains to be seen whether it will have the long term effect that is desired, but I think it just might, mainly by acting as a catalyst for social change. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC).
Very glad to see that the project is still going strong 7 years later! And that it does offer a distinct service from the WP:HELPDESK. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-05-14