Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-09-16

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-09-16. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access (11,240 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-16

Discuss this story

• Nice op-ed. --Pine^✉ 18:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you, Elsevier! User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Nice op-ed. I like to mention newspaper articles as another issue. They used to be freely accessible, but now more and more newspapers are paywalling them, - at least in Denmark. Newspaper articles are rarely paid by tax-payers, so shouldn't we expect them to be paywalled when ads cannot pay for them completely? We should not refrain from using paywalled newspaper articles in Wikipedia. — fnielsen (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In the United States no good newspaper is not paywalled. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• I definitely agree. But I should add that in addition to getting public and charitable funders to demand public access to the data they pay for - which is truly a no-brainer - we should also look forward to the day when the tyranny of copyright is finally ended. It may seem hard to believe now, but there will be a time when the reference you add to an Elsevier journal is just as open as the reference you make to PLOS, because we will have learned to reject censorship as a method of economic policy, and all those papers will have been freely copied out for the public to read. Whether that has to happen through rational legal change, mass civil disobedience on Pirate Bay, or throwing the copyright enforcers off a tower in ISIS fashion, we should in any case welcome the day when at last it is no crime to read and share information. We can fund creative endeavors through a marketplace of voluntary contributions without rationing access to their results, provided we set minimum amounts at which each citizen of a given income must pay overall; for that matter, we can completely change an economic system that is meant to compel labor at all costs when in reality the labor is being taken over by machines and economic success is the birthright only of those who own the productive powers of the Earth. And when that day comes ... the edits these editors have made will still make up some of the collective public resources that will have been built from Wikipedia. Meanwhile, open access advocates need to address the clear need to create a wall of separation between archivist sites that maintain guaranteed public access to material, regardless of quality, and publishers who should call attention to the best papers without being paid anything for the privilege. The alternative is not pretty. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  Good piece. Fortunately, we are starting to get access to necessary databases. There is no reason for people to be out of pocket for their good work in advancing the project, and it's starting to sink in, down in WMF land, that good access makes good articles. (sorry Robert)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Fred Bauder: "In the United States no good newspaper is not paywalled"—try the US edition of the Guardian. Tony (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Good point. NPR is mostly available, as is much of C-Span. I subscribe to three paywalls NYT, the New Yorker and WP, but miss the WSJ and FT. Couldn't, shouldn't, read that many papers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for writing this. I think you make a great point about how open access advocates aren't demanding that university libraries stop subscribing to important journals. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Academic journal publishing reform#Schekman boycott. EllenCT (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between choosing to stop submitting to particular journals and demanding that your library stop subscribing to them! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good piece. As one of the "lucky" editors with a Elsevier Wikipedia Library sub I have to say that I have not yet (after some months) managed to access any article I wanted to read (mostly recent medical stuff). All the crown jewels seem to be excluded from the offer - afaik there's no list of what it covers. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, sounds like the first legitimate critique I've heard of the Elsevier deal. Can you elaborate? (FWIW I blogged about this last week.) Pete (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. I haven't tried that often, but when I do try I don't get access, so that rather puts me off. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, you should have full access to the entire corpus/database of ScienceDirect. It's their massive, premier sciences/medicine collection. Can you give me an example of a source that wasn't accessible through it? Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't. I've forwarded you by email a message from them when I queried on one item via Nikkimaria, and I can't for example access this or this article, though I can get Lancet editorials etc, which I think anyone can. I also can't get textbook chapters like this. However I can get this when logged on, but not when not logged on. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good op-ed. This controversy is anything but. The best quality sources can sometimes be paywalled--peer reviewed articles among other things usually are. Limiting ourselves to non-paywalled could lead to a drastic reduction of quality for certain articles. Tutelary (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
• I love to find sources that are open-access. I cite them all I can. But I don't see why I shouldn't additionally use my library subscription to JSTOR and my TWL subscription to Cairn -- even Elsevier if I happened to have it. I'm getting information out of those paywall sources and giving it to readers of the greatest open access encyclopedia there has ever been. When I cite my open access sources, all readers can use them; when I cite my paywall sources, a few readers will use them and all the rest will click out of them fast (to borrow Johnbod's phrase above, they'll be "put off"). Am I doing any harm to the open access movement? I don't think so. Andrew Dalby 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't acknowledge the difference between a public convention center offering beer and Mothers Against Drunk Driving having an open bar, or why the latter is far, far more troubling than the former, then you're either profoundly stupid or being extremely disingenuous in blind, fawning support of "your side". Jframda (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
• A couple years ago I started to write articles on academic books. At first, I was limited to writing about the ones for which I could find abundant online reviews (the old "if it's not on Google, it doesn't exist"). Now, I've learned the dusty reference tomes and retrospective databases and I know better. Without this esoteric access, I plainly wouldn't have the sources to write about books from the 60s and 70s, which are caught in a catch-22: their reviews locked away in journals perhaps popular at the time but not economical to index then and not economical to digitize now. These are the types of redlinks that will be very hard to fill unless we increase library access for editors. Godspeed you, TWL. – czar 03:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• The moral questions are not moot:
  1. If we cite a "donated" resource, whether it's an account to a pay-walled publisher or a physical book, we may be failing in our duty of neutrality.
  2. If we do not cite the best source, pay-walled or not, we do our readers a disservice.
  3. If we cite pay-walled sources we risk helping perpetuate the pay-walls.
  4. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting anything, even the movement it is part of.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

There is an alternative for material that exists in hardcopy: Cite the source in its dead-tree (paper) or dead-dinosaur (microfilm) form, as if you were at a public or university library and were looking at the paper- or microfilm version of the book/journal/newspaper/whatever. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• When quoting limited-access material, editors should try to include a long enough quote so that it is clear that the source supports the claim, and they should try to include a long enough quote so that, if the work is ever indexed in a public search engine (as many paywalled books and scholarly articles already are) someone can search on the quote and verify the citation is correct. I say "try to" because if you can't do so without violating copyright or other law or Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and practices (including the common practice of NOT making the "references" section look unnecessarily cluttered), don't do it. The same is true for material that is likely to suffer link-rot in the future. It's less critical for material where the reference contains a link that will likely be stable for years or decades or where it refers to a hardcopy publication that is widely available for free inspection (e.g. in public libraries or by browsing brick-an-mortar bookstores) now and likely to be widely available for free inspection for years to come. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road? (1,882 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-16

Discuss this story

• I was expecting some mention of the Emu War for this one. SounderBruce 21:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I did spend half-an-hour reading through Emu and Emu oil, wrote a short paragraph (without mentioning the war) only to have another contributor come along and delete half the paragraph without explanation. Since they didn't write up any of the other FAs I got annoyed- that's why there's very short and banal entries for each article. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• …and I didn't write the headline. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If (like me) you'd grown up in the UK in the 70's and 80's, you'd have expected a reference to This guy Chuntuk (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd somehow managed to forget that. Ah well, back to the psychotherapist… Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was going to mention Rod Hull myself. He wasn't just in the UK. The Hudson Brothers had him on their Saturday morning show.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In the media: Is there life on Mars? (941 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-16

Discuss this story

There are now over 100 installments of Wiki Wormhole. See Wikipedia:Wiki Wormhole for an (almost) complete list. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and made the correction above. It's the 104th installment of the Wormhole. Who knew that Wikipedia tracks this in WP space? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Global North edits the world and, it seems, vice versa, at least in en. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia? (5,636 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-16

Discuss this story

Do you have a link to the Wikimedia Foundation Google study results? I assume they were published as the Signpost provides a summary. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's on Commons at File:Google referral report.pdf. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gamaliel, it's much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Woah, who wrote THIS:

"On September 9, the FBI arrested Joshua Ryne Goldberg, a 20-year-old Jewish resident of Orange Park, Florida, for allegedly supplying bomb-making information for a plot to attack a Kansas City ceremony commemorating September 11 attacks."

A "20-year-old Jewish resident"? That's how historical accounts might describe someone who was confined to the Warsaw Ghetto. We don't describe people as Muslim residents or Roman Catholic residents either. This is tacky, Wikipedia. It isn't consistent with modern (as in the past 50 years) standards of writing.--FeralOink (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Most media accounts noted he was Jewish and contrasted that with his alleged impersonation of an Islamic terrorist. I am open to suggestions about how to word this differently while still including this widely noted and commented upon fact. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

He impersonated a lot of things, which I found noteworthy (and the variety to be amusing, e.g., ISIS, feminist, white supremacist, GamerGate). As for wording, it is better to say he was Jewish, than a Jewish resident. In most countries, with the exception of a few theocracies, residents of all religions are allowed. Saying that he was a Jewish resident makes it seem like he was a foreign national, not an American. I agree that it is worth mentioning that he is Jewish, but phrase it so that it is part of the news story, not an identifying aspect. I can be more specific if you want. Thank you for clarifying, by the way. Note that I wasn't saying that you were being anti-Semitic or anything like that, as you weren't!--FeralOink (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its that note-worthy a terror suspect edited wikipedia. This day in age, there's probably a lot of suspects, and a lot of people edit wikipedia, so its unsurprising that there is an intersection. If he was convicted of something, that would be more interesting (imo). Bawolff (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The conclusion seems to be that he didn't edit Wikipedia, based on this: "Both accounts do not appear to have edited articles involving terrorism, but instead focused on film, especially horror films, animation, and video games." Gamaliel, this was not what you asked about, but I'll start here. I would rephrase that sentence as, "Neither account appears to have..."--FeralOink (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That was spot on, I've made the change. Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

<Visualize a smiley face of acknowledgement here>--FeralOink (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification bug

Woo, my bug screenshot made the signpost. Is this what its like to be famous? Bawolff (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Bad news Bawolff, your 15 minutes are over. I hope they get it sorted out, I think that was a useful change to Notifications. (I was wondering what happened to it!) 220 of ^Borg 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 220 of Borg: Yeah, it should be coming back on Thursday. Its on https://test.wikipedia.org right now. Bawolff (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Firefox 3.5?

Wikipedia supports Firefox 3.5 from 2009? Why? 99.41.93.30 (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Its safari that's the support target (Although the basic components of the site is supposed to work at least in a limited way on old browsers). I just happen to have a really old version of firefox installed on my computer that I sometimes use to test things. Bawolff (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: Another week (4,525 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-09-16

Discuss this story

• Anyone interested in how the US GOP candidates are doing, here's my updated viewcount chart through this past week:[1]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not both Republicans and Democrats? Or exploring the relationship between page views[2][3] and other measures? EllenCT (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I am particularly interested in the circus of Trump, because his wikipedia numbers seem to be correlated with his poll standings. It is extremely doubtful that any Republican candidate can be elected president in 2016. The Democratic race is comparatively boring, and Hillary Clinton is very likely to be the nominee, and next president.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you doubt a Republican can be elected, why wouldn't that make the Democratic race less boring? Trump is, as you and he both say, a circus for ratings to try to get people to passively consume media without any meaningful participation. Hillary Clinton is no longer leading likely primary voter polls in New Hampshire or Iowa. Saying her election is "very" likely requires ignoring substantial signals and clear trends. Neither oddsmakers nor candidates' fundraising statistics suggest a noncompetitive Democratic race. EllenCT (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll pay attention to the candidates on substance a year from now, for now I'm just enjoying the spectacle of Trump. Since reporting is so devoid of substance on the candidates' positions, anybody can lead in the polls no matter how ridiculous they are. E.g., Trump can't deport 11 million people, will never happen. Its like Pakistani's who devoutly defended Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car -- the stupid burns. Even when i was really young, I liked Ross Perot only for the spectacle. So I warped early on. But -- I'm mindful of your point that I should be careful about ordaining Hillary even in jest when I write the report, so I appreciate you approaching this issue rationally.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Next week's chart is going to be a doozy for GOP candidates. Carly Fiorina will be #2 (1st time Trump has been beaten in views), followed by Trump at #5 and Carson at #10, I think. None of these folks have ever held elected office.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Minor correction. The Queen isn't Queen of England, as that hasn't been a title since 1707. She's Queen of the United Kingdom (and the other 15 Commonwealth Realms). Kaiser matias (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)