Trichome

thcscience_admin
Shortcuts

Welcome to The Wikipedia Signpost's Tip Line. There are two ways to leave tips:

  1. Add a tip on this page
  2. Anonymously e-mail us at WikipediaSignpost@Gmail.com (for convenience, you may use this link)

Not every mention of Wikipedia in the media will make it into Signpost. Consider editing Wikipedia:Press coverage or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source so we have a comprehensive record.

Please do not post newsletters to this page; news from WikiProjects is always appreciated, but templated messages are much more likely to be ignored. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Template:SignpostNavigation[reply]

Calendar of upcoming events

I intend this to be a sort of calendar of upcoming events, on and off Wikipedia (particularly non-obvious events, that might be easily missed) -- things that readers might be interested in. Anyone can add events here.

Requests for WikiProject features

If you'd like your WikiProject featured in an upcoming WikiProject report, feel free to list it here. Note that these requests are entirely advisory, and may or may not be used in future reports. Please do not "support" or "oppose" individual requests, and keep requests short and concise. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiProject Oregon is a lively and productive project that currently supports over 5000 articles, and has a dedicated core group of editors who work toward getting articles to GA and FA. Currently we are working on a response to the Oregon Historical Society's announcement that they are starting a collaborative encyclopedia project that will somehow be better than Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts nearly died and came back to life. Originally begun in early 2007, by the start of December it had dwindled to just two active members. For a view of how much it's revived, here's its March newsletter (featured pictures, good articles, DYKs, and a featured portal drive). Durova 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized might be a nice success-story to include in some edition of the Signpost. Various gnomes have hacked away at this backlog ever since bots like Alaibot started populating it a year and a half ago. Of course, this is a never-ending task but it's an important one and the backlog typically hovers around 2000 articles (compared to 10 times that a year ago). Pichpich (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica WebShare

"Encyclopedia Britannica Now Free For Bloggers", by Michael Arrington, discusses Britannica's new widget trial program, Britannica WebShare, in which web publishers of various sorts are given free access to the full version of Britannica online, and the ability to link to individual articles for their readers to access. Most news coverage is describing this as an attempt to cope with what Wikipedia has done to their business model.

I suggest that the Signpost attempt to sign up as a web publisher, so that we could start a new feature of weekly in-depth comparison's of individual articles. It's a long shot whether they would accept us simply because we're part of their competition, but the Signpost would seem to fall within their definition of who is eligible for the program.--ragesoss (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused why the possibility to link to a full article is being touted as news - this has already been possible for a long time, actually without the need to sign up as a web publisher. I am not sure when I saw that invitation to web masters on the EB site first, but I recall that this kind of free access had already been enabled when I made this edit in July 2007. Many Wikipedia articles already use this.
By the way, last time I checked it didn't work for links on a preview page; you had to actually save the page. This probably means that they do not trust the HTTP referer alone, but check the page given there to verify that it actually links to the Britannica URL. (Or that someone at Britannica has taken some time to study MediaWiki URLs.)
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Maybe the only difference is that they are adding free 1-year subscriptions for "web publishers" to encourage more people to link to their (excessively ad-filled) articles. Some articles were describing this as part of a soft launch. In any case, now might be a good time to start a regular Signpost feature comparing specific articles.--ragesoss (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Israel POV group

With all the rumors swirling around about pro-Israel cabalism taking place, possibly including some admins, this thread may be of some interest to Wikipedia participants [1]. One long-time editor has already been indef blocked over it. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The episode has attracted press attention: [2]. I'll try to add something to the Criticism of Wikipedia article about it. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although El Reg normally isn't a source Signpost would cite, this is currently on the front page of Slashdot.[3] DurovaCharge! 00:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that in discussions in the future about advocacy groups trying to control a subject or view in Wikipedia that this case will be one the examples most frequently referenced. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have certainly been other instances of people attempting to manipulate content for ideological or profit motives. What I hope results from this is a realignment of the community's priorities. WP:COIN ought to be getting as many eyes and as much traffic as WP:AN. When the Wikiscanner came out last summer, three weeks of worldwide headlines proved that we weren't keeping our own house in order. That ought to have been a big eye opener; it wasn't. If it were reasonably certain that a campaign like this one would be caught - and swiftly - by Wikipedians, then this wouldn't be so much of a problem. Coordinated ideological manipulation of any sort is a direct assault on this site's credibility; our dedicated featured article writers would work in vain if the public weren't reasonably confident that most of Wikipedia is honest and most of the site is worth reading. DurovaCharge! 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't get covered in the latest edition of The Wikipedia Signpost, but FWIW here was the info covered in Wikinews from April 29 (new sources have covered it since then) - US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see Ragesoss (talk · contribs) mentioned this below. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the News - Devil Dog article

Recent editing to theDevil Dog article (refer to the United States Marine Corps nickname) has been mentioned in the Marine Corps Times in discussing the current perception of the term amongst Marines:

— ERcheck (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology author and blogger endorses Wikipedia

See Wikipedia's concept is proved, The News & Observer, 30 April 2008, by Paul Gilster. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Mentioned previously by IP editor.[reply]

Edits of switching superdelegate's bio on Slate

The Trail Head campaign blog on Slate covered the Anatomy of a Wikipedia Hijacking, the vandalism and responses that occurred in Joe Andrew after Andrew announced switching his support as a superdelegate from Clinton to Obama.--ragesoss (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EFF tries to get Wikipedia lawsuit dismissed

As covered in Kansas City infoZine, Ars Technica and elsewhere, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton law firm have filed a motion to dismiss a case brought against the Wikimedia Foundation in January. Literary agent Barbara Bauer sued over alleged defamation that occurred in the Wikipedia article about her (now deleted because of NPOV, BLP and reliable sourcing concerns, after a heated debate during the second deletion discussion). The EFF argues that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects the WMF from liability, as an "interactive computer services" provider rather than a traditional publisher that directly controls published content. This is a test of one of the central legal issues that both directly and indirectly contributes to Wikipedia's handling of biographies of living people.--ragesoss (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is almost certainly the first time that the legal theory that DMCA section 230 covers the WMF has been tested in court. Raul654 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin has requested any communications about this go to him, the EFF, or James Chadwick at Sheppard Mullin. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The EFF motion frequently makes reference to a declaration by Mike Godwin. Is this available to read? VanTucky 02:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mike, the declaration you're referring to - which is not yet online - was a short declaration that the Barbara Bauer article is no longer available. Raul654 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a new Wikipedia article has been started, focusing on the case itself -- Bauer v. Glatzer. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt. I have a draft up at User:Ragesoss/Bauer lawsuit. One thing I'm confused about is when this lawsuit started. Several sources mention January (2008), but mention of the lawsuit (with the same docket number as listed on the motion to dismiss) first appeared in the Barbara Bauer article well before that, and the court website lists it as having been filed in early March 2007.--ragesoss (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ral315 (talk · contribs) deleted both Bauer v. Glatzer and User:Ragesoss/Bauer lawsuit citing a WP:OFFICE request. Perhaps given this new development, it would be best for any piece covering this to rely heavily, if not exclusively, on material from secondary sources, and explicitly attribute information to those sources with "According to...", etc. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin has asked that we not publish an article on this until after the case is decided.--ragesoss (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though that is understandable - I do not see what the potential concern would be to publishing a piece that is exclusively reliant on the secondary sources listed below, excluding any possible "original" research in an article about this. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Here are some sources that could be used. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New magic word: PAGESIZE

A new magic word was recently implemented, but not covered in Wikipedia Signpost. {{PAGESIZE:page name}} returns the size of the given page name (bug 12698, r33551). This contributes to a page's expensive parser function count. For example:

  • "{{PAGESIZE:Main Page}}" = "4,769" (default);
  • "{{PAGESIZE:Main Page|R}}" = "4769" (with raw flag).

—{admin} Pathoschild 09:49:27, 03 May 2008 (UTC)

National Post attacks editor, global warming coverage

The National Post is running an opinion piece called "The opinionator" by Lawrence Solomon (User:Lawrence Solomon, author of a book and many articles about global warming deniers) attacking User:William M. Connolley for supposedly enforcing his own opinions on global warming articles and smearing prominent scientists whose views on global warming differ from "global warming orthodoxy".

As part of Solomon's extended writing on "The Deniers", the Post has been publishing a series of anti-Wikipedia pieces in the last several weeks. The earlier ones are "Wikipedia's zealots", Hide your name on Wicked Pedia, and The real climate Martians.--ragesoss (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAMERA campaign makes mainstream news

Related to "Pro-Israel POV group" above:

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has been engaged in a campaign (the subject of a recently accepted Arbcom case) to fight against alleged anti-Israel bias in Wikipedia, including attempts to install administrators who can help enforce CAMERA's viewpoint. The Boston Globe (CAMERA is based in Boston) is running an article, War of the virtual Wiki-worlds, on the CAMERA campaign and the efforts of the pro-Palestinian Electronic Intifada to expose and discredit the campaign.

CAMERA also published an article today, How and Why to Edit Wikipedia, publicly encouraging CAMERA readers to become Wikipedia editors. On a quick review, I notice nothing too out-of-hand in this article (in contrast to some of the leaked correspondence described in the Boston Globe piece).

Note that this intersects with the recent Wikinews Department of Justice banning story (also covered by The Register and elsewhere); the DoJ IPs were banned for attempting to remove material from the CAMERA article.--ragesoss (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious - where are the emails published? Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... Raul654 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Here are some of the related sources covering the above-mentioned info. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list director

There is currently a movement/vote underway to select a Featured List director (or more probably two). See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates for background/ongoing discussion, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director for the current vote. As FA director, User:Raul654 has been asked (and has agreed) to close the vote and appoint the directors on 8th May. The two users with the most votes currently are User:Scorpion0422 and User:The Rambling Man. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will be covered in the May 12 Dispatch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make sense to mention it before the voting closes as well? -Ravedave (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because ? It's announced at the Village Pump (proposals), Village Pump (policy) and all the important (i.e.; trafficed) FAC pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? That isn't a reason to not mention it. I only came across the whole thing by chance - surely the more people who know, the better? Tompw (talk) (review) 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why it can't get a brief mention in News and notes. Ral315 (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sighted versions on German Wikipedia:

Sighted versions on German Wikipedia were introduced a few hours ago. If you look at a random German article, you can see a small box in the upper right corner. It says "sighted"/"not sighted". This test run on the second largest Wikipedia might become important for the English Wikipedia as well. I could write a small article about it in a few days but I would appreciate help from a native English speaker. --Davidlud (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some knowledge of German, I can help out. The "Keine Version gesichtet" (No sighted versions) text only shows up on pages if you are logged on. This is the german page explaining the system and here's the Google translate version.-Ravedave (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the extension went live for about 10 minutes on German Wikipedia a few days ago, and was quickly turned off when some unanticipated bugs were discovered. Brion Vibber blogged about it.--ragesoss (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclones citation

One of Accuweather.com's blogs cited List of tropical cyclones for a statistic on Cyclone Nargis. Seems it should be mentioned. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category intersection and unions now possible using search, more changes to come

It is now possible to find articles by how they are categorized using search. To search for articles in a specific category, type incategory:"CategoryName" in the search box. Searching more than one category at the same time performs a rough approximation of category intersection -- finding articles that are common to all the categories searched. For example incategory:"Suspension bridges" incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will return the articles that are common to both categories — the suspension bridges in New York City.

Similarly, an "OR" can be added to join the contents of one category with the contents of another. incategory:"Suspension bridges" OR incategory:"Bridges in New York City" will show all suspension bridges along with all bridges in New York City. This includes suspension bridges which are not in New York City, and bridges in New York City that are not suspension bridges.

The developers have been discussing additional ways of implementing category intersection and unions on the tech mailing list, and community members had previously discussed various changes to the user interface to make this feature easier to use. Unfortunately, the way we have structured categories has made it very difficult to use this feature effectively. Unless categories are reorganized, this feature will have limited valued in Wikipedia. For more about this see Wikipedia talk:Categorization. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Categories improved

Special:Categories has been given a new table of contents. The special page had been virtually unusable for quite some time as it took forever to page through tens of thousands of categories, 500 at a time. Wikimedia CTO Brion Vibber promises that it will soon also have a search box. Special:All pages can also be used to find categories, but Special:Categories has the extra feature of showing how many pages are in the category, and also shows categories with red links. Since this special page is linked to virtually every page in Wikipedia, some additional text has been added to help introduce users to categories. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject suggestion

I suggest doing a WikiProject article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. The GA nominations have been overloaded for several months with articles that they've been working on. Royalbroil 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit wikipedia section

Old but I don't think it's been covered: Reddit.com has a "subreddit" dedicated to cool wikipedia articles. http://reddit.com/r/wikipedia/. Nice spot to see which articles people think are interesting. -Ravedave (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Peddles Porn to Kids

At least that is what these people say - http://christiannewswire.com/news/506866523.html. Interesting that they don't actually mention the specific pages that they don't like. Remember (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be based on this more detailed piece: Is Wikipedia wicked porn?, by Chelsea Schilling, WorldNetDaily, May 6, 2008. Specific articles mentioned are: fluffing and striptease. There is a list of offensive media:
  • Recordings of women experiencing orgasms
  • Videos of nude men participating in "ejaculation educational demonstrations"
  • Detailed photographs of men and women masturbating
  • Images of mammary intercourse
  • Close-up images of topless women and male and female sexual anatomy
  • Large-scale photos of men performing oral sex on one another (and performing oral sex on themselves)
  • An illustrated list of sex positions
  • Threesomes
  • Photos of nude strippers
  • An image called "Virgin Killer" depicting a naked prepubescent girl from the 1976 cover of a Scorpions album (banned in the U.S.)
--ragesoss (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the last one, I personally tried to delete the image (despite being a part of Wikipedians against censorship and vigorously defending images including adult nudity and sex acts). If you check the history, several others have too. VanTucky 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means run the story; it makes an amusing reading list. ;) DurovaCharge! 22:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't let that person near a biology textbook! My all means, run the story, but we could maybe publicise our censorship policies better to prevent further disparaging articles...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Image content guidelines/sexual content. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Here are some sources covering this recently in the media. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs that need to be done

I think this has been brought up before, but it's worth re-hashing -- I have a job that needs doing and I'd like to put that request in the signpost. I need someone who is good at PR stuff to write me a 'thanks-but-no-thanks' form reply for the OTRS photo submission queue, for people who send us pictures that we don't need (either we don't have an article on it, or we already have several better pictures). I'm having trouble writing it myself, I've asked around, and nobody I've asked has written one. I think the signpost is an appropriate venue for such things. Raul654 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just offer to host such images on Commons?--Pharos (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people do not know or want to go through the byzantine process of registering on commons, uploading properly licensed files, registering an account on Wikipedia, and editing articles to include those pictures. Most people *do* know how to send an email with attachments. Providing them the ability to email us pictures and having knowledgable people do the rest - mostly howcheng and myself - means that all sorts of people who would otherwise not participate are able to give us pictures. Raul654 (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See this and this. Raul654 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think the OTRS photo submission process is great! I just wonder if some of the images you're rejecting as not suitable for Wikipedia might fit within the scope of Commons (for example, a photograph of a cathedral we don't yet have an article on).--Pharos (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning, in the near future, to modify the image submission page to allow people to email us any kind of picture, instead of pictures of people (which the page says right now). The problem is that people will immediately start sending us hoards of pictures of things we already have in spades (their pet cat or dog, just to give one really obvious example) I want to exlucde those pictures. I'm also going to exclude pictures of things for which we don't already have an article. If something doesn't already have an article, the chances are very good that it's a barely-if-at-all-notable person or place, garage bands and the like. The amount of time Howcheng and I have is limited, and I have absolutely no qualms about giving priority to images to illustrate already-extant articles. If someone really wants to contribute those pictures (which don't have an article) they can always register an account for themselves, log in, and upload it. Raul654 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, your priorities are well-understood.--Pharos (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could create a different queue, and let people who want those pictures (with no associated article) handle them. Raul654 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are people who would be willing to find the "images with possibilities" among the pet cats and dogs. I'd be happy to help with that, but would it require OTRS access? I'd prefer to just help sort a category at Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Regarding the form letter, if you don't get a Signpost item, perhaps you could start a subpage with perhaps a very rough draft and then drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, inviting participation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be similar form letters around that would be a good starting point. If someone does find a set of form letters, could they create a category (if one doesn't already exist). Would be good to gather some of these form letters together in one place. I think one has been done for writing to copyright holders to ask them to release a free image, and other form letters for other purposes as well. eg. Notifying that no credit has been given for an image, or for an article, etc. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has plenty of template replies (The photosubmission queue has two, both of which I wrote myself). It's just I'm finding this one hard to write. Raul654 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in the TOI

I'm interning with the Times of India, Ahmedabad and have written two articles on Ahmedabad-based admins, Akash and Anirudh. I've also written a front-page lead story on steward and gu wikipedia/wiktionary admin Yann. All these articles are a part of a wiki-awareness project that I have started with the help of the Times of India. Would be a good addition to the 'In the News' section.

Akash's article, Wed May 07, The Times of India, Ahmedabad, pg 4 link

Anirudh's article Thu May 08, The Times of India, Ahmedabad, pg 2 link

Yann's article Fri May 09, The Times of India, Ahmedabad, pg 1 link

The epaper can be found [epaper.timesofindia.com here] and there select the required date and the Ahmedabad edition to view the articles.

Srikeit 07:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from de:WP

I´ve seen your article about Wikipedia and universities. Since about 26. May we (de:Wikipedia) are working together with a University from Jena. They set up their own wiki (wiwiwiki) where the students start writing their articles. I guess about 200 articles in Economics. The editors from the Portal economics (de:Portal:Wirtschaft) set up the page de:Portal:Wirtschaft/Projekt:wiwiwiki where the new articles were getting the wiki-style. After that comes the review and than the nomination for Good Article. At the moment 4 articles are already nominated and 7 are in the nomination-process. The remaining 189 articles will be nominated in the following weeks (my guess). If your are interested in an article for the signpost you may ask at the discussion-page of the Portal (de:Portal Diskussion:Wirtschaft). I´m sure there will be someone with good knowledge in english. Another story you maybe interessted in, is the first experiences with Wikipedia:Flagged revisions that we are using at de:WP since wednesday. The best person to ask is de:Benutzer:P. Birken. He says, he speaks english at a near-native level and I know that he is heavy involved in the making of the extension. --195.4.207.160 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone pointed de:Benutzer:P. Birken in the direction of the Flagged Revisions discussions on en-Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A: Wikimedia Foundation’s Sue Gardner

From the May 12, 2008 issue of Canadian Business magazine. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to reduce vandalism; affects newly registered editors

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll has (as of this posting) roughly 80 opinions about what the requirement should be for being given autoconfirmed status. As listed at Special:ListGroupRights, autoconfirmed editors get the following additional rights:

  • Edit semi-protected pages
  • Move (rename) pages
  • Add external links (and do any other captcha-triggering actions) without having to go through the captcha process
  • Upload (image/media) files, including overwriting an existing file
  • Mark edits as patrolled

The current requirement to become autoconfirmed is 4 days elapsed time since registration, with 0 edits. A majority of editors, to date, are in favor of increasing this to 7 days and 20 edits. It is important for all interested editors to give their opinion on this matter. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

various articles about WP:MMM

I was interviewed by someone from Agence France-Presse, and this has led to a bunch of articles (all more or less variations of the same), with probably more to come:

NB the accuracy of the story could be, erm, better. Anyhow. I'm trying to keep track at the project page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That first one is just plain awful. From the "most universities forbid students to use" to the wikipedia.com to mixing statistics from English Wikipedia and all Wikipedias to grossly overestimated "Typically, thousands or millions of people visit a Wikipedia entry" to equating Today's Featured Article with publication to conflating wiki and open source...basically everything that isn't a direct quote is wrong is some way.--ragesoss (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And they're all variations of the same article. (Or so I presume even of the Swedish, heh.) Sigh. Anyhow, perhaps it's further stimulus for me to write something myself and try to get it published, rather than to rely on such mediators. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The visits claim isn't that grossly overestimated though. Gabriel Garcia Marquez indeed draws about 750,000 hits a year. Some get comfortably into the millions. Ernest Hemingway draws about two million for example, and I cringe to imagine what Miley Cyrus draws. --JayHenry (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I mean, a lot is just a little bit off: enough so to grate to our ears; probably not enough that anyone else who reads it would really notice, even if we tried to explain the differences. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JayHenry, as I understand it, very few articles get over a million hits a year; only core biographies and other major articles (or currently popular topics) typically get over 10,000 per month. According to Henrik's hit counter, Marquez is on track for more like 100,000 hits per year. The majority of articles, I suspect, get under 1000 hits per year. But yeah, it's not totally unreasonable. The "Typically" bit is mainly what I object to.--ragesoss (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I played around with Random articles and the hit counter for little while... I estimate the median yearly hits to be around 1000 or 2000, so I guess typically thousands might actually be accurate if per year (or over all time) is what the article means. Although in the context of school assignments, I originally interpreted it as per semester or some shorter time frame.--ragesoss (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that's a redirect with 100,000 hits. (It's missing the diacritics.) The actual article draws around 7 times as much traffic. Someone searching on Google (even without the diacritics) is taken directly to the article. --JayHenry (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I try to calculate traffic for the MMM articles here. Of course, part of the problem was that the news article is rather unspecific. If I recall from my telephone conversation with the journalist, I was trying to explain both that individual articles get a lot of hits (even the least popular have a lot more readers than any term paper!), and also that an article getting to the main page dramatically increases the number of people who see it. She seems to have rather confused these two issues. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit

Wikipedia fights defamation lawsuit was the headline of this item in yesterdays Daily Telegraph. It's discusses Barbara Bauer (who doesn't appear to have an article), a literary agent, who is suing the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, for defamation. There are also other examples and some discussion of whether the US Communications Decency Act applies or should apply.— Rod talk 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're waiting until the lawsuit is concluded to cover this story, at the direction of the Foundation.--ragesoss (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I already listed that source, in the similar subsection, above. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once shunned by academics, Wikipedia now a teaching tool

Once shunned by academics, Wikipedia now a teaching tool. 220.227.179.4 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned two sections above. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&oldid=212039882

Leave a Reply