Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-10-04

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-10-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle (2,395 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-10-04

Discuss this story

Another great review. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The following comment has been moved here from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010-10-04:

• It's interesting to see that while Wikipedians are quite happy writing positive reviews about the book in the Wikipedia-associated paraphernalia, in the wider word trolls have left their mark unopposed. In our "power to the masses" time of the Web 2.0 official endorsements cannot counteract an effect of the anonymous reviewer. That's how it usually happens - we, Wikipedians, know that we are good people and sure that the world will discover this for itself while the world is bombarded by negative opinion of the disruptive minority and listens to whoever shouts first. On the Amazon I would like to see an opinion of somebody who actually read the book and not just the first chapter.--Victoria (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well if someone donates a copy I will review it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC).
    
  • I wouldn't label Greg Kohser as a troll, but along with Seth Finkelstein and Larry Sanger he is a well known negative critic of Wikipedia. I'd be more surprised if he didn't criticize the book for being less than critical of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful review Stuart, a response is up at my blog now. -Reagle (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It says I don't have permission to access it (403). Reach Out to the Truth 19:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed the link -Reagle (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture (3,288 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-10-04

Discuss this story

• Yuck. THENEWMONO 03:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; a very slow week, tis. ResMar 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? It seems as though a lot of neat things have happened regarding the featured content. The 2,500th image to be promoted to FI status, ancient FI-promotion-related history being discussed, and... on a lesser note... a page I started, Miniopterus griveaudi, has been made an FA!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the coconut octopus's face? Haha. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's me at the top, without make-up. Tony (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

...I just don't see it. =| ResMar 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which one is with the make-up, and which one is without?  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Goings-on/September 26, 2010 mentions a new Featured Sound, but this appears to have been overlooked. Bencherlite^Talk 10:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there are so few FS promotions, we often forget to check. It's there now. Tony (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Featured pictures: "within a strictly applied two-week period". Actually, FPC's last 9 days generally. Jujutacular ^talk 21:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We hope we got it right: UTC midnight Saturday to Friday, each week. It's a slight lag, but enables us to get it together by the Monday 03:00 deadline without a huge rush. Tony (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Haha. It originally said "... one-week period" and I changed it to "two-week period". What was I thinking? Makeemlighter (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers (4,906 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-10-04

Discuss this story

I don't get the "in my refrigerator" joke. Is it meant to be a macabre serial killer joke?--greenrd (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox news is already reporting on Wales' murder confession. Gigs (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is just that the refrigerator is a place missing things sometimes turn up - usually food items or at least kitchen related, but sometimes my reading glasses. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Indeed, I have found my car keys in the fridge once. Though... I would be impressed with anyone who could fit 57,000 people in a refrigerator. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One possibility could be a reference to the notion of Women in Refrigerators (a bit further done here). Tabercil (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the PLoS article needed to mention Wikipedia's Manual of Style; not only do many established Wikipedians either ignore it or are unaware of its existence, it doesn't provide anything that a combination of the guidance of more familiar academic style guides (such as the MLA Handbook) & studying relevant Featured Articles would. A more important omission would be the no original research policy, since the natural inclination of any expert would be to add new & original material to an article, & getting tripped up by this policy could inadvertently discourage people we'd obviously desire for their expertise. In any case, the article could only cover so much ground & obviously some things had to be left out. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you written any featured articles or lists? While Wikipedia's growth is far too large to keep every page concurrent with our highest standards (as stated in the MoS and as states so virulently by the project's opposers), nominations there have to be dead on. The MoS is indeed a very important document. But, as with the MLA handbook, almost no one has read the whole thing =) ResMar 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How are you saying nor is more important? Imo, it's one of the most vauge back-bracers of wikipedia. What kind of desperate, desperate person would want to try to publish their research via Wikipedia? Even with articles that are completely unreferenced, 99% of the time everything or almost everything there is true, regardless of sourcing. ResMar 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're offended for calling your baby ugly; I call them as I see them. I'm sure many Wikipedians would consider MoS as another of "the most vague back-bracers of wikipedia.[sic]" I mentioned WP:NOR simply as an example, but in my experience many experts coming to Wikipedia for the first time have run afoul of NOR simply because they don't know better: the intent of publication in scholarship or academia is to contribute original work -- which is antithetical to Wikipedia's mandate. As for Manual of Styles, every periodical & publishing house has one, & professionals who want to publish expect to find one. -- llywrch (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not by "baby" and I don't maintain it. In fact, I've never even read the whole thing in one sitting. If you have a problem with it, contact Tony1. I have yet to meet anyone who has this problem. In fact, it is mostly the "common" user adding unsourced statements that lead to things tagged with {{references needed}} tags. ResMar 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more (4,352 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-10-04

Discuss this story

Article feedback tool

Skew in Firefox.

The testing of the article feedback tool on U. S. public policy articles—but including many articles relevant worldwide, such as immigration—is a bit strange. —innotata 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Public Policy includes a lot of broad articles that are highly relevant to aspects of US public policy although not exclusively devoted to US issues.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, why test on one topic, one project? —innotata 16:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• For anyone looking to hide the article feedback box, you can the following line to your skin.css page: div.article-assessment-wrapper { display:none; } Rockfang (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sage : there's a significant issue with boxes. On Firefox, it cleaves into two rows. Standard IE vs. Firefox etc. crap. ResMar 03:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem on Firefox for me. —innotata 18:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ResMar, that was a last-minute change to make sure it behaved reasonably on 800px-wide screens. Hopefully the next iteration will solve that problem more elegantly; I don't like the two row version either.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The above says: "An interesting early result is that ... experienced Wikipedians might on the average be "tougher" on articles than casual readers. DUH! How much did we spend on this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It goes well with last week's 'debate' about coloring testicles on Commons...sigh. ResMar 04:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Where was this debate? Powers ^T 00:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Share this" box

The Share This box overlays part of the article making that part unreadable. --88.130.179.41 (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Do you have JavaScript turned off? (This feature was introduced only recently, I have noted your comment in the existing discussion about it.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're correct - this is only a problem for users browsing without JavaScript. However, the issue should now be resolved and text will flow around the box. — Pretzels ^Hii! 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia now the fourth largest

It's good to see that Italian WP has surpassed the Polish one, since the depth there is several times greater (76/12). The Polish WP, in fact, has less depth than any major language, leading one to think that it's created primarily by dumping great numbers of translated stubs from other languages. Lampman (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get these numbers...? ResMar 15:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news (573 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-10-04

Discuss this story

Background on the Stockphoto tool, from Guillaume Paumier: One-click reuse buttons on Wikimedia Commons. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Chunk-dumps, I believe are now on the second pass. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC).