January 28 – February 4

The newest engineering report has details and links of the San Francisco hackathon that happened too late for last week's Signpost to cover it. Sumanah (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/Technology report, thanks Sumana. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Forbes piece in which one contributor advocates adding dynamic features like live webcams and stock tickers to Wikipedia articles, and advocates that users of Wikipedia do more to contribute. Dcoetzee 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in this week's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/In the news, thanks Dcoetzee! Skomorokh 02:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion piece by a PR professional, currently on front page of Campaign Asia-Pacific. Dcoetzee 06:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is making the rounds, as would be expected from PR flacks :-). See also "Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered briefly in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news; I don't see that the debate has progressed meaningfully, however. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have a new blog post up on the WMF blog that contains some news that I think should be interesting to Signpost readers: [1]. You can see the link to Wikimedia Commons from the NARA press release. Thanks! Dominic·t 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Included in N&N for 1/30. Thanks for the suggestion! --Aude (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the featured content of other Wikimedia projects be included in The Signpost? Either in Sister Projects or as part of Featured Content itself? It would give some additional attention to the sister projects and should not unbalance the existing content. (Wikisource, for example, only has one featured text a month, and had none at from October to January; this month's text is Picturesque New Guinea.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra content requires manpower which requires someone willing to do this, and we are understaffed as it is. ResMar 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMF sysadmin Asher Feldman wrote:

I recently switched us over to a chained replication topology to make the mysql portion of eventual site failovers simpler, and to reduce the number of slaves reading from our active masters. In order to see the current topology and slave lag at a glance, I threw this together:

http://noc.wikimedia.org/dbtree/

Mouse-over a cluster name to see which wikis are on a given cluster, and click a host to get ganglia graphs.

Thought readers might enjoy. Sumanah (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned only very briefly in Tech, neat nonetheless. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and we're putting together a series of offline and online events related to women's history on Wikipedia and other projects. It'd also be really cool to see Signpost content in March related to women on Wiki :) Learn more WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration SarahStierch (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of questions that I'm interested in reading The Signpost's team's response to.

I've posted them on the Village Pump.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#What about ACTA?

I'm sure the Wikipedia community would want to know what's going on about it.

Me too. The Transhumanist 02:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking here. ResMar 04:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it as dangerous as SOPA and PIPA?
2. How did Wikipedia's SOPA initiative miss it?
3. Shouldn't it have been the ACTA/PIPA/SOPA initiative? Should we be worried?
4. What are the ramifications of ACTA's having been signed?
5. The European Parliament's appointed rapporteur resigned over this. Has anyone (WMF, Signpost) contacted that person for a statement?
6. How transparent were ACTA's negotiations?
7. How will ACTA affect Wikipedia?
8. How will it affect the Wayback Machine? That's the best place I know of to see historically accurate past versions of Wikipedia pages. (Templates screw up historical views of pages on Wikipedia).
9. How and when would ACTA go into effect?
10. What is happening in the Wikipedia community and in the Wikimedia Foundation about ACTA?
11. What articles about ACTA is The Signpost working on?
12. What, if anything, should Wikipedia do about ACTA?

The Transhumanist 10:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone decides to cover it =S ResMar 22:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Jan 2012 - over 20.000 files moved during drive
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_30#Template:Persondata - template persondata (one of the most widespread templates on Wikipedia, with over 800,000 instances) nominated for deletion
  • And Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1#Template:Cleanup Bulwersator (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images - again, my project (list of articles without image in infobox where image may be imported from plwiki)

Bulwersator (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a shoutbox template that doesn't completely screw up your talk page, at Template:Shoutbox sidebar, with very simple and clean installation. People have been trying to use shoutboxes here since at least 2009, but they've always been weird floating boxes that got in the way of other content and features. Fixed! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read the Signpost enough to know, but is there normally a chunk dedicated to technical events? If so, we might want to put in a blurb about the interwikis not working; see the "Interwiki links" section of WP:VP/T, any of the (currently nine) uses of the work "interwiki" at WP:HD, and the "Article created on en.wiki that forces to tr.wiki" section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive738. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, there's a weekly Technology report, which (now) has this (part) covered. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 00:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2012/1202/Scholarly-Authority-in-a-Wikified-World.cfm

©Geni 10:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-06/In the news, thanks Geni. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 5 – February 11

This has been a hot topic recently among the larger chapters and on Meta.

Ongoing discussions on Meta about the future of movement-wide fundraising have included public drafts from Sue, discussion from many chapters (including two formal position statements from the UK and German chapters), and hundreds of discussion threads. Phoebe collected some of them into a wikibook. The Kurier ran a short note from WMDE's director pointing to their own statement, which included outside marketing research they commissioned on the value of locally-based fundraising in Germany.

This weekend it is on the WMF board agenda, so I expect a lot of ongoing discussion on Meta until then, and perhaps further comments by Sunday after the in-person meeting. – SJ + 02:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating topic, though it may require a significant amount of legwork to do justice. We alluded to it in last week's "News and Notes", but if I can find someone willing to put the work in to unpack the story properly, it could feature in coming issues. Thanks a great deal for the tip Sj; these developments don't always command the attention they deserve. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find someone :) Covered at length in our "Special report". HaeB hopes to follow up with an interview in the coming weeks on movement roles. Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times' Bill Keller wrote an opinion piece on Wikipedia, Wales and SOPA entitled "Steal This Column". Gobonobo ^{T C} 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will be covering in this week's In the News; stories in major publications get too our desk fairly quickly due to Google News, but if anyone spots interesting coverage of this issue elsewhere online, please do let us know. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was good analysis a bit earlier on many specialist blogs e.g. Sunlight Foundation "It is tempting to be euphoric and say that the day Wikipedia went dark in protest marks a new turning point in the dynamics of power in Washington. But as is often the case, the reality is both less dramatic and more complicated." PPC Associates "The SOPA blackout was about as organic as the masses of North Koreans crying in the streets upon hearing of Kim Jong Il’s death. Behind the scenes, the SOPA protest was a well-organized campaign, fueled by the lobbying arms of major Internet corporations." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in "In focus". Thanks for your invaluable help Seth, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submit your presentation for this year's Wikimania until March 18! Presentations can cover five different topics, including GLAM, Culture & Community, Copyrights, Education, etc. For more information, please visit: [2]. Scholarships are now available until February 16, apply now! [3].

Pls add this, this is super important! On the behalf of the Program Team, --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[duplicate]

Probably worth mentioning:

• Wikimedia DC, US Department of State Partner to Host Wikimania 2012 at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Also, a reminder that Wikimania travel scholarship applications close February 16. The call for participation is open until March 18, and registration is open. We invite and encourage Wikipedians to attend and participate in Wikimania. --Aude (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in "News and notes". Thanks for the tips, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Former Board member Angela Beesley has left Wikia. See announcement on community.wikia.com. Dunno if we cover Wikia news at Signpost. I'd jump in and add it, but that has the nasty side effect of dragging me into writing next week's issue... which I'm too busy for at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's relevant not for "Wikia news" per se, but a combination of her previous prominence of a board member and other roles in Wikimedia. And I also speculate there's more to the story than is stated, given she co-founded Wikia. Amusingly, she's almost literally said the resignation cliche that she's leaving to spend more time with her family ("I want to work on something locally that better reflects my interests as a new mother ..."). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is indeed more to the story, I'm not seeing the news angle here; Beesley has not had a high profile within Wikimedia in the past few years, and despite Wikia's success in identikit pop culture wiki farms, I'm not convinced this represents anything of significance for Wikipedians per se. It strikes me as gossip, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the significance is more in Wikia's status as (quoting Trader Daily / Wales here, they said this, NOT ME!) "... his effort to take the success -- and, indeed, the underlying philosophy -- of Wikipedia, and commercialize the hell out of it.". Just descriptively, Angela Beesley played an extensive role in that effort. And that she's now abandoning it is an interesting datapoint. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this till now, and I agree with Seth. Angela's long-term and deep connection with Wikimedia, and also Wikia's shared history with Wikimedia, make this a noteworthy event; the lack of a recent high profile notwithstanding. (I'm not sure I exactly buy that, though; she has chaired the Wikimedia Advisory Board for some time, attended the last Wikimania, etc. She maybe hasn't been as active as in the past, but she hasn't exactly been inactive.) This is the sort of thing I'd expect to hear about in the Signpost.

About her reasons for leaving, though -- what is she, a politician? Since when did spending time with one's family become fodder for skepticism even for us Wikipedians? :) -Pete (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details are on the Wikimedia UK blog (CC-BY-SA, so feel free to copy-paste-modify the text there if you want). Mike Peel (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in "News and notes". Thanks for the tip Mike, Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 12 – February 18

Can it be mentioned somewhere about getting people to help with the new page patrol backlog. It's getting quite long now, almost 30 days (see for yourself) we really need some people cutting it down. If you can mention it somewhere I'd be grateful Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We hope to be covering news of the Foundation's initiatives on NPP in the coming issues, so we can certainly highlight this point. Thanks for the tip! Skomorokh 23:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Wikipedia:NPP Survey. Skomorokh 03:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GLAMcamp DC took place this past weekend. Check out meta:GLAMcamp DC. I believe a blog will be written by Lori Phillips (US Cultural Parnterships Fellow) this week for the WMF blog. Major outcomes will be posted there. SarahStierch (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog post is here: [4] -Pete (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate is due to name Mike Halterman as one of their "40 under 40" for 2012 — the most influential in the LGBT community.

Per this report, they cite his work on Wikinews where he produced a few Featured Articles prior to going on to launch his own magazine. --Brian McNeil /^talk 03:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 19 – February 25

A potentially interesting read could be derived by a recurring "investigative report". I'm not implying a search for scandal or an aspersion machine, but rather from a pool of thoughtful inquiries, we could present a thoughtful answer. Incorporating standard journalist practices, interviews and key commentary, to a well formed conclusion, has merit. It wouldn't affect policy or consensus, but it could provide abundant reason, a perpetually worthy resource. My76Strat (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now find someone to write it. ResMar 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right - My76Strat (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 26 – March 3

There's been a bit of a controversy recently over the Egyptian government's arrest of members of groups such as Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and others. The charges are that these groups have been working to destabilize Egypt on behalf of the CIA, Israel, Jewish lobbyists, and the other usual suspects. The NYTimes has a story about the case the Egyptian prosecutors have built and it has this sentence in paragraph two: "The case, for example, cites documents seized in December from one group, the International Republican Institute, that included Wikipedia maps of Egypt showing the country divided into four parts."[5]. As this story develops further, I'd be very curious to learn more about how the Egyptian authorities interpreted material from Wikipedia as evidence of an American plot against the country. GabrielF (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep an eye out for developments in this story, thanks Gabriel. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia Have an Accuracy Problem? Nobody Ent 15:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most interesting sentence in the whole piece: we hold [Wikipedia] to a standard that is higher than any other source. We don't want Wikipedia to be just as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica: We want it to have 55 times as many entries, present contentious debates fairly, and reflect brand new scholarly research, all while being edited and overseen primarily by volunteers. Raul654 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't handle these kind of situations, like the Messer-Kruse/Haymarket issue, very well. I wrote an essay on this issue two years ago. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in "In the news", thanks all. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the Portuguese Wikipedia "Village Pump". Very sad news. Steven Walling • talk 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe User:Pietro Roveri can be listed at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians, but he seems to have been active only in Portuguese.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sad indeed. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a blog response post "A number of commenters held Wikipedia up as providing comprehensive information about the legislation, but even Wikipedia missed, or simply chose to ignore, many of these changes (for example, saying on its information page, "SOPA would require Wikipedia to actively monitor every site we link to" despite the "No duty to monitor"" (personal disclaimer - I oppose SOPA. I also oppose the Wikipedia misinformation campaign.) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seth, thanks for linking what looks like an interesting blog post. I'm the primary author of the Wikipedia page you linked, at least the version that ran the day after the SOPA blackout. I want to address your point from two perspectives:

• "Misinformation campaign" -- not an accurate description. Speaking for myself: I worked on that specific page in loose collaboration with some Wikimedia staff and volunteers, both online and offline. I did so with a continual and painful awareness of the limits of my understanding of SOPA, but also that the page was being viewed by literally millions of interested people, and that it was in very bad shape. The staff members I talked with were too busy with other pages to pay much attention; I distinctly remember asking Erik Möller if he had a moment for a question, and he said simply "no." There was way too much going on for anyone to focus too much on the exact wording of any one point. As for the on-wiki activity, you can see for yourself that there was active discussion on the talk page, that the main "Learn more" page was protected, and that I was (on that one day) the only administrator who chose to make extensive edits. For what it's worth, I considered unprotecting many times, but on a controversial page viewed by millions of people, I was not eager to invite a flood of controversial edits. Nobody else suggested unprotecting, at least not that I saw. So, "misinformation"? Quite possible! It's entirely possible there were and are factual errors on that page -- even that the errors derive from my bias. But, "campaign"? No. Not at all.
• On the specific point you identified, I don't think it's an error. I based that point primarily on Clay Shirky's analysis and the Kahn Academy video that were prevalent at the time. It may well be that SOPA contains language that asserts what the RIAA now claims, but that is not enough to falsify my point: indeed, the central problem with SOPA and SIPA, as I understand it, are the unintended (but easy to anticipate) consequences. If you'd like to work together to get the language right and draw that point out more fully, please let me know -- I'd be happy to dig into it again.

In closing -- while I fully appreciate that two wrongs don't make a right, I have to say it's ironic to hear. The MPAA highlighted the SOPA blackout's (paraphrase) failure to enlist big sites like Facebook as a sign of failure. Chris Dodd spoke of Google pulling the strings for the blackout (widely reported, for instance LA Times and Hollywood Reporter, if memory serves). If there is a misinformation campaign going on, I think there are more likely places to look for it. -Pete (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I'm actually very interested in this process, and some of the things you wrote are quite intriguing to my efforts to understand details (personally, it fascinates me in general regarding politics to try to figure out who is blatantly lying and who sincerely believes what are in fact lies because they either trust the liar or are misinformed, and yes, I know one can get into unfalsifiability paradoxes, but it's a fact that politics has lots of lies). I'm not sure this is the right place to give my whole perspective, which is both extremely heartfelt and bitterly cynical. But, yes, there was a massive misinformation campaign, and yes, it was driven by Google. Chris Dodd is completely right there, even if everything else he ever said is wrong. Note, to be tedious, this is not a strawman statement that everyone got direct orders from the Googleplex. But it's corruption in the "Lessig" sense, that money talks, and then shouts down opposing voices. Now, basing anything on Clay Shirky, et. al., well, I want to be polite, so I'll just point you to the essay "Wikibollocks". I realize I'm probably not being very convincing, since I'm torn on loyalties here (again, I oppose SOPA) and very burnt-out on trying to be true to truth. It's going to be a long slog to make the anti-scaremongering case. Remember, I don't get anything for this, except grief. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seth, without diving into a lot of detail just now, I'd like to concede a couple of your points -- though I don't think they undercut my own:

• I've certainly seen inaccurate points made by opponents of SOPA, and while I don't know it to be true, it's certainly possible that some kind of misinformation campaign was in play. But: I don't think it was central to the broad arc of the SOPA story, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia community participated in any effort to spread misinformation, and I am quite confident that my own role was not part of any such campaign. And to whatever extent misinformation is the story, it is important to balance any discussion of impropriety among the opposition with the misinformation spread by the MPAA and its allies.
• You're right to suggest that Clay Shirky is not an absolute arbiter of truth. I've found his thinking compelling in some cases, and less so in others. The blog post you linked was written in 2010, and has nothing to do with SOPA; it's the analysis presented in this video, not Clay Shirky as an infallible source, that I found persuasive.

I have just now reduced the protection level of Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Learn more. If you see errors in accuracy, I encourage you to fix them. I share your more general interest in political processes, and would enjoy diving into a more detailed discussion, when time permits; but at the moment, I have a lot going on, and would rather limit my focus to fixing any specific errors. -Pete (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, thank you, I understand your kindness by your lights in reducing the protection level. I appreciate the gesture. However, I am at a loss to convey to you how unappealing it would be to me to spend hours of my life arguing with whoever happens to be the most uninformed but obstinate editor interested in the topic, with it all possibly being used against me someday, way after it would make any difference, and the whole process taken as further proof of Wikipedia's openness! (it's like some sort of multiple levels of infinity of negatives). Anyway, I agree with you that the whole SOPA story has plenty of misinformation on both sides. It's the politics of the use of (to phrase it darkly) one set of "Google lies" (Wikipedia in danger!) to oppose "MPAA lies" (world economy theft!) which gives me such unhappiness with politics. I'm being somewhat indirect in my point about Clay Shirky, the idea there is his arguments may be emotionally appealing but are lacking in substance. Here's one rebuttal on Khan. Obviously, that source has loyalties and alliances too, and so it goes. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that blog post utterly misses the point of the argument it purports to debunk. (It also picks one of the more heavily original-text-based arguments to make the point that opponents have not read the text of the bill. Very odd.) It's one thing to contradict an argument, another to defeat it. To do the latter, the blogger would have to actually address its substance. I'm sure if you watch the Khan Academy video again, and read that blog post again, you will agree the blog post fails to address the central argument.

update OK, I looked into it more closely, and I see my strong words immediately above were unwarranted. Sorry. There is indeed a logical hole in that Khan video. -Pete (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I disagree with the notion that opposing a piece of legislation necessitates reading it in full. All kinds of bad ideas get proposed, sometimes by voluminous writers. Such a high bar for opposition would allow a whole lot of junk to get passed. I think the converse is much more important: before mucking with the legal structure that enables the Internet, those proposing new laws should invest the time to understand how it works in its present form.

I hear you on the misgivings about getting embroiled on the page I linked -- fair position. -Pete (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This latest Sherman piece is a pretty pathetic defense of what is basically indefensible. He either ignored or ducked the many criticisms of his piece. (See this takedown by Mike Masnick at techdirt) Regarding the 'no duty to monitor' claim, Masnick said: this is another part of the bill that was blatantly dishonest. It included statements about how there was no duty to monitor... but then left open the possibility of liability or compliance costs for not doing enough, or not being proactive. In short, Wikipedia was quite correct in its description. Raul654 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the bill and the Manager's Amendment, I do not see how Wikipedia would qualify for the "No duty to monitor" provision. In the original text, this only applies to payment network providers and internet advertising services. The amendment expands this provision to entities "described in section 102(c) or 103(c)", which appears to add (DNS) service providers and internet search engines. If this amendment was intended to cover sites like Wikipedia, I do not see it. Perhaps there is some indirect association if one deciphers the text in a certain way? In any case, even if the amendment was intended to exempt Wikipedia, I do not think it is reasonable to fault them due to the complexity and ambiguity of the bill's text. --btriffles 68.43.151.176 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the debate has advanced appreciably, as far as Wikipedians are concerned. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest adding graphics to some of the regular pages in the Signpost that otherwise are text only? I think it would be easier to show you what I have in mind instead of trying to describe it, so I've created an example here. Pine^talk 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image of the interior of a town hall does not contribute relevant information to a discussion of proceedings of the Arbitration Committee.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not to have a literal illustration of Arbcom at work. The point is to have some sort of appropriate clipart for that page. A committee room setting is one idea. Pine^talk 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A picture from Dawn of the Dead would be more appropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could be used, perhaps with the caption: Participants await their fate at English Arbitration proceedings. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader Kings II to be exact http://www.gamercast.net/crusader-kings-ii-review .©Geni 12:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the money quote:

"A rather neat feature that will be very interesting to those a little less historically versed than others is the new knowledge base of Crusader Kings II that comes from Wikipedia itself. If there is a page on Wikipedia for your vassal or bishop, then you can look it up no sooner than it takes to click on their name. The inclusion of this feature is fantastic for the more curious of players that appreciate knowing who they are playing as, or who is sieging their land, it’s a surprise no other grand strategy title has done it already."

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in "In the news", thanks to you both. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be covered in the next issue of the discussion report. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently running a poll to find out why so few people are putting in requests for main page featured articles. I'd appreciate a mention in this week's signpost. Raul654 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted in the discussion report, thanks Raul. Skomorokh 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter is now at over 600,000 articles. Recently, a tool was made to help that number go down. Now, after two attempts for a bot were shot down, one editor made a plea for more people to get involved in this. So, why not the Signpost? Just asking people to try to do ten each would be okay. It isn't that hard. -- BCS (t · c · !) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd cover in Tech but I really need a news angle. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 4 – March 10

I've asked a number people and I think we have a first. I talked to the media manager for the Australia women's national water polo team at Australian Water Polo. We got permission to take profile pictures of every single player on the team and the coach specifically for use on English Wikipedia, with the pictures taken before a test series match against Great Britain. The players were all informed as to the reason pictures were taken and the photographer was treated like any other media representative. Bidgee took these pictures. This is the first time that I believe that we have gotten permission from a national team of any kind to do this with the specific purpose of putting the pictures on Wikipedia. The gallery below includes the pictures taken.

• 
  Alicia McCormack Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ashleigh Southern Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Bronwen Knox Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Dalibor Maslan assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Gemma Beadsworth Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Glencora Ralph Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Gregory McFadden coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Hannah Buckling Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Holly Lincoln-Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Isobel Bishop Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Jane Morgan Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kate Gynther Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Kelsey Wakefield
• 
  Melissa Rippon Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Nicola Zagame Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Rowena Webster Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Ryan Moar assistant coach of the Australian women's national water polo.
• 
  Sophie Smith Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Victoria Brown Australian women's national water polo player.
• 
  Zoe Arancini Australian women's national water polo player.

The articles for all these players have also been improved and nominated for DYK. But yes, the important bit is the photography is a first. :D --LauraHale (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. I'm troubled by your wording though, I hope they know that it's freely licensed everywhere, and isn't just for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they know the images are released with a creative commons license as I had a conversation with them about copyright. We could have gotten images from them by going through OTRS after they got permission from their photographers to change the license to creative commons. It was just easier for us to get images by having a photographer of ours take images ourselves so the copyright would be sorted at the get go. (They knew some of what had been being done, as the HOPAU project had been discussed a lot inside the Australian Institute of Sport.) So yes, they knew the value of doing this. We wanted images licensed this way so we could use them in a specific way. (As opposed to just taking pictures and the pictures sitting on Commons without being used.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LauraHale: remember what I said about going here also. Pine^talk 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted that out. Asked another user. They suggested individually over time and not as a set. :( Conflicting advice is conflicting. :( --LauraHale (talk) 10:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a set? Are they kidding? Kaldari (talk) 04:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely go as a set. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, obviously I'm in the minority. Just note that there are some who will oppose set nominations on principle. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Russavia before nominating as a set. It was two to one on that front. If it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. (Not that i don't want it to pass. I'd like to but on the merits.) I'd still like a Signpost mention though as a first. :) Mostly because I think it would be helpful in two ways : 1) Encourage sport organisations to make pictures available using the correct creative commons license for use on Wikipedia, 2) Encouraging Wikipedians to go to a team and to ask for permission to take these pictures. If they tell the team why, can cite this particular case, mention that the Gemma Beadsworth article was improved as a result of being given a picture, taken to WP:DYK and getting 8,133 views when on the main page, it gives a nice incentive for sport teams to contribute in this way. With the Olympics coming up, these pictures will be really useful for articles. --LauraHale (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Future said on Wednesday that Peter Gloor predicted U.S. Republican presidential primary results (apparently the Iowa caucuses) by analysing edits by regulars on Wikipedia, while analysing Twitter posts made an incorrect prediction [6]. He appears to know about Wikipedia, looking at the only coverage of a paper by him in the Signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-12-26/Recent_research#Briefly. —innotata 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post election dashboard

At http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/ , "Wikipedia edits" is one of twelve indicators that the online newspaper tracks, for each of the four remaining Republican candidates. (Which raises the question, of course, of whether more edits are a positive or negative sign.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rolling Stone blogger Matt Taibbi comments negatively on Breitbart's death, and retaliation is vandalization of the Wikipedia article about Taibbi: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/wikipedia-vandals-attack-rolling-stone-blogger-who-couldn%E2%80%99t-be-happier-about-breitbarts-death/ , http://www.thejanedough.com/matt-taibbi-human-excrement/

• Chicago Tribune describes the effort behind one featured article, about a county in Indiana: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/wsbt-tiny-indiana-county-aims-for-wikipedia-feature-20120227,0,6478708.story

• Telenor makes Wikipedia available [free] to 135 million customers in Asia and Europe: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/28/idUS70975+28-Feb-2012+HUG20120228

• (Filed under "no surprise"): The Wikipedia article on Corning Incorporated is riddled with errors, newspaper reports: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20120227/BUSINESS/302270023/Corning-Wikipedia?odyssey=nav%7Chead

• No, Rowan Atkinson isn't dead, even if Wikipedia said he was (at least briefly): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106780/Rowan-Atkinson-death-hoax-trends-worldwide-Twitter-RIP-Mr-Bean.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

• A blog post on how DLR, Germany's national research center for aeronautics and space, decided to start licensing its content under Creative Commons: http://www.dlr.de/blogs/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5921/9755_read-503/

• WikiReader: Would you buy a portable Wikipedia (can be updated quarterly!) for just $30? (Did I mention the 3" screen?) http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/wikireader-is-on-sale-today-20_b20555 [not sure why the price is wrong in the article] http://www.buy.com/prod/pandigital-panreader01-digital-encylopedia/215763763.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A for-profit college has sued a former employee about edits the latter made to their article. The WMF is not directly involved AFAIK. See [7]. --NYKevin @107, i.e. 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with author Rob Levine about copyright and enforcement, there's a long section on "The Ideology of Wikipedia" - "I've taken a lot of shit for saying it, but it's important to realise Google gives money to organisations like Wikipedia. I was amazed how journalists didn't mention this - to not report on it is an abdication of responsibility. ... "Hey, I think Wikipedia is great. But I went to a Wikimania conference and I got the impression that a lot of Wikipedia people really do not like copyright ... People are being asked to give up rights they've won over hundreds of years, based on the success of ... an online encyclopaedia." (Disclaimer - his views are his own, this does not constitute my agreement or endorsement) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia finalizes its departure from GoDaddy.com as DNS service provider, because of SOPA: http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/10/wikipedia-completes-transfer-of-sites-away-from-godaddy-dns/ , http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/wikipedia-is-leaving-go-daddy-because-of-sopa/2108

• The rascally U.K. House of Commons staffers are messing with Wikipedia again (more than 10,000 edits): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9132758/MPs-Wikipedia-pages-changed-from-inside-Parliament.html , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112616/MPs-staff-make-10-000-changes-Wikipedia-pages-bid-hide-embarrassing-information.html

• Edit war: Derrick Bell article is collateral damage from attack on Obama for his 1991 introduction: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/10/wikipedia_editing_war_erupts_over_obamas_connection_to_radical_derrick_bell

• Purdue students, professors debate Wikipedia credibility: http://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_b4da3c51-7977-52a1-95db-c96eafad7d71.html

• "The Most 'Oh God Why?' Wikipedia Pages", from the Houston Press: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/artattack/2012/03/the_most_oh_god_why_wikipedia.php

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]