Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-05-21

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-05-21. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending (2,008 bytes · 💬)

You gonna mention that, as a result of this vague ruling, RF had his rollback right removed by clerk Guerillero and then restored by AGK? That I amended my statement with diffs showing arb com members are all over the map on what the heck it means? Or that SilkTork commented he was interested in discussing an amendment? Nobody Ent 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, the story is a brief and general one about the work of Arbcon. A particular case gets only a mention and its deep ramifications, if any, don't belong here. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• So why briefly quote only 2 of the 4 arbitrators who have replied? NPOV doesn't apply here? Nobody Ent 10:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  It was written by Lord Roem, who is now an arb clerk. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC).
  

• This is a newsletter, not a wikipedia article. NPOV does not apply. Journalistic ethics do apply, but they do not necessitate objectivity. Drorzm (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• In another amendment, the Arbs seem to be agreeing to re-write the decision. Not amend it, but re-write it. If they want to issue a statement damning me, because they did not do quite a good enough job in the Proposed decision, then let them do so, but to re-write the decision is absurd. Doubly absurd when they have locked the talk page. Triply absurd when they refused to accept my summing up in defence. Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
  
• Ah. So, the complaint is, the story says too much. My error; I thought it was a complaint about saying too little. Yes, it's too long. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

From the editor: New editor-in-chief (3,094 bytes · 💬)

Welcome to your new job. I hope that The Signpost continues its success with the new leadership. Pine^(talk) 03:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it :-). Can you comment as to the approach you intend to take regarding the previous editors' excellent work in also covering the negative stories about Wikipedia, and their resistance to efforts to make the Signpost a mouthpiece and cheering section of the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost is completely independent of the WMF, full stop, and that will remain true both formally and informally. I guess I don't have a specific approach in mind for the first question. There will be positive and negative aspects to any action the WMF takes; the SP's job when covering these is to affirm/encourage the former while providing community critique of the latter. Doing one or the other would provide a skewed view. (and to be clear, I'm not arguing for opinionated regular articles). Does that make sense? If not, I'll clarify later; I'm running out the door right now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Great news; welcome, and kudos to the 'post. – SJ + 06:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I looked forward to the best news of you. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ed! I'm sure you will do beautifully in the role. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratz! I look forward to reading more opinion pieces. --J36miles (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck wrangling the 'post! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The right choice was made. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a good idea would be to run the article on TCO's report on the FA which was spiked last year after his attackers refused to write a rebuttal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember attempting a rebuttal, I'll have to hunt it up. Please give me a link if we start discussing it again. Oh and ... Good luck Ed, and good choice guys. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues (8,683 bytes · 💬)

• Made a few small tweaks, but very well written. Thanks again :-) Steven Zhang ^Talk 02:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible for someone clever to get rid of the massive gap in the middle of the article? After "our main page.", there's about 12 blank lines on my screen, presumably caused by the images. --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, I've asked at the Village pump for expert technical opinion. Tony (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. I have stopped nearly all my editing of Wikipedia article pages since early January. Yesterday was my first serious editing of a Wikipedia article in a long time. I still edit on the Commons, Wikia, Bugzilla, technical discussions, Village Pumps, talk pages, etc.. It is good that there is a dispute resolution noticeboard. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I see that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution too. That is a good idea too. The bottom line is that there are less active editors and more articles. I doubt that the number of active editors will increase. If the numbers do turn around, I doubt it will be by much. So that means content dispute resolution will have to become more efficient. It is way too time-consuming now. I agree that we need more people at lower levels of content dispute resolution. The bigger problem is the lack of accountable, efficient dispute resolution between average editors and admins. Admins are mainly only accountable to other admins, and even then only barely accountable. Objective observers of Wikipedia administration see it as another fanboy groupthink club where the vast majority of admins are male. Editors too. Wikipedia:Teahouse is an effort to counter that. Wikipedia mirrors society in its increasing control at the top by unaccountable leaders. Wikipedia refuses to truly deal with it, or to acknowledge the depth of the problem. Content dispute resolution oftentimes ends up with admin intervention. Since there is no definitive content resolution it oftentimes ends up in deadlock, or with admin arbitrariness. Editors leave due to both problems. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Dispute resolution does need to be more time-efficient, I agree. I have a few ideas that I am thinking over and might start chatting about it with a few people, and see if it's a viable option. Keep your eyes and ears open. No comment on admins - my perspective from what I've observed is that they do not participate in dispute resolution enough to have an impact on its outcome, but we of course are all entitled to our own opinion. Of course, my work will be focused on extracting the opinions of the community from the survey over my own, and putting something together to make dispute resolution more efficient, and to encourage more to get involved. That's my goal. Regards, Steven Zhang ^Talk 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest asking more survey questions concerning disputes with admins, and content disputes where admins get involved. That way it is not just my opinion or yours. The article says: "23% of respondents rating their fellow editors 'arrogant', 13% 'unfriendly'." There is also a certain percentage of admins that editors consider arrogant or unfriendly. That is got to effect content disputes too. Especially when admins step in as an enforcer instead of as a mediator. Admins frequently have to step in. WP:3RR, page protection, incivility warnings and blocks, and WP:Edit warring (a completely vague policy). Just thinking about some of my experiences with admins in the last year makes me question why I would want to do anything but the rare article edit until content dispute resolution is far more efficient. The quality of admin interactions has definitely gotten worse since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. I sincerely hope your efforts and others succeed because then far fewer admin interactions would be needed. Due to its vagueness and arbitrariness WP:Edit warring is almost diabolically efficient in driving away active editors. It is inevitable that active editors will arrive at content disputes one after another especially as they edit more and more controversial topics. After a few arbitrary clueless rulings (oh, it happens often) by admins wielding WP:Edit warring even the most thick-skinned active editors just throw in the towel. Why bother? Admin power corrupts, WP:Edit warring corrupts absolutely. It is the perfect tool for rude admins who enjoy the fanboy groupthink cheers of their fellow clique of admins. The groupthink reminds me of the fanboy groupthink of spam fighters who arbitrarily remove external links. Wikipedia has become like gang warfare. The best editing lately is done by WikiProjects who can overcome rude admins. I just checked to see if you were an admin, Steven Zhang, and found out that you were not. I found this though: User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure. I think it qualifies you perfectly to help start the Admin Misconduct Noticeboard I proposed. Combined with the Dispute resolution noticeboard, the two noticeboards would greatly enhance editor retention. By the way, I am a bureaucrat on Wikia with over 35,000 edits there, and thoroughly understand wiki groupthink. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how my past should affect my input on the project one way or another. I think we have two different ways for tackling the same problem here, but I also wonder if this is the proper venue to discuss such matters. My user talk page would likely be a better location for this discussion. Regards, Steven Zhang ^Talk 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I said anything offensive. I did not mean to. On the contrary, I think your background is a big plus. I can use your talk page too if you desire. But discussion here is more important in my opinion, because unless more and more people become knowledgeable about the existence of the problem, and see the difficulties in arriving at solutions, then progress may not occur. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not offended, I just don't think my past is really relevant in this situation. I am also curious as to how you have come to the conclusions that you describe above, and think that sort of discussion is one to have via my talk page. Regards, Steven Zhang ^Talk 01:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest removing the "In this issue" right sidebar in the discussion section here. Or make it a right-floating table instead of a sidebar. That way the comments are not squished into a narrow column. That is a problem when there are multiple replies with more and more indentation. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  This is more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost as it's not related to the article. I consider the right margin important in visually differentiating the comments from the article. Comments can be viewed full-width on the talk page as normal. — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content (6,454 bytes · 💬)

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but how does the WMF growing larger reduce the risk of a meteorite strike? Kaldari (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding to multiple locations reduces the possibility of a natural catastrophe or other major disruption in one location resulting in permanent major data loss... AnonMoos (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking people rather than servers :) Kaldari (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos, that's an annoyingly logical answer. How terribly disappointing. :) You couldn't have trolled Kaldari just a little? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree Philippe, it should have been evident to Kaldari that the extra glow from the servers with more electrons spinning faster at different places is obviously going to cause a small percentage of meteorites to be deflected by this increased charge; alternatively they will have a committee meeting, note our increased vigilance and after weeks of debate, an RFC and a vote, reach a true consensus and decide to bombard some other planetoid. I really surprised that the two obvious scenarios needed to be better elucidated. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the dissemination of knowledge increases societal preparedness against meteor catastrophe by increasing the likelihood that the world will produce the educated sorts of people who could avert or lessen extraterrestrial crisis. When anyone contributes anything to any WMF project, world access to information increases, and thus the educated base from which meteor experts come also increases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As Wikimedia projects expand with ever-increasing quantities of cruft, discerning meteors will turn their attention elsewhere. ~ 66.81.244.216 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Simples. Per WP:NASTRO we are redirecting many of the minor planets. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

I wonder, are these dumps/forks accessible to the public or just stored on the server cluster? --Nathan2055^talk 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

http://dumps.wikimedia.org is the (publicly accessible) Wikimedia site; I tried the HTTP versions of the dump mirrors and they seem to be public too (as one would expect). Not sure about older dumps nor FTP accessible credentials but I suspect both are conducive to public access. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to speculate that the encyclopedia written by humans, for humans, won't be much use if there aren't any humans around. Still, this does raise the idea that we should see if we can get a full Wikipedia dump placed on board the next moon landing mission. That way the survivors may be able to recover the information in a few millenia. Or is that just too daft? Regards, RJH (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to look through WP:TERMINAL for some ideas. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

someone should send a dump to Millennium Seed Bank Project. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The idea that WMF is "safer" as it gets bigger is fallacious. When it was an $800k per annum organization it was unlikely to fail to raise the required funds, it was not a viable target for lawsuits designed to make money, and the whole system was amenable to being "phœnixed" for pocket money sums. Of course this idea that large is strong is long-standing, but we can cite (recently) GM, Ford, Fannie Mae, Enron, Telewest, many large banks and even sovereign governments that have either gone bust or needed rescue. The good prognosis of the projects as they exist is probably primarily due to the open licensing. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
  
• So are there also regular offsite dumps of Wikimedia Commons? This might be the achilles heel, many templates rely on images and most articles will look spartan without images and sound and video files. Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 18:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• It says "all Wikimedia wikis", so I expect that Commons, all the Wikiversities, Wikiquotes, Wiktionaries, Wikipedias, etc. are all included. Nyttend (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Commons pages are, but Commons images aren't right at the moment due to the potential filesize of such dumps. It is being worked on though (and quite high priority too, IIRC). - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked when the last dump of enwiki was and unfortunately the last one was done in 2010. I think we should raise the dump creation interval for enwiki to, say, once a year or so. --Nathan2055^talk 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm? Or did you mean images? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)