Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-01-18

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-01-18. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Features and admins: Approved this week (208 bytes · 💬)

I got my admin bits back. Don't know if this counts? :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more (3,071 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-18

Discuss this story

• Thank you for linking to my blog post about my experience editing a Wikipedia article. However, I think it's worth mentioning that I am not a professional newspaper editor but, as the post makes clear, a professional encyclopedia editor. And while I have written two freelance book reviews for the San Francisco Chronicle, that hardly qualifies me to be "a former newspaper writer for the San Francisco Chronicle." It would make more sense to identify me as the current editor of the online project Encyclopedia Virginia. Finally, I am quoted here as describing the experience of Wikipedia editing as being "almost more like an online game." Again, as my blog post makes clear, this is not me speaking, but a Wikipedia employee, as quoted by Nicholson Baker in his article "The Charms of Wikipedia" in the New York Review of Books. I do appreciate the link, but the irony of these mistakes doesn't serve Wikipedia's mission—a mission I fully endorse, by the way—very well. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had already spotted the errors (I had it correct in an earlier version). It's pre-publication, (edition is for tuesday), so it's not that bad, and I'll make sure it's sorted out before tuesday. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Great. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • At the risk of sounding positively persnickety, the change still has me identified as "a former newspaper writer for the San Francisco Chronicle." This implies either that a) I was employed by the Chronicle, which is not true, or b) I had some kind of ongoing relationship that has since changed, hence the "former," which also is untrue. Rather, I am the current editor of Encyclopedia Virginia, an online project of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and the University of Virginia. Thanks. Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm so sorry. I went off the "about this blog" page, and assumed you edited the San Fran paper. I'll get to work right away fixing them. I was writing this article after 2000 local time last night. Again, this is a mistake, and I will make sure this does not occur again. Regards -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more (757 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-18

Discuss this story

As I already commented on Erik's post, it's interesting that Vatican City is not only one of the main sources of pageviews filtered per internet users, but is also way ahead of all others, when considering "unfiltered" monthly page views per capita (58, while the 2nd, Luxembourg, has only 19). I wonder what this means... --Waldir ^talk 16:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that the Vatican City has the greatest proportion of adult, educated, affluent citizens in the world? Lampman (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (324 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-18

Discuss this story

Nice to have the technology report back and I like the summaries of issues encountered. - BanyanTree 22:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Where are they now? (1,030 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-01-18

Discuss this story

• They need to do Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics soon given that the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver is less than a month away (Disclosure: I am member of this project.). Chris (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it really true that there are no other monotheistic religions? --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that the (poorly worded) meaning is that all major monotheistic projects have been covered. At this time we have projects about Zoroastrianism, Sikhism and Baha'i, none of which appear particularly active. Circéus (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good catch. I adjusted the sentence to clear any confusion. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)