Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-08-02

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-08-02. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution (4,423 bytes · 💬)

Headlines

Are the backronyms really necessary? Are you saying the demographic for the Signpost is the Beavis and Butt-head crowd? Tho better than the old TROLL one, why not just use descriptive headers like on 07-19? -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-03t15:40z

There is a related discussion here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Noting that the comments at that discussion, combined with what I've heard off-wiki, were unanimous in dropping the "litigation" and "troll" part *for the views that supported a change to the original "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" title* - but there's been a fairly even split as to what type of header would otherwise be preferred *some preference was expressed for dispute resolution, some to abandon the acronyms for descriptive headers, some to keep the original, etc.*. More feedback is welcome, desired, and needed on many levels so that I'm not restricted on what I can do by the subject of this report - at the end of the day, I'm trying to give readers what they want (be it in what information readers wish to find out about, what matters readers want to look into a little bit more after reading this report, or even what headers readers prefer). Feedback is all that I'm using to accomplish this, and more feedback at that discussion (about the headers of the report) would be appreciated. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are summarizing that discussion accurately: The comments by Pretzels and NuclearWarfare clearly supported keeping the "T.R.O.L.L.".

I left the new title in place when publishing this issue, but it should also be noted that the extra "and" is a bit ugly - it actually gives "TaLDR", not "TLDR". How about just dropping the "and"?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right; have corrected what should have written with *asterisks*. I was thinking of dropping the and, but was trying to be consistent with the Tech report's brion (which has an "and" after Repairs), though the header for this week's Tech Report was changed since the last time I checked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're hitting a good balance between objective, good-quality reporting and a pleasant read - it would be a shame to upset that by removing what are only harmless jokes. I like the Signpost's slightly offbeat personality! — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the TLDR thing is funny, without being obtrusive. --PresN 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

^ ditto; it made me smile :). Not seeing why other users find it problematic. AGK 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Arbitration is not litigation, so dropping 'litigation' from the title is an improvement. –xeno^talk 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What we call arbitration is nothing like Arbitration either, so not much improvement there. Skomorokh 14:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Don't want to get into a tricky and lengthy debate regarding it, but is it not a process through which two or more parties use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute ? –xeno^talk 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • It is not. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: The best of the week (1,940 bytes · 💬)

Thumperward certainly deserves adminship. I hope when I'm in uni (which, of course, is one big dream) I can get my name up there, with 'Wikipedian since 8'. :) I'll be, like, 20 by then. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the picture of Ernest Borgnine aptly summarizes my thoughts on the excellent style this page has taken recently - hats off 'n smiles :) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I really do like the new fleshing out of new admins, promotions to featured status etc. Makes them come to life. So much better than the bald way they were done before.--86.74.186.220 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are doing a fantastic job at this section, really very fun to read. Sadads (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for your kind words. Readership of F and A has increased since the new format was introduced; I hope that translates to more page views and editorial involvement for the promoted articles and media as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the format is very good. ResMar 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed (7,186 bytes · 💬)

• I just want to say that I've heard the "consensus vs. credentials" argument before, and from Sanger. I think that criticism is purely wrongheaded. It is impossible to pay attention to credentials without making room for bias to creep in. If we were to write Economics from a credential-based system (which Citizendium either has done or will do), we might get some Keynsian vs Monetarism disputes. The non-experts would be ignored, and the experts would use WP as a battleground, whichever side having more actual editors winning. You'd end up with a totally biased article. I'd also like to note that evidently Sanger hasn't (or won't) read Citizendium's article on Homeopathy. In that case, instead of a battleground, there were no experts to represent the "homeopathy is crap" opinion, so the article noticeably lacks it (or has it squeezed into the bottom section; here's a quote: "The “balance of evidence” as to whether homeopathy has any effects other than placebo effects depends on who is balancing the evidence."). Now read our article on homeopathy (I hope we can all agree that homeopathy is crap, right? Our article says "Homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence." and has ~8 citations after that sentence). Results speak for themselves. (I won't even bother with the perennial "how many (approved) articles do they have now?" because we've all heard it before)

End of rant. Has anyone seen [1]? --NYKevin @186, i.e. 03:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll be in next week's issue. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-22/In_the_news#Role_of_experts_on_Wikipedia_and_Citizendium_examined and the talk page there, the quite harsh criticism of Citizendium at RationalWiki, or, if I may, [2] (and the links there). Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Far too many interviews with Singer on Wikipedia can be summarized in a simple series of questions-&-answers: (1) Are there problems with how Wikipedia works? [yes] (2) Does Singer think Citizendium is a better model, despite indications to the contrary? [yes] (3) Has Singer said anything new? [not in this interview] (I am not criticizing the authors of this article, just pointing out that Singer really hasn't said anything new or thoughtful about Wikipedia in a long time.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a point in (1) and (2), but if you look at the version history, you will see that I rewrote the story to cut out some of that repetitive stuff. The Slate interviewer asked some good questions and in reply Sanger did say some interesting things which to my knowledge he hasn't said before:

• His admission that he didn't have a special interest in encyclopedias before being hired for Nupedia (it has sometimes been implied that the topic of his Ph.D. thesis sort of predisposed him to be an encyclopedist), and that having had more knowledge about the history of encyclopedias would have been useful in the early years of WP and Nupedia. Also, the comment about Winchester's book
• Acknowledging that "basic facts" on Wikipedia are "fairly accurate" (I seem to recall other comments where he qualified his WP criticism in that respect, but not this clearly)
• Offering a clear explanation for CZ's lack of growth

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I really enjoyed the Gardner interview when I read it earlier this week. Her characterization of Wikipedia content-writers as (and I am paraphrasing) a nerd-army of young males with project-specific writing missions rang true — bearing in mind that the "young" part doesn't necessarily apply to me, ha ha. The desire to expand the circle of content-writers geographically, by age, and by gender seems well-intentioned, appropriate, and desirable. Her analysis gave me a lot of hope.

As for Sanger, his song remains the same. He blithely ignores the fact that the expert-reviewed-and-approved model has been a huge failure twice now, at Nupedia and at Citizendium. Wikipedia has structural issues, to be sure, but it is based upon a living, breathing, growing, functioning model that works. I think it would be good for the world if Sanger would fold his tent and to bring the debate back in-house. Somehow he has confused WP with Lord of the Flies though, so that doesn't seem terribly likely at this juncture. Still, Sanger has something to say and it would be good if he was saying it in person here rather that running it through the media to our ears second hand.

Nice job on the Signpost one and all. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They don't want to be paid. They want to be praised." I'm not sure that we really do want to be praised. Being receptive to praise from outsiders implies that we care about what they think, which in turn implies that we will be receptive to criticism ("I never use Wikipedia, it's such a waste of time"), which, over time, may make us question whether or not we want to continue editing. I don't want my editing to be affected by the moods of the largely ignorant masses. I would much prefer to just sit here under my rock and do my own thing. I suspect I am not alone in this perspective. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the praise in question is internal. I can't speak to whether newer editors are around for external impact reasons, but certainly every editor when I joined (including me) became a regular because they were a little obsessive-compulsive about their pet topic/activity, and the respect of other editors that you already respect is a powerful motivator. If the community's primary motivation was external popularity, the site would never have gotten off the ground. - BanyanTree 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• A more skeptical view of the "Discover" app: [3]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports (851 bytes · 💬)

• Well in terms of ID'ing guests of the wedding, there is a list of wedding guests available here: http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=5493 Tabercil (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh.. was about say.. who's the "unidentified" guy?? -- œ^™ 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wonderful portraits, great job to the photographers and to the Wikimedia chapters that got them this opportunity. It's an exciting day when talented Wikimedia journalists are given the same privileges as commercial ones. Dcoetzee 06:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more (1,173 bytes · 💬)

• Perhaps I'm in a minority here, but I was delighted to wake up to the release of MediaWiki 1.16.0. Downloaded and installed it right away. It's very exciting. :) Reach Out to the Truth 00:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would support mandatory secure login and a minimum password length, at least for admins. Requiring the inclusion of numbers is a bad idea, however. The way most users respond to such mandates is very predictable and so they add little in the way of password strength and can even weaken passwords if the predictable digit at the end of a password replaces a more random letter. And shifting to numbers is awkward on devices like the iPhone or iPad.--agr (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Preibusch's comments have already inspired some new MediaWiki code, a JavaScript-based password complexity checker: rev:70520. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)