THC Science

To do

User:SandyGeorgia/ToDo

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

FA question

Hey Sandy, can you confirm that most (all?) FA nominations are "self-nominations"? ("My" one and only FA was nominated by someone else, a practice that at the time—"Brilliant prose" days?—I assumed was fairly common, but now I think is virtually non-existent). Thus if there are many editors (like me) who have no interest in nominating "their" articles, then FAs will almost certainly not represent our best work. Paul August ☎ 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While other-nominations were common in 2006 and before, they are extremely rare now; I can't recall when I've last seen one. I think they were uncommon by 2007 ???? And the simplest way to find out-of-compliance older FAs is to check whether the involved editors (whether nominator or not) are still actively maintaining the article. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably new since those days is this, at the top of the FAC instructions: " Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Effectively "significant contributors" have a veto on nominations. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August:, sheesh, that Village Pump conversation is tiring. Recurring instances of "I didn't type what you are reading", but I give up.

Anyway, to your point about articles that aren't submitted to FAC, I think that is why WP:FA uses the word some in the first line, and qualifies it to as determined by Wikipedia's editors. The process is less than perfect, depends on volunteers, and would be much better if more people engaged, but it's still the best we've got.

@Johnbod: do you think this "veto" power is stalling nominations? I realize I disagree with Iri, but I think what is ailing FAC is a) the extreme unpleasantry that took hold for several years via cliques and was tolerated, b) that noms are allowed to turn into peer reviews of basically prose nitpicks with limited focus on real issues (relative to, for example, a real review), c) good reviewers being chased off by said cliques, and d) the elimination of a director who worked towards making sure all processes (FAC, FAR, TFA) worked together and helped advance the goals of FA. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't think I disagree with anything you've said about the FA process (and you would certainly know considerably more about it than I do). And just to be clear, nothing I've said is meant as a criticism. There are several reasons why I don't have any desire to nominate articles, or participate in other ways (some of which you've touched on above, and which I could share, although I'm not sure they're worth much), but for the most part they boil down to "not my cup of tea". Paul August ☎ 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not detect any unintended or unwarranted criticism! (On the other hand, unlike you, there are some editors who avoid FAC because they don't want their POV to be noticed by a neutral audience :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlike you": You sure about that? ;-) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the veto power is stalling nominations, or if it is, only in a good way. I agree with your analysis, I'm afraid. I stopped doing my "own" noms (as opposed to helping with ones mainly by User:Ceoil especially) just because I thought the large amounts of finicky extra work involved was of less benefit to the project than improving, sometimes starting, a much larger number of articles, mostly with much larger views. The tendency for FACs to cover micro-topics has rather put me off too. I still very much support FAs in principle, but these days am finding it hard to even do reviews. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to start again, doing it the old way (oppose early, oppose often, not ready, get a PR or CE and come back); we'll see how long I last! I tend to alternate between FAC and WPMED, depending on which one is giving me most grief! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Johnbod, I've been contemplating how to articulate my decreasing interest in the Featured process and you've done splendidly. I had been thinking about how the energy required to bring something from 95 to 100% is exponentially more than, say from 50 to 75%. Maybe my time and energy is better spent in that range, and maybe we as authors can better serve readers that way. I have also come to realize that 100% doesn't mean what it used to, being careful not to impugn many people's VERY fine work. --Laser brain (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In my part of the forest, there are great numbers of articles where say 15-25 to 50-65% is possible, & quite easy for me to write and source. Just this minute I'm looking at tapestry topics, & now I see the main article has averaged 470 views a day but for the medieval & Early Modern periods is almost all on who made them & where, with barely a word (or link) on who commissioned them & why, or what they looked like. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "hours editing per percentage improvement" number goes up the closer you get to 100%, so it has to be true that working on weaker articles is a bigger net benefit to Wikipedia than trying to get something to featured level. My own motivation for working at FAC is more about enjoying the learning process required to get those last few percent, but for those with more altruistic motivations FAC is not the most productive vineyard on Wikipedia. As for long lists of prose fixes, I've been guilty of that but a while ago I stopped and now I copyedit. (If there's more copyediting required than I think is reasonable for FAC, I oppose.) That limits what I list in a review to things I genuinely can't figure out for myself, or more substantive issues that the nominator needs to work on. I don't know how to encourage that behaviour in other reviewers but I think it would be a benefit. I can't really blame newer reviewers for behaving like that; they see plenty of models to imitate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that FAC probably no longer is, and may no longer ever be, relevant anymore, I am not giving up that easily. I don't think Ceoil is ready to give up either. And I don't think that SarahSV is either. But I do think if we "old-timers" don't start leading the way, then FAC is done—stick a fork in it already. In that vein, I posted to FAC talk responding to Sarah what sorts of things I am still trying to do towards re-invigorating FAC. Maybe others will follow suit. Maybe others will start reviewing properly. Maybe if they try to chase off Sarah and Tony and Fowler and me again, others will stand up. If they don't, the demise of FAC is deserved. If the attacks at FAC talk don't stop, I will join those who say that FAC needs to be put out of its misery. To fully answer Sarah's question about Opposes, the lack thereof is somewhat related to WikiCup as an extension of the reward culture, in that it started many years ago with cliques who didn't ever Oppose because they didn't want their articles to be opposed ... as FAC became a machine to promote the FACs of mutually supportive groups ... limited checks for independent review or awareness of these cliques or at least limited interest in doing anything about them ... and from there, not opposing took hold and became commonplace, at the same time as the Coords allowed the notion that three supports= promotion to take hold. As to Coord exhaustion, ummm ... yes, hullo! ... there comes a point where one realizes one is only feeding egos, and getting little back in terms of the support needed to keep the wheels turning. Remember, I processed three times the volume we see now, and the attacks during my tenure came from not one, but three different prolific sockmasters, so buck up friends !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank - I don't have the time I did back in those days. And what time I can find for wiki needs to be relaxing and enjoyable for me. I do enough cat herding in my game job and enough soothing egos when I take photography clients or horse pedigree clients. I get paid for that. And I'm generally tired and cranky and .. yes, bitchy. If what is wanted is for me to return to the hours I used to spend at FAC, well, that isn't going to happen, sorry. And I suspect that what Mike's saying is that he doesn't have that time either. And probably Sarah doesn't either, honestly. And at some point, I just have to question... why bother? I get no feeling of reward or accomplishment from even looking at FAC... so what's in it for me? I'd rather go dig in dusty books for clients, thanks. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you telling me to just give up? Because I don't see any other qualified coords out there (Mike has declined many times). "Give up" means join voices with those who say we need a whole new assessment scheme, with some merging of GA/A/FA. Continuing a charade is not my style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm just saying don't depend on me being able to do what I did in the past. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand :) It's interesting ... as your life changed in one direction, mine changed in the opposite, and here I am stuck inside with COVID and more time on my hands than even when I was delegate, with two children still at home! So I will keep pushing for change; you'll just have to put up with me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very unfortunate indeed to loose Ealdgyth, who has done/put up with more than most over the years, and has always lead by example. Which begs the question, that I am not close enough to answer, are we nurturing enough (any) people to take over from her, Ian, Andy, and the burden they are carrying. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look now, Ceoil, but it's worse than that-- there's Nikkimaria, too, doing most of the heavy lifting. Honestly, if we lost either of them, FAC would no longer be turning out FAs-- we fool ourselves as to what it is producing.

But you've picked up on my concern that has me hitting the talk page often. There seems to be no institutional memory-- no sense at FAC of why we do X or don't do Y or what happens if we do Z. Most of the newer nominators or reviewers have no idea of Awadewit sourcing standards, or Tony1 prose standards, or what a thorough review looks like: all they have seen is prose nitpicking. The loss of institutional memory is exemplified in the complete absence of the Oppose, which led to the stagnation of FAC. And that I should be excoriated at FAC talk for even asking questions like, "what became of X" is curious.

And we lost the director, so no one is asking the hard questions or engaging the hard discussions about how to fix what ails FAC.

Are we grooming future Coordinators? Well, I dunno ... because that leads to my next pet peeve ... the way the ECHO system (that damn pingie thingie) has stymied communication on Wikipedia. Remember when we used to actually "talk" to each other? That gave us a chance to observe character, integrity, how one reacts under pressure, etc. Now we ping each other to discussions, meaning our opportunities to see how some of the new(er to us) reviewers would handle certain situations is lacking. And I suspect few people read the whole FAC page top to bottom anymore, and may miss a lot. So how can we gauge suitability of potential Coords? I am encouraged that there are actually a lot of good reviewers emerging, but we don't know their character the way we used to ... when we all worked together at both FAC and FAR and actually communicated and observed behaviors. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I say are we nurturing enough (any) people to take over from her, Ian, Andy, i dont mean are people tasked with the job of mentoring; I mean is the process credible thought to attract....Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ... and I think with a small bit of effort, we can see a resurgence. There are many solid editors engaging; I think some institutional memory will help. Here's an example of what's been missing. A recent FAC nominator announced they had COVID. No one seems to read all the FACs, so only two people noticed. Would we not expect more well wishes on that user's talk? The way to build back a community is by ... building community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick comment re WT:FAC post

Just to say I'm not sure you'll get much engagement at WT:FAC at the moment; sections like the one I capped exhaust people and reduce their interest in commenting. I will just mention that the stats I collect are certainly limited in what they show, but I think they're useful so long as they're not overinterpreted; and that not doing them wouldn't increase my reviewing -- there's no overlap in the time I spend on one vs. the other. I think you already know that I don't agree with your diagnosis of FAC, and hence, unsurprisingly, I disagree on the recommended treatment. We have a decade of evidence that exhortations to increase effort don't work. If there's something that can be improved, I don't believe it will be done by asking people to step up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SO what do you think will help? Add to the thread above where I hope we're all putting out heads together. As to getting attention on FAC talk, I disagree; more and more people are re-engaging as they see someone standing up to the new status quo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought I knew the best advice to give at FAC, I promise I wouldn't keep it secret. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that :) :) Which is why these voices trying to silence discussion need for someone to stand up to them. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Mike, the old adage, "if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it" comes to mind. The status quo at FAC isn't working. I'll challenge it before I give up on FAC. "You have to break some eggs to make an omelette." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little late here, but I also read that WT:FAC discussion. Changed the way I approach reviewing at FAC mentally, as I'd previously mostly just saved the oppose for drive by noms. I expect an increase in opposes will have some pushback, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

<rant on because I am out of time this morning, having to do some unexpected outside work> Most appreciated, Hog Farm. While I should be reading through the worthy noms from you and @Casliber, Ceoil, Coemgenus, Peacemaker67, Mike Christie, Harrias, and Hawkeye7: (and that's just the top of the list-- holy cow-- there are more!!!) so that I can fully support, and helping Jo-Jo Eumerus, I am instead wallowing in an ill-prepared nomination that STILL has significant prose issues, even after a GOCE run-through. We are seeing worthy noms archived simply because no one has time or the inclination to get them. Deficient prose is not fixed in one pass. We have dozens of worthy noms on the page, but limited resources go towards pulling unworthy noms up to standard, while the worthy noms languish on the page. And here I am, needing to go over to that article and outline the considerable prose issues that still exist, when there are so many other ways I should be spending my reviewing time. THAT is what discourages reviewers (having to engage an ill-prepared nomination, and then being sucked in).

I make a first pass through FAC just to see which noms should be withdrawn; I don't/can't support an article until I go back and do a thorough read. But at least getting the too-much-work noms off the page should help free up resources. And re-invigorating Peer review, where we don't have to work under the pressure of going back to re-review and strike, has always been the way to go.

And here's the rub. It has been EIGHT FLIPPING YEARS since I resigned as delegate, and the ill-prepared nom that I flagged was the same sort of work that writer was putting up way back then. So what has changed? Nothing for the better. I could understand these attempts to stifle me if FAC had seen some amazing turnaround since I resigned. Not the case. I would shut my mouth and quietly go away and join those saying that FAC should be abolished, but not without giving it a best shot first. The only thing that has changed in these eight years is that FAC has continued to stagnate, and we sure don't need any more data to know that. We need to get the ill-prepared off the page, so we can focus on the prepared. And we need to encourage PR. And we need to back each other when there are issues so that the Coords have the info they need to archive sooner.

So, I have to do some outside work today because of the weather, and will get back to all of these FACs as soon as I can, with apologies to all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, there are many more worthy noms on the page ... apologies to anyone I didn't list, as I only looked at the top. @Buidhe and Aoba47: come to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, I also do not fear pushback on opposes. In my experience (which I hope I can say is considerable), nominators WANT and EXPECT thorough review of their articles, and appreciate a serious review. (When they don't, we don't need their contributions at FAC anyway.) Many of my best collaborations and friendships on Wikipedia fell out of strong opposes, as nominators eventually come to realize that your strong critique is what eventually got them the bronze star. Each time you oppose, you hold your breath and hope this nominator will be one of the many gems who will appreciate your work and come to be a wikifriend or collaborator-- doesn't always happen, says more about them than you. And those who are still, eight years later, bringing ill-prepared nominations to FAC so that others could do their work for them, might consider the correct effort that Spicy put in to complete blood count after GA and before he approached FA. There's a first-time nominator success because he did it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the opposes are the problem. Lack of input is. And lack of suitable alternative venues - someone recently complained at WT:FAC that they were sent away from FAC to GOCE, GOCE went through the article, they went back to FAC and the prose was still a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another piece of fallout from chasing off our best copyeditors at FAC. The idea that the GOCE can run through an article in a day and prep it for FAC is just ... absurd. A good copyeditor will spend a lot of time querying what is really meant by prose that is unintelligible. GOCE copyediting is rarely FA-level. Query: what on earth does this mean? Water is the most important part of beaver habitat, and they require a yearly supply that is sufficient for swimming, diving, floating logs, protection of lodge entrances and safety from land-dwelling predators. Do they get an annual delivery from the Culligan man? Can they go nine months without water as long as they get it once a year? What the heck. At that article, such continues ... the writer should have developed a collaboration with good copyeditors years ago, and must know by now that you can't prep a broad article for FAC in three days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ongoing FAC discussion

Thank you for the post on the FAC talk page. Apologies for posting on your talk page, but I was uncertain if this really fit with the current discussion. I agree with you that opposes should be used more often, but I would hope that they are done in a way that is not personalized against the nominator. I have reacted very poorly to oppose declarations in the past, and it is honestly something I am still working on. I know that it is absolutely impossible to avoid having a nominator respond negatively to an oppose declaration, but I wish there were more objective ways of opposing.

I remember a few years back when more reviewers opposed, and the discussion and overall tone would turn quite hostile very quickly from both sides of the conversation. I think the deteriorating relationship between nominator and reviewer could be linked to larger issues with the FAC and participation in that area of Wikipedia. That could just be me though. Anyway, I just wanted to voice my concern, because while I agree with you about the need for more opposes, I hope they return in a more constructive manner and not in the rather toxic or personalized ways that I have seen in the past.

Apologies again for the random message. I was just curious about your response to this. I do not consider myself to be an experienced Wikipedia editor at all so these kinds of discussions are best suited for those far more experienced than myself. Anyway, I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is natural that nominators will react poorly to opposes in an environment where they are almost never used, so hopefully that can change if nominators understand that archival can often be the fastest route to promotion, because cluttered FACs stagnate on the page. On the hostile conversations, the technique Raul and I used in the "olden days" was to either remove the off-topic hostility to the talk page of the FAC, or if it got really bad, to restart the FAC. Current Coords refuse to use those techniques; beats the heck out of me why they won't, and why we allow hostility on FACs. No need to apologize; great to hear from you! It is encouraging to realize that people are paying attention :0 And I have never objected to whatever they called ... "cookie cutter", "niche", "pop culture", whatever :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! I never considered that but it makes sense. If opposes became more common in the FAC space, then it would be more expected and hopefully there would be more of an acceptance of it and less pushback. I only bring up hostile opposes because I have seen a few editors abandon the FAC space (and sometimes even Wikipedia in general) after a misconnection involving an oppose. Ideally, if there were more opposes, reviewers could possibly reach a better understanding on how to clearly oppose and lay out their reasons for it while still engaging the nominator in making the necessary edits away from the FAC space.

If you are interested, there is a discussion open on the peer review talk page about "Pre featured article reviews" (here). Apologies for my knee-jerk reaction to the "niche" vs. "broad" discussion because you did make it very clear in that same thread that this is not one of your concerns. I do have a tendency to over-apologize so I should work on that ><. I have a lot of respect for you for opening this discussion in the first place. I love your idea about a FA newsletter, and I've honestly never heard of Template:FCDW before. It does make me hopeful for the future of the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of that. But you have to also realize that some personalities will never be suited to FAC. You can't please all the people all the time, and you have to be able to accept criticism of your work to be able to benefit from FAC. Some people can't :) I am also hopeful, but then, I am an eternal pollyanna :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that completely. It is good to be mindful on how to present criticism, but a person needs to be in the right headspace to really read and comprehend it (and appreciate the fact that someone took time out of their own day to help). It is a tough thing to have, and I must admit that I am not 100% great at it myself. I used to be more optimistic, and I am slowly getting back there. Just went through a rough period of depression years back so that kind of drained me of that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I hope you know that it is (reslient) editors like you who give me hope! Let me expand. At a non-profit organization, when training up people, they throw out a bunch of poker chips on a table, and tell managers that they have 30 seconds to gather their volunteers. Some gather as many chips as they can in one broad sweep. While the smart ones carefully pick out the blue chips. I'm not interested in pleasing all the people all the time-- and especially not on the Internet where every asshole with an opinion is happy to unburden their issues on to anyone they come across. I'm looking for the blue chips. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. That does encourage me a lot. Even though I've been working on Wikipedia since 2016 (and it is crazy to think about that), I still struggle with impostor syndrome. The Internet is such a weird space because I can find such inspiring and motivational material alongside things that are more toxic.

Apologies for yet another message, but I just wanted to let you know that it is standard practice to put music charts side-by-side. See the "Style" (Taylor Swift song) article for an example. I do not see why it would be a MOS:SANDWICH since having these charts side-by-side does not disturb the layout. Just wanted to let you know about that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba47; might you add that to the PR? I am tucked in for the night, iPad typing. Otherwise, I will add it toMorrow ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the offer, but I must decline. I just wanted to clear up this point as an editor somewhat experienced with music article. I have already committed to helping with a FAC, and I frankly have no desire to work with that particularly nominator. I will not say anything negative, but I must say no. I hope you have a good rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I might take a look, although I admit I am not sure which PR we are talking about. Also, Sandy, in case you are interested the next article I plan to send to FAC is Quelccaya Ice Cap ... after dash-ing and basic prep work, of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review being discussed is Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 the GA reviewer specifically pinged me to the question, so some response was needed. My response is, "don't ask me because I don't understand GA to begin with"; no offense or criticism was intended there. :) But really, the GA reviewer's query should have been listed at the talk page of that PR rather than directly on the PR. Perhaps Jlevi will move it to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2 (and move my response along with it). Jo-Jo Eumerus, that is a PR you might be interested in: Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. We just read the comment different, which is completely okay. Since the editor was asking for feedback/advice for their first GAN review, I just found it a little odd to respond with a no and a personal opinion on the GA criteria. That is just my opinion though, and I am likely wrong. My response was likely more unnecessary as I know understand why you responded to the editor's question since you are one of the active reviewers for the peer review. I agree the comment is better suited for the peer review's talk page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also just wanted to thank you for all of your reviews for FACs and participation in peer reviews. I know that it takes a lot of time and energy, and you keep me inspired/encouraged to stay active in those spaces as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you, Aoba47 ... maybe I will even catch up enough to go review yours ... so far, I am just able to keep up with making sure those that are not ready are processed, without time for any thorough reading needed for supporting. I am hoping if we get used to clearing out the ill-prepared, we will all have more time to focus on polishing the gems. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

On a somewhat related tangent, what is the issue with The Signpost? I've seen the discussion on the FAC talk page, and I have seen a significant amount of editors who were critical of it. I am very unfamiliar with the publication, although I have thought about writing an article or something for them in the past. Apologies for taking this into a different direction, but I was just curious about the criticism against this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly politicized, rarely neutral, partial to certain points of view re management of Wikipedia, and editors there play favorites and rarely acknowledge or retract any of the aforementioned. If you agree with their point of view and their particular favorite editors, you may like their coverage, but based on their pageviews, they have lost most readership, I believe because of those reasons. They are irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a shame because it would be nice to have a centralized newspaper on here. I've enjoyed it when they did interviews with editors and spotlighted specific WikiProjects. I miss when it used to do stuff like that. I have unsubscribed to The Signpost so you are right. Still a shame though. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost also changes over time as the editors involved change, which means that its most prominent failings change, too.

I am not sure that a monthly magazine is the best format for Wikipedia. It might have been more immediately useful when it was a weekly newsletter. These days, something more like a daily scheduled blog would probably be of more interest to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I'd be interested in what a daily scheduled blog would like. It is interesting to think about what format would be best for Wikipedia. I was only curious because at one point in time, I had thought about writing an article or contributing something to The Signpost. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, I understand that there's a Facebook group for Wikipedia, and they might be doing something similar. If you want to look outside the English Wikipedia, then https://diff.wikimedia.org just started a little while ago, and is for blog posts written by (mostly) volunteers. I usually find more than enough to read just at the Village pumps, so I haven't spent much time seeking out movement media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and links. I spend a majority of my Wikipedia time working on random articles with an eye towards getting to it the FA level. I am extremely unfamiliar with the more "behind-the-scenes" aspects of Wikipedia, and I could not even talk about the Village pumps with any real confidence. It is not something I ever really interacted with, but they are areas that I would like to and should know about as a Wikipedia editor. I highly doubt I'd really change my focus on here, but it just seems like useful information to know. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 on cue, the Signpost provides an example of precisely what I mentioned in this Newsroom discussion. At the talk discussion referenced, there are a number of disgruntled editors lamenting

a) that the current Arbcom is doing exactly what we elected them to do (take a harder stance on admins who behave in ways that would get non-admins sanctioned), and

b) that they did not get their desired outcomes at Arbcom.

This is succinctly summarized in that discussion here, and explained in depth here by Worm That Turned.

What is of interest to our discussion here is that the Signpost would even consider running a piece on what amounts to sour grapes. Why? Because those are the editors the Signpost is more apt to gear their publications towards. In fact, in the Arb section draft while the Medicine case was underway, it was apparent that the Signpost editors weren't following the issues at all, and did not seem aware that one arb did not appear to be even reading the evidence upon which they based proposed findings without evidence, or understanding the basics of the case (as in who filed it and why).

When editors hold opinions that sync with the Signpost's opinions, the Signpost is inclined towards covering them. And that is why most readers have signed off of reading the Signpost. We elected these arbs to do exactly what they are doing-- with the exception of the one who is having a hard time keeping up with basics. There is a lot of handwaving there about context et al, because some of the editors opining there reject the basic tenets of Wikipedia that the rest of us have to abide by. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out to me and including the links to better understand this discussion. It is disappointing that The Signpost would even consider running a piece on this, and it does take away all of my interest in that publication. I would think there are just a number of more productive conversations/topics to cover over this one. It is a shame because I have read some great pieces in The Signpost (specifically the interviews and spotlights on different WikiProjects), but after seeing this, I am in agreement with you on that matter. It makes me realize that even though I've been quite active on Wikipedia for almost five years now, there is still a lot about the site that I really do not understand at all. I don't know why, but it's just strange to think about. Thank you again for taking the time to explain this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 this is another of the reasons I have been pushing for a FA-process newsletter. Not that anyone is listening :0 We need something beyond the walled garden that is the Signpost, that is aimed at its pet editors, their peeves, grudges and sympathies-- focused on the kind of information we used to have at {{FCDW}}, which included those WikiProject interviews! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more editors will listen in the future? I would not be surprised if the FA-process newsletter got lost in the shuffle of the conversation as a whole so it be worthwhile to wait a bit and then bring it up as a separate discussion item. I will read through the FCDWs because that is something I am genuinely interested in researching further.
There are good WikiProject-specific newsletters like the one for video games and military history, but they see very few and far between. I would be curious if there is a way to see what editors would want from a publication and ways to avoid the same issues from past/current publications. Apologies for rambling on this. I always just found it interesting since 1) I thought about writing an article for The Signpost and 2) I was always curious on how these types of publications could foster a sense of community amongst editors to keep them engaged with Wikipedia to better the site as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

Note the the FACBot has merged the old AfD template, and, as bonus, sorted the milestones into chronological order. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s aweseome, Hawkeye7. You may have noticed that I am still bugged that we let one sock and one prima donna chase off Gimmetrow/Gimmebot. In this case, though, I had to do lots of repair, because although the talkpage originally had all the information templated correctly, HAL333 had lost and changed some of the pieces before FACbot got there. If we were able to get FACBOT to process everything everyday, as Gimmebot did, there would be less chase of editors breaking pieces before FACBOT gets there. That is, Gimmebot went through all templates (DYK, GA, etc) daily. Gimmebot also used to leave spaces between events, and put all the other pieces at the bottom, as I did. Thank you again for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. ~ HAL333([2]) 02:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, HAL333: I'm just on a mission to remind editors to learn to use articlehistory, so we don't lose all of the effort of more than a decade ago to tame talk page clutter! See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches. It's starting to come back because we no longer have a bot that processes all templates, and editors haven't learned to do it manually. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Egg Cream for you

	The Worm in my Egg Cream Award
	This is for helping me get Squirm it's Featured Article status. Went a long way to get it to there and could not have done it without you. GamerPro64 14:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, GamerPro64; glad you stuck to it! Now don't forget to keep helping out at FAR :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

... for noticing the mess. Tho' I wasn't practicing to deceive anyone, I still managed to weave quite the tangled web. I hope I have untangled it. All the best, and a happy new year! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source cribbing from Wikipedia

Greetings,

I've seen you discuss the problem of publications copying Wikipedia articles and wanted to get some assistance. This paper published in 2020 is remarkably similar to our article at Nevado Sajama:

The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. (article) with The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. (publication)
It is situated in Sajama National Park and is a composite volcano consisting of a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes. (article) with It is an extinct composite volcano with a stratovolcano on top of several lava domes. (publication)
Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region. (article) and Changes in the subduction regime took place during the Oligocene and directed an increase of volcanic activity in the region. (publication)
Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene[15] and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults. (article) and Volcanoes in the region have ages ranging from Pleistocene to Miocene and grew on top of earlier ignimbrites; the whole volcanic activity was controlled by faults. (publication)
Starting in the lake Laguna Huana Kkota on the northwestern foot of Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows first northeastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. On the western side of the volcano originates the Sajama River which flows due south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River.[11][9] The other rivers draining Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa. (article) and Starting in the lake Laguna Huaña Kkota on the north-western foot of Nevado Sajama, the Tomarapi River flows firstly eastward, then east, south and southeast around the northern and eastern flanks of the volcano; the Sicuyani River which originates on Nevado Sajama joins it there. The southern flanks give rise to the Huaythana River which flows directly south and then makes a sharp turn to the east. Sajama River originates on the western side of the volcano, and it flows to the south and increasingly turns southeast before joining the Lauca River. Other rivers draining Nevado Sajama and its ice cap also eventually join the Lauca River and end in the Salar de Coipasa (publication)

Given that the article was last expanded in 2018 in a big batch of piecemeal edits and I don't see any attribution anywhere nor compatible copyright rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus I am looking now and will post over there at talk depending on what I find. But if you want me to say more about my time spent with the US Copyright office, that would have to be via email. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major additions by Jo-Jo mostly finished by June 2, 2019
The journal article was published more than six months later.
Comparing the 2020 published article with diff 900002581 from June 2019 [3]
Comparing the journal article with Wikipedia article even further back, diff 868379046 from Nov 2018 after significant work mostly completed by Jo-Jo [4]
I do not find Archeometriai Műhely listed on any predatory journal website, but Headbomb may be able to help.
I do not find Archeometriai Műhely listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/ABC (will need to be added)
Berchanhimez might help figure out who publishes and who hosts the website at http://www.ace.hu/am/ ... I have no idea if takedown notices work there, but getting them to work even in the US is difficult, as unscrupulous publishers can simply move their website elsewhere.

Jo-Jo Eumerus there are some of the pieces, and I can add the backwards copy template, but first we should provide proof that you didn't copy the highlighted phrases from a different source ... As to pursuing this beyond adding the backwards copy template, I can tell you that my experience was not ... productive time spent ... and the copyvio at dementia with Lewy bodies is much more extreme than this (where Fymat took almost the entire article verbatim). Once we add some proof that the copied portions were your original words (which means going back to check diffs where you added some of those copied words), then we can a) add the backwards copy template, and b) add the website to Mirrors and forks. If you want to go further than that, I would only do that via email ... as I believe Wikipedia has sold us a bit of a bill of goods as to how much we can defend against plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been summoned! I have emailed SG my findings as I'm not sure she wants them posted on her talk page here - SG when you get my email please feel free to post in its entirety/part without attribution. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Berchan. Jo-Jo ... I will outline the next steps below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next, examining a specific passage fully duplicated:

The terrain is characterized by a continuous ice cover in the central sector of the mountain, exposures of bedrock, deposits and rock glaciers in some sites, alluvial fans and scree in the periphery of Sajama and moraines forming a girdle around the upper sector of Sajama. sourced to page 361 of Smith and Lowell.

I see no evidence that Wikipedia copied from or too closely paraphrased from the source, but Ajpolino might give a second opinion. Next, to see where that wording was added ... specific diff ...
That text was added here, in Oct 2018 so we seem to have good evidence that Wikipedia had that text well before the journal did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

There's always something new for me to not be aware of. At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month#Nominations you and GB both have the "Daily average page views for 2019". Where, pray tell, can I find that number for a page? Ajpolino (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino, hopefully SG won't mind me responding, but you can find them by going to this toolforge tool and looking on the right side. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Now I see it. Thank you Berchanhimez. I'll gladly take any help I can get. Ajpolino (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Berchan ... not unsurprisingly, I had to ask the same question recently, because digging up last year's is a bit hidden. You have to click ON THE DATE FIELD, to see a drop down menu, where you can choose last year. That there is a drop-down menu there is not at all clear ... and I generally prefer to look at last year's numbers, since everything this year is so skewed by COVID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]