Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-07-01

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-07-01. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Blog: These Texans are on a quest to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of their state’s revolution (5,323 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

Here's to the Texans! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Great stuff, & good to see a piece that goes into detail on the process of article writing. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Re:

  Their plan of attack included scrapping the entire existing article, all 5,243 words of it, and starting anew. This allowed them to not worry about where existing content had come from and instead concentrate on including facts and views from the principal sources on the topic

  I'm really curious how prominent this practice is for most serial FA contributors. (I.e., I'd love to see a Signpost piece on it.) I know I do it myself. How else can you stand by an article's quality without personally verifying every citation? And you might as well start from scratch with all of the rephrasing and citation reformatting. Also would like to echo Johnbod—great topic, great piece – czar 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the best way to take an old article up to FA, is to essentially gut it. At least gut the existing sourcing, and whatever prose you keep, make sure you have your own verification sourcing to back it up. I just failed a GAN that was a classic example, an article that was begun in 2001. Looked fairly decent until I noticed the first copyvio. One examination led to another, and it was like pulling a loose thread on a sweater.— Maile (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. To try to track down sources for all of the information in the article would be incredibly time-consuming. It's much easier to do the research, which you'd have to do in any case, and write from scratch. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• One point this blog makes that needs to be kept in mind is that contributing to Wikipedia currently requires doing research. Serious research. In my own experience, it can take someone between 6 months & 2 years to learn enough about a subject to improve the articles about it; improving an article so that its content is usable -- bringing it to roughly C or B class -- requires effort equivalent to writing an undergraduate term paper. (And as this blog notes, writing a FA class article requires even more effort & research.) While in the early days anyone could edit, that was because Wikipedia's coverage was so spotty & shallow; now that Wikipedia is far more comprehensive & detailed in its coverage, not everyone can edit. And no amount of fancy new software or improved contributor behavior is going to allow more people to edit Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Not convinced. Yesterday I found the following four people who have been covered by the ANB since April have no article.

  1. Josephine Casey (1 January 1878?-27 January 1950), labour organizer and leader, women's rights advocate
  2. Emily Borie Hartshorne Mudd (6 September 1898-2 May 1998), sexual and marital counsellor, birth control advocate
  3. Elias Neau (1662-7 September 1722), religious educator
  4. Joy R. Simonson (16 January 1919-24 June 2007), women's rights advocate, federal government official

  The situation is much better (or worse - if you are looking for uncreated articles) than in October 2010, though I don't have the figures to hand.

  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC).
  

Note; I am putting stubs in, please do contribute to the articles even though the links are turning blue! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

Maybe we need better ways to steer editors towards missing articles. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My point wasn't that it wasn't hard to find articles in need of creating; I've created two new ones over the last month. My point was that a potential contributor might be tempted to add to or improve on an existing article, discover just how much research is required in order to do that (not all potential contributors will just happen to have a proper reliable source at hand), & be discouraged from even making a first edit. For example, through personal experience I've come to learn an awful lot about adoption & being a foster parent, but due to the lack of reliable sources I know better than to try to add anything to the relevant articles. Unless I take the time to do the research to find reliable sources, which may take 6 to 36 months -- which is the result of making Wikipedia more comprehensive & more reliable. -- llywrch (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured content: Viva V.E.R.D.I. (1,717 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

• disappointing to see that in last weeks signpost featured content section this one wasnt listed and it hasnt been corrected in the current issue either. Gnangarra 08:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gnangarra: Short answer: This is the featured content from 14 to 20 June, that image was published on the 22nd. We use WP:GO - the only centralised list of promotions - to divide up featured content into weeks. The week has to close before the Signpost comes out. and WP:GO weeks are from Sunday to Saturday. Three days is not enough to put the issues together. The dates were missing from this artiicle - I'm not quite sure why, they were there, but someone removed them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Very pleased (and touched) to see the dedication of the Verdi picture to our late colleague Viva-Verdi. Tim riley talk 11:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed, departed colleagues have left an extraordinary legacy to the world. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
  

In the media: EU freedom of panorama; Nehru outrage; BBC apology (1,532 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

If freedom of panorama is to be completely prohibited in the European Union, then there exists possibilities of that union preventing the publication of images featuring public artworks and buildings. Such images would be deleted if Europe opposes FOP. }I6ixce93IxI{ 23:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the current (French) rules are more honoured in the breach than the observance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC).

Voting: outcomes

Today the European Parliament voted about the copyright report, including the subject Freedom of Panorama.

• The negative text by Cavada (Freedom of Panorama only non-commercial in whole EU) was dropped by 502 to 40.
• The positive text by Schaake (full Freedom of Panorama in whole EU) didn't pass by 228 to 303.
• The report as a whole was accepted with 445 to 65 with 32 abstentions.

Thanks everyone, we almost manage to achieve a full swing, which is a very tough feat to get done in 3 weeks.

What is next?
Autumn 2015: European Commission planned proposal on a renewed EU Directive.

Romaine (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

News and notes: Training the Trainers; VP of Engineering leaves WMF (953 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

In the interest of sharing full details of the board approval of FDC recommendation, which has one caveat, which unfortunately is not mentioned in the email from Board linked above, I refer the readers to its meta page and the complaint to Ombudsperson and also the appeal aganist one of the recommendations of FDC.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Technology report: Technical updates and improvements (987 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

• With regards to the information about the password requirements for admins and users with other special privileges, is there a list of what user permissions are affected by this aside from admins? RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 04:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • RegistryKey: That item was actually inaccurate; the feature is now available in MediaWiki, but it hasn't been enabled for admins or other groups yet. There is more information at phab:T94774#1414868 and following comments. My apologies for the error. The other groups that will be affected include: Staff, Stewards, CheckUsers, Ombudsmen, and I imagine Oversighters as well at some point. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Traffic report: We're Baaaaack (1,625 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2015-07-01

Discuss this story

Glad to see Traffic Report back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Aye, three cheers for the traffic report. --Pine^✉ 01:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the most edited articles list from the missing week for the approximately 24 people who apparently care. ^^ EllenCT (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting, EllenCT, but the link was to an older version of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Able to make a stand (5,260 bytes · 💬)

Feedback

I just want to respond to the passing mention of Stella Young, who died suddenly late last year. She was a friend of Wikipedia, who spoke with us while we were working on the Paralympic articles during the 2012 Summer Paralympics in London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Stella Young was mentioned in the pre-publication discussion, not in the interview itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to introduce this small WikiProject to a wider audience. I hope new contributors will join as a result. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to comment on the assertion that disability "never really affects 90% of the world's people." Statistics from U.S. Social Security Administration show that, in the U.S. approximately 25% of people will become disabled either physically or mentally before reaching retirement age. I'm sure that figure is higher in some parts of the world, and while there may be parts of the world where the figure is lower, I'm sure that no where is it less than 10%. Moreover, many of the 75% of people who do not become disabled prior to reaching retirement age are greatly affected by the disabilities of their immediate family members. Asserting that disability "never really affects 90% of the world's people" allows non-disabled people to think that the problem doesn't and won't affect them, that "the disabled" are somehow other, and that efforts are wasted which impact only 10% of the population. Moreover, I would venture to say that, although only 25% become disabled prior to retirement, if you include those whose disability begins after retirement the percentage of persons who face a disability at some point in their lives is much, much higher. Disability should be framed as what it is - something that, in some form and to varying degrees, will affect most people at some point in their lives. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, "never really affects 90% of the world's people" is a nonsensical statement to make. Do you use ramps and elevators when you're wheeling a suitcase or stroller around an airport? How about those closed captions when you're watching TV in a noisy bar? Or that temporary parking permit when you broke your leg? Everyone is affected by the history, experience, and activism of people with disabilities.Penny Richards (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)