Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-01-28

< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost | Single

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-01-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Like Jack Kerouac's On The Road, this week's issue was written on amphetamines (951 bytes · 💬)

Nice to see these two works by Frans Hals here! Jane (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Working on a few more! Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
i just found out that Walter Liedtke died Tuesday in a train crash. He was the Fran's Hals expert who made a big exhibition & catalog on Hals in 2011. In his hour-long seminar on YouTube he talks about these paintings at length. Big loss for Hals lovers everywhere, especially coming after the death of Seymour Slive last Spring. Jane (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Forum: Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate (11,294 bytes · 💬)

The earlier GGTF case is also apposite: target banned, her stalker warned. Efforts to fix the gender gap will flounder with a ruling requiring the targets of stalkers to negotiate with said stalkers or leave Wikipedia (principle 4). Speaking as a media volunteer, I'm flat-out amazed we didn't get coverage of that one at the time (just before the fundraiser), we dodged a bullet there - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Or: an unproductive disruptionist shown the door, a productive disruptionist put on a short leash... You spin, I spin, we all spin together... Carrite (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both editors were involved in editing the GamerGate controversy article and/or talk page and one was involved in the Arbitration case. While they both provide insight, it would be interesting to see an opinion piece by an editor or admin who is uninvolved. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our op-ed pages are open to such an uninvolved party who wants to provide their perspective. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Liz, I can give you my opinion as an uninvolved party in a single sentence: Since I can't tell whether this is a Tar-Baby or a Tar pit, & my onwiki time is extremely limited -- for example, I'm monitoring my daughter's play date while I type this -- I'm forced to stay out of it. However, I greatly admire the efforts of those with the courage to deal with it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. I didn't realize people cared so much about ants. --LukeSurl t c 12:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok that's just weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the authors is now blocked and topic-banned

See User_talk:Protonk#Blocked. The block is apparently for a (now revision-deleted) talk page statement. Andreas JN466 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. kencf0618 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that Protonk's block/topic ban was commuted 30 minutes ago after discussion at ANI. --PresN 06:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Don't pretend that those nasty right wing Gamergaters are the only ones coordinating action offsite. The anti-Gamergate Gamerghazi is actually a more active (and arguably more vitriolic) Reddit forum. I've said my piece on this case on Wikipediocracy, it is there if you look for it. Short take: Arbcom got it mostly right. I'll give 'em a B+. The anti-Gamergaters still control an unbalanced, POV article however, let there be no mistake about that. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hah, /r/gamerghazi is 1/5 of the size/activity of /r/kotakuinaction alone, much less the various 8chan boards dedicated to gamergate. If you're going to make up facts, at least make up ones that aren't easily verifiable. The gamergate article has many flaws, but when the preponderance of sources are all saying similar things, the one flaw it doesn't have is being unbalanced. --PresN 06:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
GamerGhazi is indeed opposed to gamergate. It is not more active. In January so far, KiA got 8.77m pageviews, while Ghazi only got 2.66m.
Furthermore, organizing essentially anything is against that subreddit's rules (admittedly, not properly codified as such, though the line "We reject the label "Anti-GG," as we are not a movement in the same sense GG is." does imply it). Posts/comments explicitly calling for action are virtually always deleted, and those implicitly calling for action are generally deleted as well. I should now; as a moderator of that subreddit I've often enforced that rule. "Anti-GG" might organize elsewhere (I wouldn't know), but it is not allowed to do so on Ghazi. (Full disclosure: I got to this page via Ghazi, though I've been paying attention to GG on WP independently) Menethh (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"The (...Arbcom case...) has been an utter, avoidable failure that shakes any confidence I have the Committee will be effective in the future." I would like to celebrate the tenth anniversary of someone declaring this about an Arbcom case decision. Manning (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, editors active in Gamergate controversy seem to be very good at keeping out opinions by pundits, just like in Anita Sarkeesian, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc. People should think of cutting down the intake of Reddit and 8chan posts.
Peter Isotalo 17:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am known for being sometimes critical of Arbcom for often taking too long and being too lenient in concluding its cases; that's why I never actually participate on Arbcom cases although I read and follow them all. They have done a grand job with gamergate and it restores my confdence in the committee. In particular, one outcome: Editor is restricted from editing any administrative noticeboards, is one I will remember for future use.
Arbcom now needs to take its own lead and learn to be faster and sharper with new cases and admins need to be less afraid of excercising their duties under WP:AE. Kudos for admins such as Sandstein and HJ Mitchell for later being bold and not letting themselves be browbeaten by those who insist that infractions of AE are not infractions and who insist that PA and incivility are not PA or incivility, and are perfectly acceptable behaviour for prolific content providers. We will see how the new committee handles future cases. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think anyone looking at the case pages can see this was not an easy case and opinions on how to proceed differed widely within the committee itself. In the end I am reasonably satisfied with the decision.
Can't say the same about the "other GG" decision, the gendergap case. I feel like we screwed that one up pretty badly. Part of the reason I am glad to be done with the committee was that I was tired of seeing some arbs bend over backwards to try and avoid banning users who we all agreed had been causing disruption for a long time and who would inevitably act disruptively in the future. It's an attitude that I simly cannot understand. We saw a little of this in the gamergate case but it was much worse in the gendergap case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As Beeblebrox noted, it should be clear from reading the proposed decision page history that opinions on many points were divided; the final result, necessarily, was a majority decision. I think most or all of us on the committee are "reasonably" satisfied by the decision; I doubt anyone is fully satisfied with respect to every point. That's inevitable in majority decision-making.
The committee is under pressure in two directions: "to consider extenuating circumstances" and to deal decisively with long term problem users. These two are often incompatible. I think that was the case here, and this incompatibility was one important cause of the different views by those on the committee. Unless we were to completely ignore one of these factors, all such decisions are matters of judgment, and for any possible result, some people will be understandably dissatisfied. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusing terminology

I don't understand some terminology: What does it mean to be "for" Gamergate? Or "against"? That's like being for or against Watergate, and what would that mean? I am serious here, will somebody explain what the for and against words mean? Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Pro" Gamergate poeple are those that are stating they believe there are ethics issues in current video game journalism. "Anti" Gamergater people are either those that counter these claims, and/or that have been highly critical of the methods that are attributed to the pro-Gamergate side or the hashtag, though as a label this is much less commonly used. At times you'll see "Gamergater" which refers to the pro-Gamergate side. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The whole thing was very confusing. When reviewing some of the offsite evidence I had to do some digging to find out why "fag" "neckbeard" and "sea lion" were all apparently being used in ways I was not familiar with. These folks, on all sides of the gamer insider world, might find people had a better understanding of their concerns if they spoke in ways what could be easily understood by those "not in the club".
On the other hand we do the exact same thing around here all the time with all of our WP:WHATEVER links. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Defining what GamerGate is has been one of the major debates surrounding this article. Not to get too meta but I've seen it described as a consumer revolt, an effort to change ethics policies in videogame journalism, an effort to target perceived "enemies" with harassment AND a fight as a bulwark against left-wing progressive perspective (the dreaded and mythic "Social Justice Warriors") that proclaims itself no less than a culture war in determining the future of America. As in many articles, defining what something is (and what it is not), is often half the battle. Call it the "War over the Lede". Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

From the editor: An editorial board that includes you (5,173 bytes · 💬)

  • Thank you, Ed! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Great upbeat editorial! Looking forward to continuing the magic - good luck! kosboot (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As a new editorial board member, I am instituting a new feature: Most edited articles over the past week. This is an innovative improvement over the Traffic report first and foremost because Facebook isn't always in the top five, and also because it's more relevant to the editing community. Enjoy. EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea, EllenCT. Pinging Serendipodous, our regular traffic report writer for thoughts. Perhaps we could include this along with the most-viewed articles? Go Phightins! 03:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I guess, though perhaps Miss Ellen could offer to lend a hand, so that my workload isn't doubled. And just to keep her informed, Facebook isn't always in the top 5. In fact, it's barely been in the top five at all in the last few months. Serendipodous 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the hyperbole, Serendipodous. I recommend that you publish the two top-20, side by side, with commentary on either, e.g.:
Rank by Readers Commentary by Edits (Editors?*) Commentary
1 Facebook sheesh Super Bowl IL ugh
... ...
20 Deaths in 2015 A perennial favorite Deaths in 2015 What a coincidence!
*Would it be better to list by total edits or distinct editors? In any case, that should spice it up a bit. You know how to copy the Quarry query right? @Serendipodous: I made a new one for top-20 in past week by distinct editors. Take your pick, I trust your judgement. EllenCT (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible alternative: article to which most editors contributed over the last week. Could be a totally different list (where endless debates between few people do not count for much). Erik Zachte (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Erik Zachte: that is a fascinating question. [1] versus [2] -- I would say that they each have their merits beyond the failure mode you describe. How would you combine the two so that both total edits and distinct editors weigh into the ranking? EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'n not sure how to turn this into a report. Editing is not necessarily tied to anything outside of Wikipedia, so it will be very difficult to draw any conclusions from it. Serendipodous 23:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to help. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratz and thanks to both ed for his long work and the new team for stepping up and putting energy in! Also I look forward to seeing Ellen's new feature. 107.77.75.46 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Ed and to the new team, and special thanks to Ellen for her suggestion, which inspired me to check out the most edited Wikidata items over the past week. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Signpost for one of the most interesting issues of Signpost for a very long time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, Kudpung. Always great to hear! Go Phightins! 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In focus: Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case (7,120 bytes · 💬)

  • Speaking as one of the originating editors, back when gamergate was mostly known as a type of ant, I am still astounded and appalled at how much of an evil Koosh ball this subject has become. The sustained intensity and scope of the vitriol has been unique in my experience; in effect Wikipedia had been trolled by the Internet. Small wonder that our usual consensus and resolution mechanisms failed -they were swamped! kencf0618 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree. I became concerned when I started reading about this ARBCOM decision in outlets that typically don't discuss Wikipedia's machinations, especially with the misleading headlines that ARBCOM is banning all feminists from the site so GG-types can have their way. It sounds like this episode was an internet battle that happened to take place on Wikipedia. I'm glad ARBCOM has handed out the number of bans, admonishments, and the like; disagreements about content should not be allowed to get so far out of control. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This issue of The Signpost has another article - a pair of Op-Eds, to be specific - on this topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is no accident that The Guardian suddenly ran with an obscure and one-sided blog post distorting ArbCom's proposed decision. Of course, somebody fed The Guardian a one-sided "story" during the Private Manning Case, too. Oh, wait, it was the same journalist. Wow, what a coincidence... Carrite (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am known for being sometimes critical of Arbcom for often taking too long and being too lenient in concluding its cases; that's why I never actually participate on Arbcom cases although I read and follow them all. They have done a grand job with gamergate and it restores my confdence in the committee. In particular, one outcome: Editor is restricted from editing any administrative noticeboards, is one I will remember for future use. Arbcom now needs to take its own lead and be faster and sharper with new cases. We will see how the new committee handles them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for this. I was alarmed by the Guardian report, even though I suspected it was fairly, shall we say, amarilla. I went straight to the Signpost, but of course, that was last week's issue. Ugly business, this, but perhaps an important reminder not to take out the knives around here. --BDD (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Great article, makes a change to have some calm sober reporting of the decision rather than the hysteria that is in most of the media. Seems like the rulings were fair on both sides. One thing I don't understand is why rylong got a topic ban as well as a site ban. Surely the former is redundant - if he is banned from the whole site then what is the point of the topic ban? Little Professor (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the positive feedback on this article. Little Professor -- If I had to speculate, my guess would be that even if the site ban is at some point overturned, the topic ban would remain in effect. @Roger Davies: Is that correct? Go Phightins! 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "the "GamerGate" hashtag, which was started in response to concerns about the proximity of relationships between some video game developers and the journalists reviewing their games." is not really accurate without an "ostensibly" thrown in there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That particular phrase was my doing. I think it's a reasonable way to describe the origins. Even the die-hard antis would concede that that particular hashtag emerged contemporaneously with a controversy about a relationship between a video game developer and a reviewer, even if they dismiss the concerns as a smokescreen for abuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid people still haven't understood why the press was concerned, and the premature statement by the ArbCom, which ended up being wrong in fact, being sent out before the decision was actually finalized, didn't precisely help. The support here is merely another symptom of Wikipedia as a secluded ecosystem which rather than gathering the knowledge of humanity gathers the "knowledge" of a subgroup that suffers from such massive selection bias that anyone with an understanding of statistics would discount the outcome as so skewed as to be irredeemable in the short to mid-term. And the decision merely serves to perpetuate that through leniency towards some of the mechanisms by which it is perpetuated - notably sock- and meatpuppetry in disputes. No, disputes should not be allowed to get out of hand to this degree - but that's what admins are there for. When BLP is violated wholesale and nothing is being done, it is not too surprising when people taking an interest into a topic do something to counter it with their own means. Is it right? Not by the "letter of the law". But that's like saying it's not ever right to shoot someone, even if he's just about to shoot an innocent person. The problem is NOT edit wars. The problem is selection bias and gaming the system and using bullying tactics to perpetuate the selection bias. Edit wars are merely a symptom. You can applaud each other as much as you want - as it stands, that's merely stewing in your own grease and will serve little to tackle the fundamental problems that are all too easy to close one's eyes to at the sight of almost 5 million articles. And you can say all you want that dealing with those issues was not the task of the ArbCom - that doesn't change a bit about ArbCom being very much responsible for the consequences of their decisions. --95.90.52.88 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the media: A murderous week for Wikipedia (1,962 bytes · 💬)

23.21.190.125 currently redirects to http://www.comicvine.com/latveria/4020-41031/, not Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Still works for me in Chrome and Firefox, in the US. Maybe the results differ based on geography? Gamaliel (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Now takes me to a Google search for the term. I'm guessing this is either random chance or continuously changed. — foxj 00:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I just got three different detsinations in four attempts, within a few seconds. It seems to be randomised. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The subheading "Who holds back the electric car?" does not seem to relate to the text immediately following it. Maybe Jimmy Wales said something about electric cars but it was erroneously not included? There is no news link either.--greenrd (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That was an attempt at a joke on my part. This should clear things up. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent research: Bot writes about theatre plays; "Renaissance editors" create better content (617 bytes · 💬)

Fantastic report! Lots of studies to read, thank you. :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This an amazing report! I'll be even more polymath. Before reading this, I edited mostly insects, hopping from family to family, but now I have diversified to GA reviewing, editing a few Romania-related articles, and mostly working on animals. Gug01 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Special report: Traffic in the fog—2014's most popular articles include death, Facebook, and Ebola (1,310 bytes · 💬)

Actually, the mobile data didn't really help much this time; I basically chose which articles to exclude based on the fact that I'd excluded them before. Next year, when we have a full year's set of mobile data, it should come in handy. Serendipodous 09:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: The future of MediaWiki (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-28/Technology report

Traffic report: A sea of faces (516 bytes · 💬)


Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2015-01-28&oldid=1125230238"