Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-03-19

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-03-19. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Spot the bulldozer (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-19/Featured content

Forum: Wikimedia Commons mission: free media for the world or only Wikimedia projects? (19,490 bytes · 💬)

I personally use Commons for most of my articles when it comes to pictures in Wikipedia. I personally have no complaint with their copyrights. Its good practice that Wikimedia Commons sometimes have "free" images which are authentic and can be used freely within Wikipedia.--Mishae (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note, I've written up a revised version of my opinion piece at Google docs (I think it is only viewable for those with a Google account) but after seeing Thryduulf's essay I think leaving the current version as is may also be fine. @Thryduulf: On "where the chances of a copyright owner actually choosing to enforce their copyright are pretty much indistinguishable from “none”" I think Commons recently had some discussion about the possibility of incorporating Orphan Works (works where the copyright owner is dead or cannot be contacted) but that discussion has fizzled out again. Perhaps I'll try and reignite that in the future. On "the observed extreme reluctance to inform anyone other than the image uploader of a deletion nomination" the lack of communication on the part of Commons towards pending deletion of files used on local projects, so that they might be notified for transfer under fair use, is something that has bothered Commons for years. Unfortunately old proposals like the global deleted image review and an option to display warnings as image captions when an image being used is pending deletion has sat in the backlog of Bugzilla tickets awaiting resolution since forever. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I would find it pretty easy to create a bot to provide deletion warning notices to Wikipedia, this does not need WMF development to solve. If someone were to write up clear requirements for it (for example that a brief notice with a link to the Commons deletion request appears on every article talk page that uses an image), I think this is an easy one to propose at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. Notices on the English Wikipedia are an issue for this community, not the Commons community. --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we need change at Commons. Common sense is required as much law is simply unknown as it has never been tested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You can add your thoughts here: m:Requests for comment/Creation of a Global Wikimedia Commons. That discussion appears to have stagnated before I could get my head around the sort of change desired exactly. Jane (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


It's good in general, but loose wording has:

  • allowed the "police" at English Wikipedia have to run amok using it as a justification. Specifically, trying to harass fair use uses out of out of existence, which has had an immense impact on the quality and quantity of available images.
  • It needs a provision to allow for a slightly more restrictive license. For example, one where a celebrity would be allowing use of the their image for the intended types of uses, but not to use for free on t-shirts and coffee mugs, or as the front page of the Nazi party magazine. All of which one must OK under the currently required free licenses.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I 100% agree that it is an incredibly damaging mistake not to make use of the American "Fair Use" exemption to the fullest extent of the law. I also agree that the fighting of fair use rationales on photo uploads by some of the free culture cheerleaders working the Photo Rights gig at WP verges at times on harassment. They love their automation and their power. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons has eyes that are bigger than its belly... It should be what it was intended to be, a mechanism for sharing encyclopedia illustrations across language encyclopedias. But, compliments of its bizarre and mutating culture, it has assumed for itself the mantle of "Curator of All Free Images For the Entire Universe (Don't Censor Me, Maaaaaaan)." It's ridiculous. Anything with a remotely conceivable educational application — emphasis on the words remotely conceivable — is "in" for them. It has little, if anything, to do with the actual needs of Wikipedia Worldwide, which involves solving rights issues and propagating images across Wikipedias. It is a collection for obsessive collectors, or rather a gathering for obsessive gatherers. Scrape those internet photo sites and save everything, regardless if the posted licenses were tagged on in good faith or not... WMF has the power to shut down this circus. It's not yet on their To Do list. It will be someday. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


I started publishing my photographs (of plants and animals) in Flickr with a CC BY-SA 2.0 license. I visited Commons first when one of my friends there posted a comment on one of my picture: “thanks for publishing this picture with a free license; I published it at Commons.” I visited the URL he provided. I had visited Wikipedia earlier for gathering information; but never Commons. Later I started uploading my best works here. Once I got a message that stated one your work is reviewed and awarded as a Quality Image (It was nominated by 99of9). I got some constructive criticism too that rarely happen in Flickr. Slowly I liked the environment and started participating in FP, QI, and VI.

My opinion about Commons is that it is as good as Flickr; both have very good scope in providing good quality educational media content for everyone who needs it. The main differences are: 1) Commons is part of WMF projects; so serves as a repository for the various WMF projects too; whereas Flickr has no own projects; it serve the outside world including Commons through their CC licensed and public domain contents. 2) Flickr allows the authors/publishers full control over their contents; whereas any can edit and distort contents once uploaded in Commons. The so called self serving volunteers overwrite, rename, and try to apply all their personal interests over the original source files breaking all the code of ethics and license terms. Most of these volunteers are editing under pseudonyms; so little chances to get sued. 3) Flickr allows a user to stop publishing to his works (due to any reasons); but in Commons we have to beg for the mercy of the community even though all licenses clearly allow it. 4) Flickr allows only own works and other works from trusted publishers. But in Commons most of the contents are uploaded by third parties. Most of such files are poorly documented (attribution, third party rights, etc), as the uploaders have not much interest in such things. Their only interest is to collect as many hats like I made x million uploads to Commons etc.

There are so many such things and area where Commons is struggling; but it is a useful project for people who need good educational media contents. And my answer to “is the Commons primarily a repository of free media for the world, as stated on its welcome page, or should it limit itself to being a media repository for the various Wikimedia projects?” is always “yes”. Even the question itself is meaningless as “the contents in all Wikimedia projects (other than some fare use contents) are for the entire world. (Disclaimer: Just a quick comment; not enough time to write well, now.) Jee 16:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jee: Do you mean "yes" to the former "a repository of free media for the world" or to the latter "a media repository for the various Wikimedia projects"? Also in terms of page curation, do you think the precautionary principle, erring on the side of deletion, is not conservative or deletionist enough? Or perhaps Commons is not doing well enough to warn uploaders about CC licenses before they hit the upload button (my opinion)? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: Yes; I meant "Commons should be a repository of free media for the entire world". Wikipedia is just one player in educational area; there are many equally competing players like EOL, GBIF, Catalogue of Life, etc (to name a few from my area of interest).
Answer to your second question: Deletion is the only area where Commons do something good in terms of maintenance. It is very poor in protecting author's interests and fail to educate contributors too (before they hit the upload button as you said above). These may be probably because many of our decision making volunteers are "free culture activists" who has no respect in author's (and subject's) rights. I had communicated with many users who later tried to revoke the license and my understanding is that they usually failed to understand that a free license grant is applicable to the entire world. Most of them contributed to help Wikipedia only. It is our mistake if we failed to educate them properly. And all I see in such DRs are heavy personal attacks from our side and applying a Change-of-license template on their works. Those users will never grant a free license to their work in their entire future life. :( Jee 02:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In that case, welcoming you was one of the most valuable contributions I've made to Commons! Hopefully a good reminder to us all to go out and notice the contributions of newbies. --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 99of9. And I believe such a friendly care will encourage newbies to stay here and continue making more valuable contributions to Commons, directly. Otherwise people prefer to stay in their comfortable projects (like Flickr) and volunteers have to manually transfer contents in a day to day basis which is not very productive. :) Jee 02:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Jee, thanks for your thoughts and story of activity - it is so rare to see an image promoted to be a Quality Image that without checking I assume your photos are really good. I found your perspective really interesting to read, and I agree with most of your points, though I would like to point out that a lot of overwrites occur in good faith and not all changes to files are "self-serving". I am glad you decided to come over to Commons from Flickr. Do you still publish pictures on Flickr and if so, what drives your choice between posting to Commons or Flickr? Jane (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jane. I'm still active in Flickr and have a reasonable network of friends (although I'm in a photography break due to my relocation to a different place of stay). I prefer to publish my works first in Flickr as I've more control over the files there. I publish them in Commons only after verification and identifications are over. The support groups are more stronger and helpful than here.
Overwriting: CC recently made some amendments on their policies during the release of version 4.0: 1. Modifications and adaptations must be indicated 2. URI required 3. Licensors may request removal of attribution. All these three changes are to protect the interest of the authors from any insults. For version 4.0 onward, Original Source should be kept intact, and any minute modification should be mentioned with a link to source. But some Commons people still think keeping the original source file buried under file page history is enough (which is not true). Whenever CC mention a link, it means a place where attribution and all other related information readily available to the reader without any hassle. I switched to version 4.0 for all of my future uploads. Jee 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for spelling this out - I myself have done lots of overwrites, usually to upload higher resolutions of PD-Art that are already linked to more projects. The past year or so I noticed that Google Art images are being added separately and then the links in the sister projects updated by bot. Generally I put "Higher res" in my overwrite description and then put a link to my source in the Source field (and many times the original source field was blank, or linked to some historical website or royals website (for portraits)). I was blissfully unaware of the finesses of CC law that you have just stipulated, but since I tend to make most of my edits to 17th century paintings, it probably doesn't matter much. Jane (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is just one issue, there have been more. What I propose is that the whole architecture of meta data of media files is considered. I wrote about this in a blog post. Discussing this at this time is opportune because in the second half of 2014 Wikidata and Commons will start sharing functionality and data. Wikidata is not about individual projects so it makes sense to consider the whole issue of media files. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If one asks me I think that Commons should continue the way that it is, that is to say a free educational media repository for all. I think, just like Wikisource is not for Wikipedia, but merely is useful to Wikipedia, the same should be for Commons. Commons has its own community and its own mission and the question of whether or not Commons wants to be a free educational media repository or a free media repository for Wikimedia projects ought to be posed to them to decide for themselves.

As far as their policies for deletion and the like go, I think they do a great job at what they do, though of course there is room for improvement. The process could be a bit smoother and people using the media, at least on WMF projects, really ought to be informed when it is up for deletion. Zell Faze (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Today on The Mini Page I saw a photo of two living people that said "Courtesy of Wikipedia". Since the photo would not qualify for Fair Use, it must be a Commons photo. I assume the "Courtesy of Wikipedia" is sufficient.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Vchimpanzee: I think technically speaking Wikipedia is republishing Wikimedia Commons files under an appropriate CC-BY-SA license and it attributes the file on Commons as the original, so it should be fine. Remember that CC-BY-SA also requires all subsequent copies/derivatives of a file be distributed under the same or similar copyleft license. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia: "The Wikimedia Foundation owns almost none of the content on Wikimedia sites — it is owned by the individual creators." "Content in the public domain may not have a strict legal requirement of attribution (depending on the jurisdiction of content reuse), but attribution is recommended to give correct provenance." All other contents MUST to be properly attributed to the copyright holder; not just to Wiki[m/p]edia. Jee 17:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Far as I see, serving the pedias is the primary mission. If the rest of the world wants to use Commons pictures, that's pleasant. I have seen my own Commons pictures in local newspapers, brochures, and the Web site of a small travel agency, and presumbably there are far more that I haven't seen. Pleasant, but there's little need to work at making it happen. Is that bias? Yes, and why not? The main advantage of Commons over bigger picture distributors is its closeness to Wikipedia. Even though only a small fraction appear in articles, that's the best way for outsiders find our pictures. Commons uses Wiki software which allows every fool with an agenda to edit, same as the pedias. My own pictures have benefited from improved categorization, expanded descriptions and, in a few cases, photo editing by people more skilled at that business than me. Main disadvantage of Commons being part of the Wikimedia empire is the close attention, one might say obsession, to the principle of free software, which has crippled the use of video. So, tyro photographers who want their pictures to talk and move, mostly go to Youtube and the like, where ordinary people who don't know what a "file format" is can see them. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview: Nate Ott—the writer behind 71 articles in the largest-ever good topic (1,983 bytes · 💬)

I would like to go on record that this topic was a beast to process, with over an hour and a half working on the individual article talk pages to make it official. But overall, this is definitely an achievement that is worth it at the end. Great job Parsecboy. And God help me when the 120-article topic sees the light of day. GamerPro64 03:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64:: I will be more than happy to help you process it when the day comes :) → Call me Hahc21 03:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is really awesome, I've began the process of improving a bunch of Valve Corporation-related articles, and something like this would be a great goal to go after. Although, I can't imagine doing it with a whole 71 articles! --Nicereddy (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on a magnificent achievement! I tried to go one better with the Manhattan Project-related articles but am still seven articles short. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bloody good effort! Well done, Parsecboy (Nate). And great write-up, Ed. This stuff is what makes MILHIST a joy to be part of. And gives the rest of us things to aspire to. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An insane effort and one that I too applaud! Well done! Zell Faze (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny (12,814 bytes · 💬)

  • Excellent work by The ed17. I am disappointed to read of this slow-speed mishap in which WMF's amateur-hour performance failed to meet expectations. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, well... Paid advocacy disclosures are prima facie evidence of bias and influence. But bias and influence themselves remain, as far as I know, as an ethnically European, English-speaking male basing most of my research off of material largely written by economically-privileged English-speaking males, unaffected by any recently proposed policy changes.
    The only thing I see here that I don't like is that edits were made to international politics articles concerning Russia while, somehow, neglecting to notice that the law of Russia article is damn-near unusable (an external link to the law of Russia would be a start), rendering any sort of fact-based analysis damn-near impossible, and leading me to believe that most English Wikipedia editors on Russian political articles have little idea what the hell they are talking about. Bias or no bias. Int21h (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The ad for this position was pretty clear about the applicant needing to have specialist knowledge in international affairs/defence topics, so the Librarian missing out isn't necessarily surprising or a bad thing if they lacked this expertise. However, if I remember correctly, this position wasn't advertised by the WMF to members of WP:MILHIST, which was the most likely pool of applicants (also if I remember correctly, I posted a note on the project's talk page after seeing this advertised through the WMF's website). That said, most of Timothy's editing looks pretty good to me, and he's improved a fair few articles on international security issues which really need specialist input. Whether this level of editing represents value for money is a good question though, especially if some of the edits were not-great. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • "Value for their money" is a worthwhile point to consider. According to this article, Sandole was paid a rather handsome salary to work full-time for which he made 209 edits, of which he considered 80 significant to 63 articles & conducted 3 seminars & consulted with some people; working as a volunteer with a maximum of 10 hours of week to devote to this, over the last 9 months I was able to make around 1500 edits, & to an area that I am not as proficient in as Sandole is in his -- Late Byzantine history vs. International security -- I contributed at least 100 significant edits to 59 articles. (Because I do not have the same level of expertise, I believe it's safe to say spent a lot more time in research of this topic than Sandole would have in his.) Maybe preparing & giving those seminars & consulting took up a lot of his time; it wouldn't have been an issue had Stanton should have made a more serious effort to recruit from active Wikipedians. IMHO, I could have given better value than Sandole had, which means any veteran Wikipedian could have. Lastly, when I first thought up this admittedly obvious idea years ago, I considered it way to reward established Wikipedians who had made contributions in one form or another to the project; in this case, it went to an outsider who had ties to the granting institution -- which can only reflect poorly on all parties. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically in agreement with Nick-D. I found myself thinking as I looked over the material that it would actually be quite a bit of work to get up to speed on the current state of scholarship in so many different IR topics. This type of focus for WIR might be a very effective way to train a generalist researcher in the field, even though it's not the cheap way to write an encyclopedia. (From the perspective of volunteer-driven wikis, it's hard to say the cost was worth it, but it appears the funder may have been more interested in IR than in wikis. Not at all sure that quick edits by amateurs on IR topics are a true substitute for input by specialists, especially by specialists who have language skills, and international/academic experience and connections. Sometimes solid, well-documented information on complex topics just doesn't come cheap, in terms of money or time. Evaluating the quality may also require specialists rather than random Wikipedians.) Djembayz (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for writing up this latest GLAM issue that has gathered so many responses on the mailing list, but I am mostly just very glad to read that the Finnish Wikipedia won't be shut down after all! Jane (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the report. An added dimension that should be noted is that according to Russavia's contribution to the mailing list discussion, Graham Allison is the husband of Liz Allison. Sandole subsequently applied to become Graham Allison's research assistant, a position he now holds. He appears to have done little actual work on Wikipedia during his residency. Looking at reports like [1] and comparing this against the actual article work done, one can't help but notice that he says he spent six hours drafting edits [2][3] that most Wikipedians could have drafted in twenty minutes. Andreas JN466 12:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • [4] provides a representative sample of Sandole's writing skills. I regret that it does not appear to be on a level sufficient for his stated position, IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • While this WiR program doesn't look to have been very successful, it doesn't look like it cost the WMF any money either. I really have to wonder what's the big deal about an underperforming program from two years ago? Let me guess on how this story came to light - some blogger claimed something without taking any personal responsibility for the claim, a second (banned) editor flew it over to the mailing list, a third editor brought it over to Wikipedia (perhaps to Jimbo's talk page). Mix in a bit of Wikimediocracy propaganda. And voila, a story made out of essentially nothing. We've seen it done many times now. They call this kompromat in Russia. While I think it was good that the WMF got to respond to this, it's telling that none of the accusers actually made any accusations on this page, nor have they exposed themselves to any questions on what their interest is in this. IMHO It would be best if the Signpost did not repeat kompromat generated stories like this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think realistic allegations of impropriety should be investigated and responded to regardless of their source (Not that their is anything wrong with the source of the information - it came from a blog post of an active Wikimedian in good standing). Well I agree that a minor program from 2 years ago is not an issue of the same magnitude as it would be if it was happening currently, I feel very strongly that its important to acknowledge and investigate past mistakes, lest they happen again. Bawolff (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
      • What "realistic allegations of impropriety"? As far as I can see, nobody has been accused of any impropriety, just below par management. The blowhard post by Russavia is all heat and no light. Skimming it might make it seem like there is some accusation of impropriety, but looking at it in detail just gives the impression that it's just a smear campaign with no solid claims of anything improper. Russavia has been rightfully banned here for his creative personal attacks, and frankly anything he says now should just be ignored. Odder, who has worked hand in glove with Russavia before in this type of smear, doesn't make any claim of impropriety in his blog. Rather, his argument seems to be that the WMF's proposed change in the Terms of Use to require paid editors to disclose their edits is hypocritical because of this two year old minor case. That's a pretty weak argument - you can't change policy (or ToU) simply because of one old incident. All in all, it is just bluster and an attempt at kompromat. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Well first off, I still think we should try to lean from cases of sub-par management, and learning requires public acknowledgement of past mistakes (imo). However I don't think that's all there is to this. The foundation green-lighted a project that had conflict of issues, despite being warned that there were conflict of interest issues (That's what I've gathered anyways, I must admit I haven't followed every email on wikimedia-l). I consider that a mild act of impropriety. The worst case scenario is that the foundation was unduly influenced by a major donor to do so despite being aware of the problems. That would be a larger act of impropriety on the part of the foundation. I don't know if that is what happened, the evidence is not sufficient in my mind to definitely conclude that happened, so I would prefer to suspend judgment on that. In any case I think its important we discuss issues like this, in order to figure out if there actually was any impropriety, and if there was, how significant it was. In the long run we will be stronger for it. Bawolff (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • minor factual error: Lisa is "Chief Revenue Officer", not chief financial officer. It is correctly labeled on the page you linked to. We do not have a CFO, though Garfield largely performs those duties as Chief Administrative Officer. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, Garfield is our "Chief of Finance and Administration", so he's both CFO and CAO. Ijon (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Noam Cohen has definitely attended more than the 2008 Wikimania. For one, I personally saw him at the 2011 Wikimania in Haifa, and I doubt he could have missed the 2012 one in Washington DC. Ijon (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyone else notice that the WMF made the Q&A in Microsoft Word? Grumbles like the unreformed Stallmanite he is... Zell Faze (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • In short: They wasted donation money (which the people donated for a free encyclopedia to pay for proprietary software from Microsoft. I got that right? 78.35.224.211 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report (1,218 bytes · 💬)

  • Thanks for the useful report Edokter! --Pine✉ 05:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Offline thumbnail

Regarding the offline archive, the search result seems to be performing poorly if you don't type in the exact term (and I'll ignore hints provided by AJAX since it's intended for offline use). For example, if I want to search for Pearson r, the search result is nowhere close to the actual term. Will this be something to be addressed in the future? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The Hovercard stuff looks awesome. Can't wait to see that enabled in Beta. Zell Faze (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Traffic report: Into thin air (3,465 bytes · 💬)

  • This year, rather than wait for the flood of vandalism to hit Saint Patrick's Day as it has annually, the page was protected in advance. Many persons wanting desperately to correct perceived inaccuracies were sent packing and the vandals never had a chance. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't that be 1969 for the birth of the internet? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes I trust my memory too much. Serendipodous 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how the press is reporting it but the "internet" didn't happen until the invention of TCP/IP, which was first implemented in 1977 in a demonstration project, and finally in 1983 in production. ARPANET in 1969 wasn't really the Internet since it was only one network, the first and important, but there were other networks as well, which were interconnected by TCP/IP. -- GreenC 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Just how technical do we want to get here? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: We know that communication channels went off, we do not know if that was deliberate or not. There may be other explanations. We should refrain from stating the theory as fact above, more in line with the article. Widefox; talk 13:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe he's referring to the transponder, which was deliberate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
That bold claim isn't in the article and should be if there's a RS. Without one we should remove it from here. Widefox; talk 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Serendipodous, Ed We do have a RS for "deliberate" being both an assumption, the view of Malaysian officials, and the majority view BBC "4." but not a fact as stated here. Widefox; talk 18:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Anent theories about MH 370: would it be too distracting to mention I have my own theory explaining why that flight went off course? -- llywrch (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think that's entirely within the realm of possibility. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject report: We have history (1,085 bytes · 💬)

Conspiracy theories

Spelling error?

Is "artefact" correct? I couldn't tell from his user page what nationality User:bobrayner is.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-03-19&oldid=1125229924"