Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rhododendrites, for the period September 2015 - October 2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
- Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
- News and notes: Flow placed on ice
- Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments
- Featured content: Brawny
- In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
- Traffic report: You didn't miss much
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting developments there. See the talk page section Rinse and repeat Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I should have thought of G3 too. Now deleted thus. I realise you were not in bad faith, and I sincerely apologise to you here for suggesting so: I'd prefer to say so more publicly. (When I am wrong, I admit it.)
But what I meant it to mean was not that you as contributor were in bad faith, but that the redirect itself was (or looked like it was). I'm sorry not to have made that clearer, but brevity is not one of my strengths. Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: Ah! I do see what you mean now. Yes, I misunderstood, and so parts of my response were also likely unnecessary/unjustified. Anyway, it's resolved now. I appreciate your message. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the issue is significant, I believe, for multiple, various reasons. Seriously, on the surface, I know, it seems superficial; but due to certain factors unique in Evola's case, his ancestry, ratified in armory-databases as lawfully baronial or not, is MINORLY noteworthy--YET...noteworthy is still noteworthy. Minor-noteworthy is still noteworthy, si? Am I making sense?
I know I write English poorly, conceded, so: if a better composer of English could merely PARAPHRASE or SUMMARIZE in nice stylistic English form, what I am awkwardly trying to state, that would be helpful scholastic altruism.
The issue of Evola's ancestry is, as you know, extremely minor.
I have no personal investment in the question apart from detached intellectual interest of a "non-conformist" type personality certainly repulsed by many of Evola's views, but still of the view, it is not intellectually responsible for the establishment to pretend Evola was some sort of drug-addled pseudo-intellectual, some mere inspirer of terrorism. Evola's thinking, in the Italian original, at least, his words, thoughts, even totally hostile ideologues of "opposite camp", admit, his intelligence and erudition is above merely "frivolous pseudo-intellectualism" as the English world reports concerning him - as if some poseur of ultra-decadent frippery and terroristic quack MERELY END OF STORY - one has to say, Evola is of higher caliber, however "nasty".
You are familiar with "chaos theory", si? The little things, even "academically", and to use Evola's own phrase, in terms of the "personal equation", add up, to build the overall state of reality, very subtly...
Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:b34b:a940:f1e6:e687:2a15:47fa (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 September 2015
- Thanks for taking the time to write this message. For my own future reference, this concerns this addition to the Julius Evola article, to which I added a {{cn}} tag.
- As it looks like you've posted this to Talk:Julius Evola/Archive 1#Nobiliary Status as well, I'll take a look at respond there if I have something to add. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's a video with over 50 million hits. Does it deserve an article? Funny Cats Tapered (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, trolling. Cool. I'm just going to leave this alone and link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot (dance) for context/posterity. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- You include something akin to a call for Snowballing @ an Afd nomination. Someone makes a witty dig on your page, away from the debate (admittedly as 'reductio ad absurdum' for your # of hits argument), and you label it 'trolling,' without addressing the valid point. That's 'label and dismiss.' Tapered (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- An argument about ghits alone is not a good argument, indeed. I suppose I was skeptical WP:BEFORE could have really been followed given the subject is an extraordinarily well-known dance, so I jumped in hoping for a quick snow close to avoid actually having to go through the task of compiling sources. A lazy move, yes. However, you left this message after I went back and linked to a whole bunch of them from the first few pages of ghits. The content of your message, on the other hand, is as though my argument rested on a number of ghits. It's not a reductio ad absurdum if you replace instead of reduce (though I guess it could still be some form of argumentum ad absurdum). One is about views on one page, the other is 13 million pages. If there were 13 million hits about that specific cat video, we would still need sources rather than rely on that number alone, yes, but there's no denying it can be a pretty good indication of its notability (e.g. the many cats at list of Internet phenomena). It's also a single line of sarcasm posted here, away from the actual argument, therefore clearly not trying to further the discussion. So a one-line sarcastic aside likening part of what I said to a cat video and a more absurd metric, as though that were the entirety of my argument? That's pretty trolly, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The rest of your argument I addressed in the debate. The ghits part I addressed here. No. Tapered (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let's just move forward with the AfD. I've added a merge option to my !vote based on the content of the gist I got from the sources. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that it's notable, but it may be better covered in an article about a broader subject. But I'd request that if we're going to discuss this further, I'd prefer to do so there rather than here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's gracious, thank you. I do think that somebody's Talk page is the correct place for an exchange like this. Too much of it @ AfD. Regards Tapered (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let's just move forward with the AfD. I've added a merge option to my !vote based on the content of the gist I got from the sources. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that it's notable, but it may be better covered in an article about a broader subject. But I'd request that if we're going to discuss this further, I'd prefer to do so there rather than here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- The rest of your argument I addressed in the debate. The ghits part I addressed here. No. Tapered (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- An argument about ghits alone is not a good argument, indeed. I suppose I was skeptical WP:BEFORE could have really been followed given the subject is an extraordinarily well-known dance, so I jumped in hoping for a quick snow close to avoid actually having to go through the task of compiling sources. A lazy move, yes. However, you left this message after I went back and linked to a whole bunch of them from the first few pages of ghits. The content of your message, on the other hand, is as though my argument rested on a number of ghits. It's not a reductio ad absurdum if you replace instead of reduce (though I guess it could still be some form of argumentum ad absurdum). One is about views on one page, the other is 13 million pages. If there were 13 million hits about that specific cat video, we would still need sources rather than rely on that number alone, yes, but there's no denying it can be a pretty good indication of its notability (e.g. the many cats at list of Internet phenomena). It's also a single line of sarcasm posted here, away from the actual argument, therefore clearly not trying to further the discussion. So a one-line sarcastic aside likening part of what I said to a cat video and a more absurd metric, as though that were the entirety of my argument? That's pretty trolly, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- You include something akin to a call for Snowballing @ an Afd nomination. Someone makes a witty dig on your page, away from the debate (admittedly as 'reductio ad absurdum' for your # of hits argument), and you label it 'trolling,' without addressing the valid point. That's 'label and dismiss.' Tapered (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- This article looks to me like a great template/model/analog to list and catalog 'urban dances.' There are illustrations. Most of the topics don't have stand-alone articles, but some do. Just don't imitate the balletic cross-referencing and linking. It's awful. Regards Tapered (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot 8 September 2015 |
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC) |
| Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
- Gallery: Being Welsh
- Featured content: Killed by flying debris
- News and notes: The Swedish Wikipedia's controversial two-millionth article
- Traffic report: Mass media production traffic
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No your are right, in my time on here I had never came across the project. My apologies, I just taught it was a list of books without notability for stand alone articles. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- (context link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about the Troubles) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Murry1975: No need to apologize. Bibliographies occupy a weird space on Wikipedia and raise some concerns along the lines of what you're talking about (if I want to promote a non-notable book on Wikipedia, maybe all I have to do is rename a "List" to a "Bibliography"?). Regardless, their place is fairly well established and there are some of them are quite impressive (e.g. Bibliography of encyclopedias). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
| ||||||
I didn't make my point well and I kinda "won" cos it got deleted. I am not Israeli, nor a member of ISIL/ISIS/whatever the news agencies want to call it today. (BBC generally in a very kinda ultra neutral way calls it the "so called Islamic State", although the BBC World Service seems to call it just "The Islamic State", at least, in my English, I don't know what they might call it in the other languages they broadcast in. It's a very controversial topic, of course, but the last thing I should want to do is tread on your toes. I tend to argue quite vigorously, but I hope always politely, and if I accidentally trod on your toes, for that I sincerely apologise. Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: ? You're talking about Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_4#Israeli_Secret_Intelligence_Service, right? (the same as the thread above on this page, #Mossad/Israeli Secret Intelligent Service at RfD)? But it was me arguing/nominating for deletion. You suggested retargeting. I'm confused. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, I lost that one, you won it (to be brief, there are no winners and losers I hope here). So I am rather confused which discussion you think I put me foot into. As long as I did not offend you personally (nor any other contributor) that is OK with me, I can sleep soundly. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now I'm totally confused. What other RfD are you talking about in this section if not Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_4#Israeli_Secret_Intelligence_Service? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nah, I lost that one, you won it (to be brief, there are no winners and losers I hope here). So I am rather confused which discussion you think I put me foot into. As long as I did not offend you personally (nor any other contributor) that is OK with me, I can sleep soundly. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Editorial: No access is no answer to closed access
- News and notes: Byrd and notifications leave, but page views stay; was a terror suspect editing Wikipedia?
- In the media: Is there life on Mars?
- Featured content: Why did the emu cross the road?
- Traffic report: Another week
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I never saw a consensus to delete this from the last time you proposed this. I would propose not deleting since there has never been a consensus to do so. The article is legitimate and the best source for concise summary information on this band out there. edit: I did just add some thoughts to the deletion wiki for this article, sorry I am a little confused as to where the discussion actually goes since the link you posted on my talk page doesn't even exist. Pacohaas (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Pacohaas: Thanks for the message. The various deletion processes can indeed be complicated on Wikipedia. There are three ways an article is typically deleted:
- Speedy deletion for articles that clearly should not be there (duplicates, test edits, joke pages, personal profiles, copyright infringements, etc.)
- Proposed deletion for uncontested deletions. One adds the tag along with a valid reason for deletion, and if nobody contests it, it's deleted. This is what I had added to The Other (punk band) a little while back. You contested it so it wasn't deleted.
- Articles for deletion, a more formal process to determine whether an article should be deleted. This is where the article is now (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Other (punk band)). Basically a discussion page is created where people can voice opinions over the course of 7 days. At the end, if there's a consensus one way or the other, the discussion is closed and consensus enacted. It can also end as redirect, merge, or a couple other actions as an alternative to deletion.
- If you want to learn more about the process, click any of the links above or head to Wikipedia:Deletion process for an overview. I'll respond to your comments about the article at the AfD page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I guess it was deleted before I could respond again so I guess nobody but me cares. I'll keep my copy of the article for my own purposes I suppose. It also doesn't seem like the content was merged as proposed so the information is now lost.Pacohaas (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Pacohaas: Deletion discussions are typically open for 7 days. It's unfortunate that they don't see more participation, but there was enough for the closing admin to gather a sense of consensus from the thread. I don't know if it makes a difference to you, but the article wasn't actually deleted but rather redirected, so the content is not lost -- just kind of hidden. Almost every page on Wikipedia has an accessible "History" page which keeps track of every change ever made to the article and what the article looked like after each of those changes. So the content that existed before being redirected is still there in the history if you would like to use any of it to expand on coverage of The Other in the Rich Kids on LSD article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot 22 September 2015 |
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC) |
but since on the one page many interested parties gave the nod to the 'pro-Israeli' article, while on the other wholly disinterested editors have a thumbs down on a mere list article, I thought they were missing contextual background. The I/P area, notoriously is a place most editors and admins wish to avoid, and unfamiliarity with its dynamics is a tad dangerous when making a call at AfD.
What Gregory has done with those many articles is not a case for AE or ANI, appealing to which I regard as vexatious, and to be avoided since it looks like using those forums for a battleground ridding of someone one disagrees with on an article. He quite a productive and useful editor, except in this area, but he has a perfect right to write there. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: Thanks for the message. I know there are many people employing many kinds of POV-pushing around that topic area. I'm one of those editors who tends to steer clear, and feel both ill-equipped and generally disinclined to get involved in a discussion or dispute about a particular editor's behavior.
- But I do want to ask a question, if you'll indulge me. This seems like sort of a naive question, but why is it necessary to understand the dynamics of editors active in a particular area in order to evaluate a topic according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? (I'm asking earnestly, I think, rather than as a challenge). It seems that even in the complicated cases there's still typically an ArbCom decision, long-term abuse case, series of RfCs, or some other policy basis such that the individual personalities and behavioral histories are more or less immaterial. I feel like I can assess the two articles on their own merits, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Perhaps there is a sense in the community working on I/P-related articles that any article specific to Israel and/or Palestine requires a mirror article on the same topic? Maybe it's unheard of that there are sources about one but not the other? I'm asking as a general question, not actually wishing to fork discussion of the articles currently at AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good question. I think experienced editors can twig to the dynamics, undoubtedly, so I'm not questioning their judgement. I wrote what I wrote because I saw a line up of yes votes on one article by IP editors and then 4 no votes by non I/P editors on the other article, though they were mirror articles. Those editors identified as writing to ensure Palestinians are given their POV due, by a general accord, do not try to write this kind of memorializing or not notable stuff, and if one does his fellow editors will not fall into line. You can see that on the page, where several editors I get on well with are wary of this kind of page, whether I or Gregory does it. I'm proud of this fact, that collegial editing, and often a shared POV, does not generate automatic solidarity on questions of edits or articles up for deletion.
- It's late here, and this old brain is longing to punch out the quota of 40 zeds, but I will try to come back and reply at length here tomorrow. Best regards (and if my frail memory overlooks this for a day, give me a beep). Best regards Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't distract from enjoying Saturday. Before I add the more general note I promised, just one point that left me perplexed. You wrote:
- ‘The sourcing for this looks to be much weaker than the counterpart list’.
- The counterpart list (List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing) has 31 sources, including Arutz Sheva (extremist settler news outlet, repeatedly said at RS not to be used for facts); Algemeiner Journal (Okay, but one has to use it with care for facts), New Jersey Jewish News; The Jewish Exponent (not mainstream); AIJAC (an activist partisan lobby group, unable for facts); the IDF blog (not reliable as an active combatant in a conflict), The American Israelite, obscure and provincial, with an extremely limited circulation, not reliable for facts. It has 14 RS, 4 of which I added when I saw the sourcing problem, including the books by David K. Shipler and Sandy Tolan, and UNISPAL.
- I.e. the sourcing there is decidedly sub-par.
- The sourcing for List of Palestinians killed and injured by Israelis in connection with stone throwing has 61 notes containing 5 book sources. It is sourced basically to international NGOs that provide the best objective or neutral information, since they are critical of both sides: B'tselem, Human Rights Watch , Amnesty International. The rest is sourced to almost exclusively mainstream newspapers: The Guardian, Reuters, Haaretz , The Telegraph, The New York Times, Associated Press, CNN, Los Angeles Times, Agence France-Presse, Washington Post, United Press International, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency , Baltimore Sun etc. There are only 2 sources which might be questioned: Middle East Eye, used only cnce, and +972 magazine, used once, though both of those are run by journalists with mainstream professional careers.
- I can't see the empirical basis for your judgement therefore. I'm sensitive about this since I am a stickler for as highbar S definition. Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't distract from enjoying Saturday. Before I add the more general note I promised, just one point that left me perplexed. You wrote:
- By sourcing I didn't mean the sources presently cited but the quality of sources available. The impression I got was that there were more sources available about the subject (dismissing all news reports/coverage of specific instances) of deaths/injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing than the subject of deaths/injuries caused by Israelis in connection with stone throwing. Just to be clear, I did !vote to delete them both. In addition to the sourcing, the weak delete for the former was also partly because of its more fundamental connection with the existing article, which would make a sensible merge target if the RfC hadn't already removed that possibility. That's not to say that, if it were merged, it wouldn't also be appropriate to merge parts of the other article. It's just the combination of my perception of the sources and the more basic connection to the existing article (and, again, by more basic connection I mean that "stone-throwing incidents" seems more fundamental to the subject "stone-throwing" than does "responses to stone-throwing", even though that may well be justified to include, too, if the former were added). I'm not so sure I'm communicating that well, but coming back to the sources, I don't have time to look at them now but later I'll revisit what's there based on what you're saying -- I may well have gotten it wrong. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- General note I am professionally interested in Scotoma, metaphorically, the blind spot that stops people with normal vision from perceiving something in their field of sight.
- Wikipedia is the only medium for the democratic determination of information relevant to anything within the scope of encyclopedic inquiry. It is an extraordinary institution for this reason. All complex institutions require rules: the more complex the institution, the greater the tendency to encumber it with rules as new situations arise, to govern specific problems. I admire the dexterity of acute legal minds capable of navigating their way through the hundreds of guidelines developed over the years to settle disputes. But observing the to me often arbitrary way in which one rule prevails over another, or how a random assortment of editors can turn a decision one way or another at times (no reference to the present case), I try to be guided by commonsense, not rules, also because 'The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.' The only policy I am familiar with is the 5 pillars. I ignore the rest, trusting my feel for several decades of experience, which includes writing for an encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think I have a somewhat more optimistic view despite starting with a similar premise. There are, of course, a great many ways interpretations and applications of the rules differ and conflict with one another, but in general, I support the project's procedural rhetoric that the rules are based on extensive discussions, exist to clarify a wide range of scenarios, and still allow some gray area for editor judgment. The big idea is the spirit of each rule more than the letter, but with recognition that the letter of the law usually exists to communicate the spirit. In an ideal scenario, where a majority of participants in a discussion are familiar with the rules, the spirit of the rules, and are invested in the overall project more than a particular agenda (generally speaking, and acknowledging perfect neutrality doesn't exist), the rules should guide people to the outcome that best suits the encyclopedia's core principles. That said, bad faith Wikilawyering is common, many participants wield the rules in good faith without a good understanding of the spirit, many discussions attract POV-pushers, and many discussions do not attract sufficient participation such that the ideal scenario is possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the Afd in question we have a small sample of random policy waving:WP:COATRACK WP:AGF; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; WP:OTHERSTUFF; WP:BUNDLE; WP:WORLDVIEW; WP:BURO; WP:MULTIAFD: WP:OSE; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:NOTNEWS; WP:Systemic bias; NPOV-violating astroturfing.
- As any legal mind knows rules can conduce to conflict resolution, or they can be used instrumentally for advantage to produce negative outcomes (O. J. Simpson murder case, Strategic lawsuit against public participation etc.) If I cite WP:Systemic bias, which I think central to WP:NPOV, the come-back may be to flag WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and vice versa etc. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not to get off on a tangent, but WP:Systemic bias is a meta essay describing the situation and raising issues that should be addressed. It's about working on those issues within existing policies and guidelines, not a policy or guideline itself. If the rules are causing systemic bias and there's a better way to do things, that should be addressed in the context of the rules, not an argument against the rules where they're applied. None of this is to detract from the significance of systemic bias -- I just think it falls into the umbrella of WP:IAR when wielded as justification for content-based actions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- All these fine links to guideline represent the appeals to principle by the various contributors to any discussion. They often contradict each other. In other words, all can find some policy ‘reason’ for opposing or approving a deletion. Such discussions remind me of the intricate rules governing the The Glass Bead Game in Hermann Hesse's novel, and its deft exponents strike the same admiration I would feel were I to encounter in the real world such Magistri ludi, or masters of the game.
- I would have failed the Waldzell school in Hesse’s Castalia. My editing in the I/P area is governed by one basic pillar WP:NPOV and its application is very simple: as the abbreviated monicker indicates, there are 2 parties, with 2 competing world-views or interests, the Israeli narratives and the Palestinian narratives. Any articles dealing with these topics, and the general design of the area’s collective article range, must strive for a neutral representation of the two POVs.
- There is a technical problem in doing this. I hold generally to a strict reading of WP:RS, and think that any articles dealing with events in the past should be sourced strictly to academic works under major university or publishing houses’ imprint. The pathos of distance allows detachment not in our immediate media sources with their obsessive deadlines, and peer-review means you can't get away with lazy copying or recycling of an incipient meme. For articles that are closer to recent events, we must rely on news reports: in this area, reportage is notoriously slipshod, partisan, skewed (even in regional biases: the US media are generally thought to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel, the British media show more coverage of Palestinians etc.), a reportorial WP:Systemic bias which for some decades has been the object of extensive academic analysis (too numerous to list but John J Mearsheimer,Stephen M Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Penguin 2007 ch. 6 pp.168--195; Heather Savigny,Dr Lee Marsden (eds.), Media, Religion and Conflict, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2013, passim; Howard Friel, Richard A. Falk, Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East, Verso, 2007); Luke Peterson, Palestine-Israel in the Print News Media: Contending Discourses, Routledge 2015). More importantly, we have but one EU-financed Palestinian news outlet, Ma'an News Agency, as opposed to dozens of Israeli (Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, Ynet ) and diaspora newspapers (The New York Times etc.etc.). It’s personally embarrassing to read through all of these outlets’ reportage of any single incident, because they are riven with factual incongruencies and distortions, but editors are free to jump on stuff that suits their POV and edit it in and fight for its retention. The aims of an NPOV encyclopedia are generally not under consideration in 90% of the work there.
- So we get forums for dispute resolution, and the to-and-fro of policy claims, and a huge tussle over the correct bureaucratic resolution: in my experience the wood is lost for the trees. I freely admit to ignoring most of this policy-flag waving.I look only to NPOV, equal and neutral representation. If I see someone creating an attack/victim article, I intervene to fix it by contextualization so that the other narrative is present, always per sources that mention the given incident. That is not a 'battleground mentality', it is correcting what I perceive to be a partisan use of Wikipedia to promote a victim agenda, so that all angles are covered. This is a painful process: at Susya I wrote an extremely detailed analysis of the site's Jewish heritage in a synagogue, and all was quiet. As soon as I touched on the Palestinian side of Susya, and its history, I found myself facing 4 editors (3, actually, 2 were sockpuppets) whose vexatiousness managed to exasperate me, leading to a diff that constituted evidence for my perma ban. Most editors here do not understand NPOV as an issue of countering systemic bias, and people who strive for balance are regarded as POV warriors, as is Oh Confucius's absurd dismissal of that page as astroturfing.
- Of course I have a POV on this issue, a strong one. But I don't create articles to pursue a victim agenda, as many are patently doing. That an attempt to counter article bias by the other perspective can be dismissed as a battleground mentality is cheap innuendo that ignores the long term interests of a global encyclopedia, which optimally can be read, with equal discomfort and pleasure, by all sides in a conflicted area. RegardsNishidani (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- No need of course to reply. I am as garrulous as the cicada-like gerontocraps in Book 3 of the Iliad, and it would be importunate to expect an answer. This is just to clarify where I am coming from. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: I don't think I can effectively respond in a way that does your message justice. I've replied inline in a couple places above, but I feel variously ill-equipped and generally disinclined to discuss particulars of past disputes. You definitely know more about these issues than I do, and you touch on many of the reasons I don't get into I/P discussions -- there's just far too much to catch up on before I'd feel comfortable evaluating arguments about Wikipedia rules in too many cases. Deletion discussions, however, are paradoxically some of the most fraught yet procedurally straightforward threads on Wikipedia. There are particular rules that apply to all articles and don't require the density of discussion that WP:NPOV disputes entail. WP:RS makes for complications, as do the ontological issues raised by WP:NOT, WP:SALAT, WP:COI, etc., but although it's still frequently challenging to make judgments and the discussions are subject to gaming, it's an area I feel like does not require the degree of background that, say, an article RfC does. (By the way, throughout my response I'm speaking in general terms rather than specifically referencing the AfDs that inspired this thread).
- My response might be a bit redundant, but hopefully it makes sense. My goal is to communicate why I feel like the issues you're talking about are entirely valid, but that it's possible to operate according to good faith interpretation of the rules at a semi-formalized discussion like AfD. I really appreciate your taking the time to write all this. As the sad box at the top of this talk page indicates, I'm in the process of trying to maybe hopefully take a wikibreak at some point possibly in the near to mid future, so I don't know when I'll be able to respond -- though you shouldn't feel obligated to respond, anyway. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, pal. I can see your point precisely. Never forget that in formal terms, I am a poor Wikipedian as I rarely understand anything technical, and instincts can only get one so far. Keep up the good work. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- In the media: PETA makes "monkey selfie" a three-way copyright battle; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Featured content: Inside Duke Humfrey's Library
- WikiProject report: Dancing to the beat of a... wikiproject?
- Traffic report: ¡Viva la Revolución! Kinda.
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
| Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture.
All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments. Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media! Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
- New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
- Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
- Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
- Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Recent research: Wiktionary special; newbies, conflict and tolerance; Is Wikipedia's search function inferior?
- Tech news: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference between appropriate notification of potentially interested editors and canvassing is a judgement call. I notified three editors, all of whom have previously made significant contributions to the relevant pages. Thank you for pointing out the insufficiently neutral wording in two of these instances. I have edited the notifications to rectify this. Victimofleisure (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Victimofleisure: You're right that it's a judgment call. It really comes down to the spirit of what it says, though. You left that message in the hope that those editors will participate in the discussion and support a particular position. That's what WP:CANVASS is there to prevent. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it comes down to philosophical differences. My view is that I was providing a useful service by informing stakeholders of a debate that might concern them. WP is a big place, and editors no matter now prolific are unlikely to keep up with changes to all the pages they care about without some help from others. In any community people inevitably have divergent opinions, and struggle to achieve their preferred outcomes, and WP is no different in this respect. Victimofleisure (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Victimofleisure: It's not a philosophical difference. It's quite cut and dry.
- If you think that canvassing should be allowed, that's one thing (although your perspective would differ from the years-established consensus within the community), but I think you're being disingenuous to present it as "I was just letting some people know who might be interested" as though you're a disinterested party or as though your only criteria was potential interest in the discussion rather than those who might be interested to support your position. Why didn't you notify Armbrust, Location, or Difluoroethene (formerly Stonemason89), for example? As participants in the last AfD they certainly seem like logical choices to be on a list of people who would like to know, no? (Note, by the way, that I used the {{noping}} template to link their name so they don't get a notification -- I'm not interested in counter-canvassing.) But even if you did notify everyone, you didn't do so with a neutral notification that "a debate might concern them" as your words here purport, but rather ~"this thing is happening. come help me stop it!"
- So, look, this isn't a great big deal. It hurts the integrity of a discussion, yes, and it leads to others viewing whatever position the canvasser holds more critically. If it's a persistent thing, it can get you blocked from editing and/or participating in certain discussions. But it's completely understandable that you wouldn't be familiar with that rule. Hence, not a great big deal. Nobody's expected to know all the rules right off the bat. So I'm telling you now that it is considered canvassing and strongly urging you to refrain in the future. That's all. :) If you disagree with the rule, I'd encourage you to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Point taken. I apologize and will try to follow the rules more carefully in the future.Victimofleisure (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it comes down to philosophical differences. My view is that I was providing a useful service by informing stakeholders of a debate that might concern them. WP is a big place, and editors no matter now prolific are unlikely to keep up with changes to all the pages they care about without some help from others. In any community people inevitably have divergent opinions, and struggle to achieve their preferred outcomes, and WP is no different in this respect. Victimofleisure (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot 6 October 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC) |
| Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture.
In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
- @Pharos: Just a heads up that this looks to have been posted twice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
11 October 2015 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
- Op-ed: Walled gardens of corruption
- Traffic report: Reality is for losers
- Featured content: This Week's Featured Content
- Arbitration report: Warning: Contains GMOs
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- WikiConference report: US gathering sees speeches from Andrew Lih, AfroCrowd, and the Archivist of the United States
- News and notes: 2015–2016 Q1 fundraising update sparks mailing list debate
- Traffic report: Screens, Sport, Reddit, and Death
- Featured content: A fistful of dollars
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
SuggestBot 20 October 2015 |
|---|
|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have. SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping! If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC) |
I very clearly stated I was editing as an IP which Wikipedia most clearly allows. There is obviously no socking going on since I am taking full ownership over the prior edits. You must work on your reading comprehension since you accused me of socking AFTER I clearly took ownership of those edits.Guardthetruth (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Guardthetruth: I did not accuse you of sock puppetry, which makes this section rather ironic. I did ask if the IP was you because I was operating under the assumption it was (people edit while logged out or create an account after editing anonymously all the time legitimately). Indeed you did make the connection previously. None of my comment had to do with socking, though.
- Here is what I want to communicate: When issues come up, even if you know you're right, the best thing to do is to bring them up on the article talk page or on the other user's talk page. Don't go to a noticeboard before you do so and certainly don't edit war. I would also add that making it about the editor rather than the content, making assumptions of bad faith, and making comments about e.g. "reading comprehension" don't typically get far on this, a collaborative project. Yes, I agree the text should've been removed (though not because of "slander"), but a pattern of handling disputes inappropriately will lead others to assume you're in the wrong. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
| Wednesday October 28, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We will also include a look at our annual plan and budget ideas, to see if the chapter is able to fiscally sponsor more ongoing projects tied to our core mission of expanding and diversifying free knowledge. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons:
| |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Why is this a spam link? ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- aarental.com is one of the sites I noticed repeatedly added as deadlink spam (using deadlink tags as an indication of content the site can copy and host in order to get ad revenue or drive traffic towards some other commercial ends). It almost always involves extremely low quality content or blatant copyright infringement. In this case it's indeed less egregious as spam since it's just the manual, but I really doubt Aarental.com owns the copyright to Shure's manual. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can I request that you tag these things or comment them out instead of deleting outright. I found a copy of this on the Shure site and replaced. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Thanks for replacing it. In the vast majority of these cases the content is so obviously unacceptable that commenting it out or tagging it wouldn't make sense. That said, it's true that once I saw aarental.com pop up repeatedly when looking for deadlink spamming, I more or less stopped looking at the actual content it hosted. I think removing it is the best policy even still, but in the future I'll try to take a closer look and, if I remove it, I'll post a heads up to the talk page. Reasonable? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- We need editors to have ready access to the original link. I suppose a revision link (e.g. this) on the talkpage would accomplish that. I'm not sure I understand what "deadlink spamming" is. With normal dead links, per WP:LINKROT it is not acceptable to delete dead links, they should be marked or replaced. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Dead link spamming is a page set up when the technique was discovered some months back, though it hasn't been updated since then. People are working on edit filters and a couple people have produced some database reports in the meantime. Deadlink spamming is a strategy devised by the Search Engine Optimization/New media marketing crowd to capitalize on Wikipedia's popularity despite it Nofollowing external links. In some cases, where the marketer is promoting a site that has genuinely useful resources for a given article, it's fine. That's the exception, though. Usually it's people with spam sites -- basic websites set up to generate ad revenue/clicks -- who find deadlinks and then create the content the purports to serve the same purpose. It's usually really poor quality writing or a copy/paste job from an archived original source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Like you say, what happened here is a bit different than what's described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Dead link spamming and doesn't require the spammer to edit Wikipedia. The subtlety of this merits a more detailed explanation than you gave in this case when deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, in the future I'll note it on the talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Like you say, what happened here is a bit different than what's described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Dead link spamming and doesn't require the spammer to edit Wikipedia. The subtlety of this merits a more detailed explanation than you gave in this case when deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Dead link spamming is a page set up when the technique was discovered some months back, though it hasn't been updated since then. People are working on edit filters and a couple people have produced some database reports in the meantime. Deadlink spamming is a strategy devised by the Search Engine Optimization/New media marketing crowd to capitalize on Wikipedia's popularity despite it Nofollowing external links. In some cases, where the marketer is promoting a site that has genuinely useful resources for a given article, it's fine. That's the exception, though. Usually it's people with spam sites -- basic websites set up to generate ad revenue/clicks -- who find deadlinks and then create the content the purports to serve the same purpose. It's usually really poor quality writing or a copy/paste job from an archived original source. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- We need editors to have ready access to the original link. I suppose a revision link (e.g. this) on the talkpage would accomplish that. I'm not sure I understand what "deadlink spamming" is. With normal dead links, per WP:LINKROT it is not acceptable to delete dead links, they should be marked or replaced. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Kvng: Thanks for replacing it. In the vast majority of these cases the content is so obviously unacceptable that commenting it out or tagging it wouldn't make sense. That said, it's true that once I saw aarental.com pop up repeatedly when looking for deadlink spamming, I more or less stopped looking at the actual content it hosted. I think removing it is the best policy even still, but in the future I'll try to take a closer look and, if I remove it, I'll post a heads up to the talk page. Reasonable? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can I request that you tag these things or comment them out instead of deleting outright. I found a copy of this on the Shure site and replaced. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"
- Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus
- Featured content: A more balanced week
- Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing
- Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet
- Technology report: Tech news in brief
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
26 October 2015 |
|---|
 Newsletter • October 2015
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month: We did it!
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page. Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons. Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation. The work continues!
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal. How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
|
Happy Halloween!
Hello Rhododendrites:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
