Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-11-08

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-11-08. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Election report: The countdown begins (3,024 bytes · 💬)

• Has there ever been an arbitrator that wasn't an admin?--Rockfang (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, although I am not sure if any have been elected. All current and former arbitrators appear to have been admins at some point, but at least one, UninvitedCompany, was not an admin when appointed. Skomorokh 13:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• It may interest you to learn that non-admins have come close to being elected in recent years, most notably Giano in 2007 (with 57% support) and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back in 2008 (with 56%). The best-supported non-admin in last year's election was Cla68, with 46%. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 13:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Interesting question, and Skomorokh has answered more specifically than I was about to. In my private opinion, it is a candidate's skill-base that matters, not whether they are an admin. Non-admins who believe they have this skill-base are, of course, just as welcome as admins to stand. Apparently diversity on the Committee is valued by both the arbs (see the interview linked to in the box top right of this article) and the community as a whole. Tony (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Gutza was not an admin while he was an arbitrator; see his RFA. Graham87 13:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a relevant list of former arbitrators, indicating a few who were not administrators during all or some of their service, here. There has been past discussion of whether non-admins should serve as arbitrators. I appreciate that non-admin arbitrators could bring a different perspective to the committee. However, it would be difficult to decide some cases and other matters that come before the committee without administrator userrights (principally the ability to review deleted revisions). So we would probably have to either have any non-admin arbitrator either go thorugh RfA (which he or she would presumably pass at that point) or confer some sort of temporary adminship for him or her to serve most effectively as an arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science (815 bytes · 💬)

Call me picky, but would it be possible to modify the FA template so we can have italics? This week, Lavanify should have been Lavanify, Dustbin Baby (film) should have been Dustbin Baby (film) and The Story of Miss Moppet should have been The Story of Miss Moppet. As this is exactly the kind of thing that would be picked up in a thorough FAC... J Milburn (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you're picky. I've put in the italics. Tony (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement (5,623 bytes · 💬)

• For those of you who are not aware, there exists a Bounty board where editors can post bounties, which are promises of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation in exchange for certain articles being upgraded to GA or FA status. For those of you who are unable to donate, this is an excellent way to still contribute to the fundraiser. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Will there be an option to opt-out or suppress the fundraiser banners, as there was last year? (I just had a peek at my preferences settings, & didn't see the checkbox that was there last year.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure whether anyone has taken the lead on the local projects for setting that up, but there will be a "hide" button on the banners themselves. (It's a little x in the top right of the banner). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  I imagine there will be a gadget created in short order. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw that "x" on the first banner that accosted me. I clicked on that "x" & that banner went away. Now I'd like to be sure I never see another banner for the rest of this fundraiser. -- llywrch (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

  Click x and it's gone. Lose a cookie and it's back. Add a line to your custom stylesheet and it's gone gone gone. Enough time wasted on this nonsense and back to the interesting stuff. Superp (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Last year we needed 8 million dollars, this year we somehow need 16 million to be able to exist, how come? Everyone know that to run Wikipedia we need servers and we have to pay for bandwidth + some other expenses (a lawyer, some IT guys) but it seems to me that the limits for what a fund-raiser should be, both in money and time used, now is being stretched. I think that one month of running a banner is enough - and the money that comes with that month is what Wikimedia Foundation can use for the coming year. Ulflarsen (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation has about doubled its staff. Some of them seem to be working on publicizing Wikipedia and trying to attract more editors. I do not have all the facts in front of me, and I sure would like for someone to repeat to us, periodically, what the bulk of the money is planned to be spent on (big ticket items is all I'm asking for), why Wikimedia needs to double its budget, and whether this will continue every year. Really, I think it is in Wikimedia's interests to be very transparent about this, since you are asking us to volunteer our time and, goodness knows, emotionally invest, in the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Two months?! Have previous fundraisers really been that long? Having a fundraiser that runs for 17% of the year seems a bit much. Fingers crossed for banners which are less obnoxious than previous years (particularly 2009). Modest Genius ^talk 23:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Last year we needed 8 million dollars, this year we somehow need 16 million to be able to exist, how come?" - perhaps if you read the link in this article to the 2010-2011 spending plans? Ditto for: "I sure would like for someone to repeat to us, periodically, what the bulk of the money is planned to be spent on (big ticket items is all I'm asking for)". --bodnotbod (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To Bodnotbod: I have read the link and I know about the plans for expanding the activities of the Foundation, so I am not unaware of what the money is supposed to go to. What I don't like is the way this is sold, we have to raise 16 million dollars as I can not see that is right. I don't have to reach that goal, if we get the same amount as last year, or less, I be just as happy as my basic editing and reading on Wikipedia will not be harmed, as the added money is not about that. It may sound like a small detail, but "this year we will try to raise 16 million" would be a whole lot different.

The second thing is the time frame, two months. Everyone knows we need money to have servers etc, but two months is long, too long in my opinion. If you have a one month fundraiser, then you are able to cover a "window of money" so to say - as most people get their pay within a month's time. When we extend the fundraiser to double that time it just becomes an irritant. I will give and I do so after my payday which is the 25, and that's it - and this is how it is for most people I would assume. WMF should be very careful with how they treat the trust that the contributors to Wikipedia - you and me - have built up over the last ten years. Ulflarsen (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary (1,573 bytes · 💬)

(from the image) "Establish your web presence!" → If that is not a call for spamming and blatant paid editing, I don't know what is. –MuZemike 00:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no—WP:COI does not absolutely prohibit people who know about a topic (such as a particular organization) from adding information about it to Wikipedia (nor should it). On the other hand, it is easy to cross the line into distorting the truth to serve interests, and we have to police the line. The realistic middle ground is that people should disclose if they have any interest in the organization (employee of a company, shareholder, member of a nonprofit association, whatever) and that they not turn into owners of the article, so that outside voices have equal weight in shaping the article. So I agree with you that we need to be vigilant to enforce "the right way to edit on a topic you're close to". But some Wikipedians twist that into "if you're not a complete outsider to that organization, then the very act of clicking the "edit" button is inherently an ethical violation." That doesn't reflect the actual WP:COI guideline. (MuZemike, this isn't a reply only to you specifically—I'm just talking about the whole range of interpretations of WP:COI that I sometimes see on talk pages around the encyclopedia.) — ¾-10 20:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, citation needed for sanity (5,736 bytes · 💬)

Safe, harmless, giant atomic bomb? The Dark Peria (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

The summary by RW looks potentially controversial, as it suggests (not-so-subtly) that Sanger has been embezzling money (or at least that there have been serious financial irregularities). I always thought that Sanger was a good but misguided person, I never thought something like this would happen; Sanger is a philosoper and Jimbo is/was a businessman -- this seems like role-reversal to me (Jimbo is now--to an extent--"in charge of" the largest encyclopedia ever and Sanger is accused of embezzling). --NYKevin @797, i.e. 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of embezzlement. Powers ^T 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From RationalWiki: "The obvious question is whether Sanger himself pocketed $30,000 for his work on Citizendium and then jumped ship." Close enough. --NYKevin @247, i.e. 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not close enough at all to introduce the word "embezzling" here, which I find quite irresponsible of you. If you read it in context with the previous sentence ("only two individuals received any compensation for their work on the project and they were Larry Sanger and an initial technical director"), "pocketed" clearly refers to the payment that has been openly stated at CZ:Personnel for a long time, i.e. money that can be presumed to have been intended by the donor for that purpose. The accusation by Rationalwiki would be that Sanger was only interested in working for CZ as long as he got a salary for it, and "jumped ship" (probably a reference to the Financial Times blog post last year[1]) when it stopped, or maybe also that the payment was too high. I am not sure these are fair charges, but in any case they are not asserting that illegal activities took place. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether "embezzling" applied, so I qualified it with "serious financial irregularities," which arguable have happened if RW is to be believed. --NYKevin @682, i.e. 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I apolgoize, NYKevin; I overlooked that by "RW" you mean "RationalWiki". Even so, I agree with HaeB that the quoted text is not an accusation of embezzlement. Powers ^T 12:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also: "This left $20,000-$30,000 completely unaccounted for." Finally, I'd like to clarify that I'm not sure whether RW is perfectly accurate on this, nor am I sure who can be blamed for it if the numbers are accurate (I have not checked the numbers). I don't take any position on whether Sanger did or did not do anything unethical. --NYKevin @250, i.e. 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Too early to use the term "embezzle" without further proof, but what I find interesting is the reaction of citizendium to the crisis, or should I say lack of it. It appears in their discussions there has been no effort to investigate where the "missing" money went. We know from the donors page that at least US$75,000 was donated, maybe more not listed, and that $30,000 was blown on an unreliable server set-up. What happened to the remaining missing money has not been fully accounted for and probably wont be - citizendium didn't keep records nor financial statements, and they never appointed a treasurer or donors officer. What else that is intriguing is that there is no move to set-up a proper accounts system, so the same problem with donors moneys may likely happen again. Czobserver (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that a donation drive among CZ members is in preparation - here is a call for an US lawyer who would be willing to give pro bono advice on how to do so. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Save Citizendium, help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

A partial explanation of where the money went is here. --Banana (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

User:Shimgray/Citation needed is a nice overview of references to the tag in popular culture. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (5,428 bytes · 💬)

• Yet another reason to hate the vector skin! Who's gonna notice another cool boring skyblue box in a sea of boring cool sky blue? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the color change, please comment on the bug. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I'll be changing it back for me, certainly. But I support it for new users who are less... nostalgic. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, especially for vandalizing IPs. Is there a link to a discussion about this change? —Ost (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what the developers are spending their time on? Really?? ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this would take about five seconds to implement. The whole story at the top is that developers are spending their time on :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cf. color of the bikeshed ... Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

RIP - Hideous orange colour. As ugly as it is, I'm going to miss it. On a related note, I like the new powered by mediawiki button. Bawolff (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The signpost kinda missed that, huh? You can thank Kevin Ingersoll for submitting that (into the public domain) via OTRS. See File:Poweredby mediawiki 88x31.png and File:Wikimedia-button-for-homepage.png. Killiondude (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll have to think about ways to make new messages more visible for new users irrespective of the background color. Over the years I've seen lots of anecdotal evidence (individual users saying they didn't notice the bar for months) that it's not an intuitive mechanism.--Eloquence* 19:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of surprising, I can't imagine people going around for months without noticing what's this giant ugly yellow bar taking up all my screen real estate. Bawolff (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Many people have very good visual filters for stuff that doesn't appear to be relevant to them. It's how we manage to survive horrible, cluttered websites. :-) --Eloquence* 18:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally like orange (and vector, for vector haters) rather than blue. If they can't have orange, do lime, but please, sky blue is way not eye-catching. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the graph :) -- hashar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.209.14 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand why a color change is even needed? Is it necessary? There's nothing wrong with the current message bar. -- œ^™ 01:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  It makes them feel like they're doing something. Gurch (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • That's why I never switched over to Vector skin. I just like the "retro" feel of using monobook and also because I'm familiar with the sidebars, layouts, and the buttons. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, I often feel that people incorrectly assume that Vector was supposed to help established editors. It wasn't, and it's no wonder some people decided to switch back, which is totally understandable (personally, I prefer Vector, but there you go). Gurch probably has a point (see recent discussions on code deployment times, for example). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Vector too but I just don't see the need for changing the color of the new message bar.. why now?? If they wanted it to mesh with the rest of Vector's color scheme why didn't they do it then? -- œ^™ 19:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject California (1,764 bytes · 💬)

• Images are available at Portal:California/Selected_picture/Archives. ǝɥʇM0N0 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm trying to elaborate on a page in the California topic. Wikipedia's mention of The Mineta Transportation Institute, affiliated with San Jose State University, is currently a stub. We (the people who "own" the Institute) have tried to enlarge the content with much more detail. But it's always reverted back to the stub. How do we work with someone to post the necessary information? Donna Maurillo ("GinaCucina")GinaCucina (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gina, I've no idea why you've posted here, but anyway, the problems with your version include apparent copyright violation, adding an instance of file:example.jpg, and removing categories. In future, I suggest you use the article talk page, or your user talk page, where I've left a note. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify my reference to the Culture of California in the beginning of this article: Just because California has a very large internet population, it does not necessarily mean that most Californian Wikipedians want to edit "general California topics" as per the scope of the California WikiProject. Since California is a melting pot of a diverse range of interests and tastes, more Californian Wikipedians tend to want to edit and focus more on these specific, narrow topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)