Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-08-13

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-08-13. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Cambridge got a lot of attention this week (1,259 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-08-13

Discuss this story

• Unless I have something terribly wrong, as far as I can see the featured picture at the top of this page is from Wells Cathedral, not (per the caption) the University of Cambridge. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have therefore just changed the caption. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, there were a lot of late changes to this article right before publication. 'Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Infamous?

Just wondering why the dodo is "infamous". According to my dictionary, infamous means "well known for some bad quality or deed". What, exactly, is it supposed to have done — other than have the audacity to go extinct after being overhunted by humans, of course? MeegsC (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In the media: Monkey selfie, net neutrality, and hoaxes (3,787 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-08-13

Discuss this story

• Comment: How can it be considered plagiarizing, for the New York Times to use material from Wikipedia, when Wikipedia's never made any secret of the fact that its content is free? It sounds as if people are going coming down on this journalist for having a day of mental tiredness. Who said, 'Gracious! Goodness! Oh gimini!'... (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It may be free, but it does require acknowledgement of the source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That phrase, "going down on"... I do not think it means what you think it means. 166.170.50.146 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated! Boy, that only made the situation sound even worse... hopefully the modification hasn't brought another unsavoury twist to it. :{ Who said, 'Gracious! Goodness! Oh gimini!'... (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You might link to Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK in the item on CRUK. A busy fortnight for you all- thanks for this useful work. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, John. I've added the link. --Andreas JN466 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see how the Balimore Sun comment holds up on a plagiarism/close paraphrasing check:

John E. McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun lamented that "a lie is halfway around the world before truth has got its boots on".

Mark Twain: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Robert C. Byrd, Sen. (24 June 2008). Letter to a New President: Commonsense Lessons for Our Next Leader. St. Martin's Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-4299-2876-2.; Mark Twain (23 May 2012). The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain: A Book of Quotations. Courier Dover Publications. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-486-11132-2.

— Maile (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• When the issue of the monkey pic came up, I asked one of the lawyers of my company (we're based in New York). He laughed at the question, and said he's been using that picture for three years in his class on copyright where--in answer to the question "Who owns the copyright under U.S. law?"--the majority of students provide the incorrect answer. The correct answer is that it's clear from the U.S. Constitution that only a human entity can make a copyright claim, thus the pic is public domain. -- kosboot (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Well, I am glad that somebody has acknowledged, neutrally, my block of the IP responsible for the Amelia Bedelia hoax. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• The section on famous/not famous people struggling with their pages reminds me on internet personality JonTron, who lamented his page getting deleted and disrupted the AfD for it by tweeting the page. He even called out a Wikipedia administrator for deleting the page beforehand. GamerPro64 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

News and notes: Media Viewer controversy spreads to German Wikipedia (25,049 bytes · 💬)

Note: Due to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist fucking up this page, I have had to break the {{high traffic}} template that links to the unmentionable site "change dot org". The wikitext of it is rendered below. jp×g 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

{{high traffic|date=18 August 2014|site=The Register|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/18/class_war_wikipedias_workers_revolt_after_bourgeois_papershufflers_suspend_democracy/|small=|page=|linktext|afterlinktext|date2=22 August 2014|site2=Change.org|url2=http://www.change dot org/p/lila-tretikov-remove-new-superprotect-status-and-permit-wikipedia-communities-to-enact-current-software-decisions-uninhibited|page2=|...|date10=|site10=|page10=}}

One comment that seemed to sum up the mood of many in the German Wikipedia was this one, by longstanding German admin User:H-stt (my translation):

Frank [Schulenburg], too, is not looking at the real issues that the MV has ignited. The Foundation has a miserable cost / benefit ratio and for years now has spent millions on software development without producing anything that actually works. This is in large part due to the fact that decisions are made without consultation with the community. On the other hand, it has to do with the fact that people like Erik, Steven and Philippe were recruited from the community, but obviously have no experience in really getting a product "out the door" and completing a project successfully. It was a good idea to employ Rachel, so she can take care of the communication about software development. But unfortunately Erik has severely damaged her chances after less than two months.

My theory: The WMF isn't up to the job. Nobody who works there really understands and has a handle on software projects. This is evidenced by a horrific track record over many years. That the MV is rolled out even though it doesn't recognize many licence templates is a symptom. The underlying cause is that the MV is based on a framework that has not been validated. We see the same thing in what is really a very minor issue, the thumbnail display. The layout team wants to abolish the frame and replace it with more white space. That they have not thought of images that need a frame to really show the image (Japanese flag) is one thing. But the guys have deleted the "Zoom" icon in the thumb frame without replacement. Why? Because they have not thought about what function it might have. With image maps that icon is the only way to get to the image information and the licence info! None of them knew that. And none of them asked or tried to find out for themselves what the function of that icon was. It's the same with the MV. It reads the licence templates according to a microformat. So far so good. But this micro format is not universally distributed. Therefore, it should either have been rolled out only when everything was converted to that micro format and the millions of files had been migrated, or the MV should have used a more flexible model for reading information. But no, the thing has now been in development for XX months and has already cost Y million dollars, so it had to be rolled out now.

But it's not only software development. What's it like with user recruitment? How many millions have been invested in this over the past five years? Probably a two-digit number. And how many new authors were gained by it? Correct: practically zero. Why? Like Micha above I don't see the problem with the editor. Anyone who has the intrinsic motivation to contribute to the greatest free education project in human history will not be deterred by the editor. There are many other barriers that are more important (first and foremost the ability to prepare information appropriately, but I mention this only as an aside). So here, too, the Foundation mucks about, but has achieved exactly no demonstrable results.

Why is it all like that? Because the Foundation (and in a similar way but to a lesser extent also WMDE) has grown much too fast. The unlimited money supply from the fundraising campaigns shows the tremendous enthusiasm of our readers, but it has seduced people into hiring staff without first agreeing on goals and methods. This excessive staff and bureaucracy then very quickly became estranged from its base, the community, and is now fighting for self-preservation. As far as content is concerned, they have nothing to show, so they have to use force. Best, --h-stt? 16:17, 16 August 2014 (CEST)

Link to the German original. (I'm dropping H-stt a link to this page on his German talk page, so if he is unhappy with any part of my translation of his post, he'll be able to let me know.) --Andreas JN466 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Seems weird they would strong arm like that. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing weird about it, although I must say that its not really a smart move on one hand. On the other, there was numerous of cases (in other language Wikipedias) where admins took too many liberties, and would end up ignoring external links being used as refs (at least I saw it on one article in Russian Wikipedia). However, I never use any of the editors even Mobile Edit one, so I am neutral when it comes to such discussions.--Mishae (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation staff members have now been granted superpowers that would allow them to override community consensus. The new protection level came as a response to attempts of German Wikipedia administrators to implement a community consensus on the new Media Viewer. "Superprotect" is a level above full protection, and prevents edits by administrators. Oh no.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 06:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that for many in the German community this is not simply a case about some new piece of software, but rather about whether the foundation may interfere with the community's own affairs like this. Users justly claim to have a say in how the wiki is run. Many users and sysops have gone inactive to protest against this affair. The much-needed de:user:GiftBot also has gone on strike. The red box there says: Media Viewer must be done away! ;) We are Wikipedia! Give us back our autonomy! Foundation fails to find a suitable response to all this because it focuses on the process of software development only, but does not tackle the psychological aspect.--Aschmidt (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• I also often feel like some parts of WMF staff are totally detached from the community. E.g. None of the roughly 10 members of the Analytics team have found the time to answer my simple question on their talk page mw:Talk:Analytics#Question in over a year. And there will be no answer coming soon, because none of them read the signpost in my estimation. Things like that are extremely frustrating and show how WMF is not willing to put in the same effort as the community is putting into Wikipedia. The best solution would be to decentralize WMF so that there would be more competition. If WMF-DE is better at running Wikipedia than WMF, then the money should go to WMF-DE. And they should be able to hire developers that interact with the community and develop Wikipedia, in a way that the community sees fit. -Tobias1984 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a cultural problem. For example the images used in the Visual Identity Guidelines used the wrong colours. This was pointed out to the staff member by a volunteer, the staff member said that it was to much effort to correct them. Some time later I fixed them on Commons, (it did not take long), and thought no more of it. I later received a stiffly worded talk page message about it, instead of a thank you note! And of course I could not engage with the staffer on foundation wiki, because it is a closed wiki (and the volunteers that ran it have been desysopped, while staff that have never edited an article - and have no possible need for them - get powers, possibly super-powers on all the projects). This malaise runs deep, and needs careful resolution over a period of time. But stepping back from confrontation is the first step. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC).
    

Arbitrary break

• I think there may be some factual inaccuracies in this article, or at least contradictory statements. I don't read German, so I'm not positive, but going by a combination of this article and mailing list discussions I've read, the German RfC "resulted in agreement that the new Media Viewer should be opt-in for now, not opt-out", but instead the attempted implementation entirely shut down Mediaviewer, for everyone in every circumstance, whether they opted in or not. In fact, the same thing happened on enwp with regard to its own RfC on the topic - consensus was "make it opt-in", but the implementing administrator made it completely disabled instead. I realize that may sound like a quibble, but it is, to some extent, the difference between "Erik stomped all over community consensus" and "Erik undid something not even the community had voted for." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• This has been edited some since I submitted it, but my understanding of the German RFC is that the community wants the Media Viewer disabled by default. As I understand it, there are two choices, the community code, which turns off the viewer competely, and the WMF code, which turns on the viewer completely. Nobody has been able to write any code to make other options--that must be more difficult to write. The reasonable thing to do would be for the WMF to take the Media Viewer back to the drawing board and start working day and night to write a code that leaves it turned off by default, with an option to turn it on. But if anyone is doing that, I sure haven't heard about it. —Neotarf (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• The proposal accepted in the German Media Viewer RfC said: "The Media Viewer is deactivated by default, but logged-in users can switch it on in their preferences ("opt-in"). The system would thus follow standard procedure for new features, all of which can be activated in the "Beta features" preferences tab (even ahead of time). This decision shall remain in place until the Media Viewer has become a fully mature product, and all the problems listed above have been fixed." In other words, the RfC came to the conclusion that the MV should for the time being be completely inaccessible to non-logged-in users, but remain accessible to logged-in users wishing to take part in testing it. Andreas JN466 14:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have edited the text to more closely reflect the wording in the German RfC. Andreas JN466 14:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thx. —Neotarf (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "Beta features" system has been broken--for nine months. This is the system that should be superprotected and locked down, as a proprietary research tool of WMF Labs. And make proper backups. —Neotarf (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf wrote: "Nobody has been able to write any code to make other options--that must be more difficult to write."

No, it's not at all difficult to give logged-in editors a choice, although it is slightly more complicated than copying and pasting code written by someone else. For WP:BEANS reasons, I'm not going to post it on this page, but if even I know one way to do this, then anyone who can write the code is certainly capable of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really, you can literally just copy and past the code that commons wrote. Bawolff (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons has MV enabled for non-logged-in users (and opt-in for logged-in users). The German RfC called for MV to be disabled for non-logged-in users (and opt-in for logged-in users). Andreas JN466 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the original version of their code did that by accident (Look at the edit summaries in the history of the relavent pages). So one could copy the old version of their code. Anyways, my point was that its trivial to write such code, and that other people have already done it. (FWIW, I'm not advocating that people do such a thing, I'm just trying to state that its not hard). Bawolff (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, there is already a code available that would fix this problem, but no one has put it on. I don't understand this.

Why does the WMF want to break Wikipedia?

I saw the new Media Viewer for the first time a few weeks ago, when I was looking for some images to use in a Signpost piece. When I clicked on an image, it got larger, which I didn't really care about, since images in the Signpost are usually smaller. It also presented me with some buttons to use the image in some social networking sites--Facebook and Twitter I think--and a button to download the image. So in order to share this image with the people who were making the decisions about the Signpost article, I would have had to download the image, find a place to host it, and provide a link to the URL in the discussion I was having. And the image is already hosted on Commons. When I look for an image, I usually look for licensing information, to make sure it is suitable for publication on English Wikipedia, the URL, so I can paste the image somewhere for consideration by a group, and a list of the places that use the image, which often leads to the discovery of similar images that don't turn up in a search. The Media Viewer gave me none of that information. Needless to say, I won't be clicking on any more images any time soon. It's nice to want to grow these other for-profit networking sites like Facebook, but not at the expense of building Wikipedia, which should be the primary goal.

Now I find out that the problems I had with Media Viewer are not new, that the WMF knew about them at least three months ago, when they did the usability tests I linked to above. And that other users with technical expertise tried to fix them, but the WMF is standing in their way. Also, unlike the German Wikipedia, there is a beta test system that the English Wikipedia can use for software development.

So, here's where we stand. A code is available that would fix the image viewing problems for the users, while allowing the software development people to continue with their tasks. But the WMF refuses to use it, they refuse to let anyone else use it, and they refuse to say why. —Neotarf (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: Two things: the Beta features (as long as they existed) have always been available on dewp via the preferences (Einstellungen) link. You can turn off the Media viewer for yourself in the Appearances tab in your preferences (in the Files section). --HHill (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, disabled. For anyone else who wants to disable Media Viewer, it is at the top of your page when you are logged in, under Preferences > Appearance > Files.

Whether the German Wikipedia beta system has always been available under (Einstellungen) link, I can't say, but my understanding is the system has been functionally disabled for the last nine months, without proper documentation to show the revisions that had been made, and was only fixed fairly recently; and that this was the rationale for the WMF using the German Wikipedia itself as a test platform. —Neotarf (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the link Beta has been hidden for these months, nothing else. It was (and is) possible to use Beta features without it. I for one opted in on testing VE and Cirrus during those months. --HHill (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have always thought if users knew there was a beta system, they would come forward to help out. But it doesn't make sense that Tech would ask for community feedback on VE *before* making it the default, but not Media Viewer. VE seems like the much more critical product. —Neotarf (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The issue in these cases is releasing features before they've been thoroughly tested and before involving the community on different aspects of the development and workflow. They just release something riddled with bugs and usability issues and then say, "We'll work through this." What needs to happen aside from a better development process is to have a trial deployment. Release to Wikipedia for 2 or 3 weeks, gather as much feedback and bug reports and then disable it while it is being reworked. I understand it is difficult garnering community consensus on new features but there are some valid concerns regarding these new features. Ideally, this shouldn't be necessary as there should be continuous feedback during the development process. But this just isn't happening currently. One issue to resolve is to get more involvement before deployment (in alpha/beta stage). Google and Mozilla do a great job of this. 207.235.126.210 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In Wikimedia the process of creating standards is in reverse to the usual process: normally at first stakeholders declare some need for a new feature etc. Then, as many as possible other stakeholders are involved in a process clarifying if there is at all need for a new standard/feature and which characteristics it shall meet. Then a geneal consensus is created as a basis for the standard. Only then, the standard is implemented. Subsequently it is monitored and currently adapted to stakeholders needs. In reverse WM seems to implement standards because of ideas of some people, implement those ideas without proper (prior) consultation with the mayority of stakeholders (the editors and readers of WP , not the foundation and its staff). Then they wonder why the stuff does not meet the needs of stakeholders but try to enforce it by force against declared will of a very substancial part of WM community. Now, there is only a bot strike at german language WP. As i know the WP community as prone to values as freedom and autonomy, a general strike of many regular editors ist not far away. We are not the servants of Wikimedia, but Wikimedia and its staff is the servant of WM community, nothing more. - Andy king50 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Foundation engineering team

I think that the engineering team of the Wikimedia Foundation is too focused on software/hardware development and ignores all kind of user input. And that is directly opposed to the Wikimedia movement's ideals. The engineering team should change its development process to make sure that user input controls their work, and not the other way around. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• What hardware have they developed? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Servers and backups? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I would imagine they have installed server and backup hardware products developed by others. Not developed their own. Unless you know of any...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jan-Bart de Vreede

See statement on Meta and discussion below. Andreas JN466 11:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

• First a technical issue with this comment section, I clicked '+ Add a comment' and have to format my input (put an '*' in front of my comment, have to add my signature...) . This is not the usual UX a 'normal' person would assume. I hope that the foundation puts some developer resources into that (like the talk pages, where other users can edit my contributions or even delete them o_O). On topic: Not everyone on German Wikipedia agrees with the conservative little group that tries loudly to prevent improvement to the UX of Wikipedia. What can the foundation do better than introducing new (and better!) things with the possibility to disable them (for the tiny group that does not like them, or feels that they are worse than the previous version)? 87.78.171.150 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What is UX? —Neotarf (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • User experience. 87.78.74.118 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is not only the comments page that can be edited, it is every page of Wikipedia. If you want to see who has changed a page, you can look at the edit history for that page.

The text editor you are looking for would be the Visual Editor, and I agree that it is long overdue. VE has had a rocky road though, for example see this Signpost article. When I first started editing with MediaWiki markup code, I kept a link to Help:Wiki markup at hand. It gets easier, especially since you can examine other people's edits and see how they code something to make it appear a certain way. —Neotarf (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with any visual editor (not just Visual Editor) is that the WikiSyntax is not regular. It is too ambiguous for an editor to make sense of every possible form of WikiText. IMHO, the proper way to fix that is to fix the problems in the regularity, and expect everyone to adapt their editing style. Yes, I am insane, but nobody has solved a big problem without being insane, amirite? RussNelson (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments here work exactly like... talk pages. I hope people will recognize that Wikipedia is different from other websites, so instead of complaining about it, they'll just accept it. It's simple, just add your comment beneath the last one and add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of it. If you need help, go to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is *mostly* open to newcomers, but the technical gory of MediaWiki and its wiki syntax language is like trying to explain the 90s BBS or dial-up system to someone who was only exposed to 2014 technological amazement. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Op-ed: Red links, blue links, and erythrophobia (23,613 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-08-13

Discuss this story

• Hear hear! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you! I have found that certain mass creation to populate certain feature list candidates have harmed the encyclopedia far more than they have helped, but I have never seen such a cogent summary of my thoughts on the issue. Red links need to exist! Circéus (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Hear hear! Mr. Milburn has written the op-ed I have been procrastinating about for years. Thank you, J Milburn! :) I routinely add redlinks in my content, and lament the widespread erythrophobia on ENWP. Happily, they are still more welcome on other wikis I'm active on. Ijon (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Well done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Erythrophobia is more common in some projects (ca:), less in others (es:). I need red links to check progress on large projects. When they are replaced with plain black text, I'm lost. B25es (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you for writing cogently about something which has been troubling me for a while. Well put! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Great article Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm with you, totally agree about the red-links.Luvlymish 12:44, 18 August 2014 (GMT)Luvlymish (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Glad to see red links getting some attention. Sadly, red link aversion can be even seen at FA; in fact I've seen numerous times submitters said they are refusing to add red links to avoid their article looking "incomplete"; worse - I've seen reviewers requesting removal of "too many ugly red links" and the FA director(s) treating this as a valid objection. IMHO the anti-red link movement is being significantly strengthen by the anti-red link customs at FA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree- that's terrible and a real problem. I've been told to remove red links in my articles while going through the GA processes, and one of my articles was hit with a lot of red link removal when it was running as TFA, despite the fact that people were quite happy with them at FAC. The best thing we can do is make quite clear on the appropriate user talk pages/nomination pages that this is not a valid objection, linking to our various guidelines on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Or rely on someone to add those red links back to an article after the FA process has run its course. (Not that I would engage in such a blatant act of disruption if asked. Of course not.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Add me to the chorus of agreement. It's especially pervasive in the arena of categories - I've noticed that people are much happier removing a redlinked category rather than coming up with some way of creating and/or filling it. But I've noticed fewer and fewer articles with redlinks of late. And yes, I will create one if I think it's warranted, no matter what it looks like on the page. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Categories add a whole other level of complexity- I didn't think about them while writing this piece! As the category trees are well-defined, when I encounter or add a red link category I'll either create it (that is, stick it in the appropriate parent categories) or remove/correct it if it is clearly inappropriate. Of course, I agree that an appropriate but red category is better than no category at all. J Milburn (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• I could feel more confident that red links are actually doing their job if they didn't so often stay for years in the upper parts of Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Jim, thanks for your comment. As I explained, red links do have a purpose beyond encouraging articles to be created, though that is probably the main reason. There's an interesting question about why some red links are seemingly not leading to article creation (I don't have any answers right now, I'm afraid; possibly the links are coming in from templates widely used on not-highly-viewed articles or something), but the fact it doesn't work so well in some cases doesn't mean that it never works, and those articles, surely, would be even less likely to be created if there were no red links. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a bit like saying "I'd be more happy with Wikipedia if it didn't claim it was incomplete". MWA list simply shows that there's a lot to be written, and that some topics are not very popular.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you! Bearian (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Me too, I totally agree that red links serve an important and necessary purpose. Invertzoo (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Josh's essay, but I really must thank you for the shocking introduction. That's pure journalism! --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Erythrophobes would be happy using the Mobile interface: no visible red links, their text is just rendered in black. I wonder why Mobile readers are thought to be such a different species? One of the many annoying aspects of the current Mobile interface. PamD 18:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Brought a smile to my face. And made me think about the usefulness of redlinks. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delighted to see this - I've been muttering similar things less cogently for years :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• I'm basically here to turn the red links blue. Not surprisingly I like them, I add them, and I tend to have a quiet word with those who remove them in disregard of the guideline. Well said. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for this nice essay! Those who remove red links should be warned not to do so. J Milburn: Is there any tool to detect the removal of red links? If not, I think it should be added into Special:AbuseFilter. That's one of the main reasons why we are here, to turn red links into blue links. It's the red links that make our life more interesting: there is always something more to do. Someone should warn those buggers who delete red links, please. This essay should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikilink. —  Ark25  (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not aware of any tools, but I agree that those who remove appropriate red links should receive a swift reversion and a polite note. I'm inclined to think, though, that people who remove the odd red link are less of a problem than people who hang around review processes (I've encountered them at the GA process, Piotr talked about them at FAC, Circéus mentioned the situation at FLC) insisting that red links are a bad thing. People who do this normalise an aversion to red links, and newbies will follow them. Many people who do this are otherwise excellent writers with very good editing practices, which means that people are all the more likely to follow their lead! J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of good reasons to remove any individual redlink (not an appropriate topic for an article, overlinking, etc), though, so I'm not sure an edit filter would be suitable even if desired. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Let's have the filter and then try to count how many are deleted for good reasons and how many should have not been deleted. —  Ark25  (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• A thought. As a reviewer at GA/FAC I'll often ask for red links to be added. I suggest that others do the same when you are reviewing stuff. We should not only defend red links in our works, but demand that editors add them. On that note, perhaps we could use a variant of {{underlinked}} but with a focus on red links? Last thought: I am surprised we are all here in agreement; judging by comments posted here RED has a very strong consensus for it - where are all those "wrongdoers" who remove them? Why are they sitting quiet? Was JM's argument so powerful it silenced all the opposition? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I also request that redlinks are added when I'm reviewing articles, if appropriate. I agree that this is an important step- in a big way, it's norms at FAC, FLC, GAC and the like which determine the norms for the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm also pleasantly surprised about the lack of opposition- it could be something to do with the demographics of Signpost readers? Just a guess. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Hear hear from down here also! José Luiz ^talk 23:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Red links are an appalling idea, another form of tagging, and I think Milburn's campaign is grotesque. It's an in-your-face way of demanding other people do work that the tagger is either unwilling or unable to do themselves. I suppose we can now expect renewed vigour from tag aficionados. The perpetrators of red links should be required either to remove them within a set period or produce a least a stub for them if no one else does it for them. Otherwise, this graffiti creep is in danger of visually rotting articles to the point where no one wants to look at them at all. Arc25 asked above whether there is a tool to detect the removal of red links. More to the point, what is needed is a tool to detect the insertion of red links, and keep track of the perpetrators and how long the links remain red. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Red links have existed far, far longer than tags- they've existed as long as blue links. As I said in my article, red links were considered a good thing for years and years. You claim that red links are an "an in-your-face way of demanding other people do work that the tagger is either unwilling or unable to do themselves"- perhaps you also believe that advocating creating articles that are not ready for a featured article nomination is "grotesque"? Because, of course, people who do this are creating work for others, who then have to come along and improve the article. Newbies who need help? Ban them- they just create work for others, because they're "unwilling or unable" to edit in some of the more technical areas. You may not have noticed, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project: it's not the job of any individual to do all the work, and identifying areas where further work may be needed is part of our job as editors. As far as I can tell, your entire argument against red links is that they're ugly- do you really think that your aesthetic objection to the colour red outweighs the advantages of red links? Do you really think that your aesthetic objection to the colour red means that we should ignore our guidelines on the topic, and label the ideas of those who actually want to follow the guideline "grotesque"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 August 2014

• Why are you attributing this flight of your imagination to me? What's this peculiar stuff about not noticing Wikipedia is a collaborative project and wanting to ban newbies who need help? I rather like the colour red. The in-your-face and visually offensive nature of these links has nothing intrinsically to do with their colour. They become visually offensive because of what they represent. They are a distraction which interrupts the flow and interferes with the reader's focus, particularly when they are overused. They would be just as offensive no matter what colour was used. They have no value to our readership, who come here to read articles and not to edit them. Their only purpose is to prompt editors. But editors who are willing and capable of writing the missing articles don't need other people to tell them what they should write. I have never personally written an article because someone red linked it. Can you honestly say that you write articles because you see red links for them? Usually there are other options to adding red links. You can write a stub. Or often you can create a redirect to a subsection in some existing article. It may be that our editing experiences have been different. But if that is the case we should be able to discuss our differences instead of constructing straw men and pretending they belong to our opponent. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• No straw men here. You're the one who said that red links are bad because the person who adds them asks "other people do work that [they are] either unwilling or unable to do themselves". I was just wondering what else should be decried for the same reason- newbies were an obvious answer. If you agree with me that it's a bad reason to oppose newbies, perhaps you should reconsider your suggestion that it's a good reason to oppose red links. To respond to a few of your other points- First, you accept that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so I'm stumped as to why you're so opposed to a sign that something can be improved by someone who didn't create said sign. Second, you tell me that red links are "visually offensive because of what they represent". What do they represent that it so problematic? To me, red links represent the fact that Wikipedia is, and will permanently be, a work-in-progress- our logo does the same thing. Third, you tell me that the "only purpose [of red links] is to prompt editors", and I'm left wondering whether you actually read the piece you're responding to. Red links have many purposes (I offered five in my opinion piece), and not all of them are telling other editors to write articles. Fourth, you ask me whether I can "honestly say that [I] write articles because [I] see red links for them". I can honestly say (hand on heart and all the rest of it) that a red link has prompted me to create an article, on many occasions- I suspect lots of other editors can say the same. Indeed, I suspect that many of us started editing Wikipedia because we saw a red link (I know my first edit was to create an article- I don't know whether I saw a red link). Fifth, you tell me that "Usually there are other options to adding red links. You can write a stub. Or often you can create a redirect to a subsection in some existing article." Perhaps, or perhaps not. Sometimes a redirect can be misleading, or inappropriate. Sometimes an editor can lack the expertise, time or inclination to write a stub worth having- if I'm writing about bird species, I'm not necessarily in a position to write about a species of parasitic tick. If I'm writing about a mushroom, I'm not necessarily in a position to write about a chemical compound isolated from the species. In those cases, and many others, red links are appropriate- certainly, it's preferable to no link at all, or a wholly misleading and inappropriate (but blue) link. I'm saddened that you seem to think that I'm some kind of "graffiti" artist, or a participant in some "grotesque" campaign, for suggesting otherwise- especially given the fact that you're the one suggesting that our guidelines and (what were, until recently) standard procedures should be ignored/deprecated. J Milburn (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Epipelagic: Perhaps you never wrote an article just only because of it was redlinked but other users do. And there are even tools for such users, as for example Missing topics. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the rise in red link phobia in recent years is quite disappointing. Even blue link phobia is very common these days and enforced by WP:MOSLINK. I'm finding myself having to regularly copy and paste interesting topics from an article into the search box. It gets a little annoying but it's better than being bold and adding a few more useful links to the article (red or blue) and then being reverted on sight. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there is indeed a rise in red link phobia in recent years, then for me it's just a confirmation of what I suspect since a few years ago: Wikipedia is getting less and less intelligent users every year. Also, every year there are more people interested in smoking crack and less people interested to do something useful. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having encountered my fare share of erythrophobes in the past, I am terribly curious why none of them bothered to comment here. Let's hope you scared them all off for good! Thank you for this well-written and timely piece.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2014; 20:50 (UTC)

• Why not showing a hint automatically (by the Mediawiki software) for users who remove red links? 87.78.171.150 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Actually removing red links to articles which aren't but should be is nothing less than vandalism because of one day those removed links will have to be restored. So it creates only senseless traffic, spams version histories, and wastes time. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I partially agree, but I avoided the v-word because I reserve that for bad faith edits. I think that many people who remove red links do so in good faith- they're just misguided. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• I often unlink red links. It's usually when there is a list of people with no reason to think they are notable. For example, all of a company's corporate officers might be linked, or all of the people in the credits to an album are linked. On such a list, three links might be blue, one to the appropriate article, one to a person with the same name, and one to a disambiguation page; all the others are red. In that case, I think it's appropriate to remove the links which don't help the reader. SchreiberBike talk 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that there are a number of inappropriate red links on Wikipedia. In the cases you have mentioned, it is likely correct that links (red or "blue") should be removed. In my Signpost article, I am talking about appropriate red links- that is, links to topics which should or could be covered on Wikipedia, but which aren't currently. Links to topics which would not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article (such as minor session musicians or extras on a TV show) are not appropriate, and so should be removed. What's worrying is that people seem to assume that all (or almost all) red links are problematic, which is not the case. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is not an appropriate venue for examining this issue in any depth. I invite anyone who wants to make or support cogent arguments for or against more red links to contribute to this thread here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Great article. You have cured me. HelenOnline 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Belated, but I entirely agree. This isn't new, either; I remember translating a disambiguation article from the Spanish Wikipedia in ~2008 or so, and making some new articles off the resulting redlinks by translating the Spanish Wikipedia equivalent. (It was a list of mostly Spanish nobles who shared the same name.) Then another editor came along and reverted my version of the disambiguation page and reverted my revert, because look at those ugly redlinks (to notable people who have articles in another Wikipedia). I pretty much lost my taste for that project immediately and stopped, despite the fact that if I'd had finished, there wouldn't have been redlinks anyway... SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Special report: Twitter bots catalogue government edits to Wikipedia (3,642 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-08-13

Discuss this story

¡Hola! We in the government in the socialist paradise of Cuba are very pleased our editing is not noted as part of this report. ¡Viva la Revolución! 190.6.88.85 (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan would like to express the same pleasure as our Cuban brothers. Allahu akbar. 180.94.84.207 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 from the Syrian Arab Republic. 31.9.1.149 (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 from the government of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Sooner or later we will succeed in having Burma moved to Myanmar. 203.81.80.26 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that we don't know who makes these edits. It could be an elected representative, a member of their staff, working under instruction, a student intern independently trying to curry favour, a member of administrative staff, or even a cook or cleaner using their tablet through Wi-Fi during a rest break. False flag editing is also possible. Conversely, propaganda edits may be made by politicians or spooks from home, libraries and other public networks, or mobile 9cellular) connections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP posted comments that implied s/he was acting under the direction of a Congressperson, but without substantiation we can't consider that anything more than trollish bluster. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP was blocked again for a month following a series of transphobic edits and comments. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The Canadian governmental IP addresses that are reported through the Twitter feed are also available to journalists, and anyone who has internet access in a large number of research archives and libraries; in some cases, it includes wi-fi in places like government offices, which can sometimes be accessed by the general public. I suggest that these "reports" be taken with sufficient quantities of sodium chloride, since the number of people with access is huge. Risker (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's another Twitter bot that was inspired by the others: Wikibills. The bot tweets out edits made to United States legislation. FYI. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Who uses Twitter (an asocial company that sells propaganda and is not using an open standard like Diaspora (software))? What the report is missing: the government users with an account and especially the administrators who work for the government. 87.78.171.150 (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania: Promised the moon, settled for the stars (7,697 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2014-08-13

Discuss this story

• Would have liked to have read the author's thoughts about the keynote speech by Lila Tretikov, which struck me as being particularly useful for anyone trying to divine her thoughts on where the WMF projects are now, where they're going, and some of the steps she feels are needed to get there. Risker (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Risker, I had the same thoughts, and noted similar ones. Ziko (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

These are unfolding on Lila's talk page. Very positive discussions, I think, but a certain "hold the line" rather than "do the right thing" flavour is still evident. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

• Re: "kindness, generosity, forgiveness, compassion", - that effort would convince me more had it not been accompanied by the phrase "incredibly toxic personalities" which I believe expresses a way of thinking about other people or a group of people that contradicts the goal. I learned that the phrase was already used in 2009, see my talk. Room for improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Gerda, you need to readjust your priorities: we are no longer interested in creating an encyclopaedia, full of ("allegedly") high-quality content. Instead we are now more interested in a nice fluffy environment when we spend so much time stroking each others egos or drawing up a Black Book of people who don't think fluffy thoughts, that nothing ever actually gets written. I felt decidedly uncomfortable watching the video stream: despite intentions, or the claims to the contrary, it does create a climate of fear, a toxic environment for people to work in. Incivility I can ignore or laugh at: a reign of fear whereby good editors are "encouraged to leave" is a depressing and worrying development. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Without considering that he himself might be one of the "toxic personalities". Let me think about that for a minute. Tony (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think nobody should be in such a category, not even one who can think of it. Move in harmony, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• My family and I have been there in Wikimania and it was great for us. We shared experiences and impressions with people from many places. Kindness was one of the main themes of the meeting. We've been reminded to be kind even to people that are aggresive to us. Once I was even explained to be kind to politicians! Next time we can, we'll repeat. B25es (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• This year's Wikimania was indeed quite good, although the keynote speech by Shetty was completely out of place. It had clear political undertones and was insulting to many attendees I spoke to. Even if someone had to invite a political figure to the conference, they should've talked more about how that organization is relevant to the open knowledge movement, or as the author noted how they deal with organizational problems. Instead, one can sum up the long talk with "All governments are evil, but especially the ones in countries fighting terrorism". Not exactly something you'd want at a Wiki conference. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• The show of hands in the auditorium suggests well over half the attendees on Thursday were supporters of Amnesty or at least sympathetic to its aims. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's not the point. The movement makes a point about being an apolitical organization, so having a blatantly political talk at our annual conference is something that should never be done. It is even more significant when this is your keynote, likely to be heard by all of the conference attendees and covered by the media. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• What was "blatantly political" about it? Seems to me that Shetty's viewpoint was that most governments (or their agents) are capable of doing bad things, including but not limited to detention without trial, torture and other abuses of political prisoners, extraordinary rendition, "disappearances", capital punishment, attacks on civilians and so on. (Did he mention privacy intrusions? Can't remember.) And that such bad things are... bad. Whereas free information is good - and can help mitigate these problems. Sure, lots of governments justify some of these bad things by mentioning terrorism (China, Russia, USA, UK, Iran, Israel, Syria, both past and present Ukrainian governments, and doubtless others) but that doesn't somehow mean Shetty's talk was an argument in favour of a softer line on terrorism. I think he did a great job of explaining how Amnesty's struggles mirror the struggles of the Wikipedia movement in many important ways. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Bad things are bad. And it was a good talk. But Ynhockey has a valid point, it was effectively Amnesty recruiting spiel, it associates WP with AI - sure the organizations have a lot in common, much of it is shared with many, even most organizations - they started form humble beginnings, no-one thought they would succeed, etc...

It could have been a talk on the importance of free and open information for prisoners of conscience, the families of the disappeared and those on death row. It could have covered the NPOV reporting of repression and oppression, in other words, instead of being merely inspirational, it could have been relevant.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

I thought it did mention some of those things - maybe I ought to watch it again. And, it associated AI with WP just as much as vice versa; it was WP recruiting spiel just as much as Amnesty recruiting spiel, actually rather more so. Remember a great many people in the audience were not Wikipedians.

Aside from which, exactly how non-political should we censor a keynote speaker to be? If Stephen Fry had been the keynote speaker - it was lamented in the write-up that he was not - then he has plenty of political views too. So does Jimbo, in fact, about things relevant to Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed, but Jimbo would never use his keynote to push, for example, his views on the "right to be forgotten", would he? Oh wait.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC).