Talk:Tom Fenchel

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Tom Fenchel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100807184838/http://www.sciencemag.org/about/editorial_board.dtl to http://www.sciencemag.org/about/editorial_board.dtl
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110507232125/http://www.nasonline.org:80/site/PageServer?pagename=News_May_3_2011_member_election to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=News_May_3_2011_member_election

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fields added?
Now that you've blocked the passthrough of 'works', I don't see any difference between this version and this one. Can you clarify what you feel is being added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The ability to get information from Wikidata, of course. Information sourced by editors on other wikis now becomes available to English Wikipedia. Added functionality does not always require a visible alteration. I'm going to restore all of Mike's upgrades, and I'm happy to correct any mistakes, but I'd be grateful if we didn't have to engage in an edit war. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then please don't restore them all, as they were not all "upgrades" - I didn't mass-revert his changes, but when I did I had specific reasons for doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But you've been removing the upgrades just because they make no visual difference to you, as you did on Gina Lollobrigida. If we use yes, it won't fetch the Wikidata field until it is sourced properly. However, if someone supplies a reference, that field will then appear (as well as appearing on editors' watchlists that have it enabled). Surely we can agree that, in general, that offers an improvement? --RexxS (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot. The content added may or may not meet our local standards and practices - for example, even using onlysourced doesn't mean that anything added will be reliably sourced - and switching templates means either that interested editors must watchlist Wikidata or that they must constantly load the article to check that the output is reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. There are no different "local standards and practices". Each edit and source stands or falls on its own merits, whether it comes from a local editor or a remote one. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and pretending that the English Wikipedia is somehow immune to unreliable sources if edited locally smacks of an unjustified elitism. No editor "must" do anything, but for those who care about particular articles, and choose to be custodians of them, a broader spectrum of contributors to those articles will be welcome. If editors are finding it a chore to watchlist articles, it's time for them to find another hobby. --RexxS (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia is somehow immune to unreliable sources if edited locally - that's not what I said. What I did say was first, practices, policies, established consensus, etc, differ between projects, and I think it's foolish to deny that's true - indeed, it's inevitable since Wikidata arose well after English and other Wikipedias were well established, and so all of these diverge in the specifics of their approach to the general mission of sharing knowledge. Second, it's not a chore to watchlist articles, but as far as I'm aware if you turn on the "Wikidata" feature, you see Wikidata changes for all articles you watchlist - not only those that happen to import content from Wikidata - which, in combination with the opacity of those watchlist entries to someone used to editing here, makes it difficult to track changes affecting output here. I would argue that it's more "elitist" to say that someone unable to monitor and manage both local and remote changes simultaneously should "find another hobby". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's simply not the case. Editors here are volunteers and if they find a task burdensome, they shouldn't be doing it. There are no fixed practices, policies, established consensus on any project and the foolhardiness is in trying to turn the English Wikipedia into a walled-garden that only the elite should be editing, by pretending that there's something special here that doesn't apply elsewhere. There is no difference between content and source supplied locally directly to en-wp and indirectly via Wikidata. It's still the same source and content - and just as easy to curate. When you try to exclude information coming from other routes, you are excluding a large pool of potential contributors and running counter to the fundamental Wikimedia principle of "anyone can edit". The community has established a firm consensus that Wikidata may be incorporated in infoboxes and I won't be put off working to deliver that by your attempts to re-litigate issues that were decided over three years ago. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oookay. We appear to be talking past each other here. Hopefully we can both recognize that each others' perspectives are valid and warrant civil consideration?
 * Of course there are local practices and policies and consensuses on our projects - on all of our projects, not just English Wikipedia - that affect the content that appears on them. This is important because it also affects how content can be curated centrally at Wikidata and when data should be supplied (or excluded) locally.
 * There is no difference between content and source supplied locally directly to en-wp and indirectly via Wikidata. It's still the same source and content - and just as easy to curate. Well, no, it's not "just as easy". There are technical barriers to editors, who are not perhaps as familiar with the workings of Wikidata and templates as you are, in understanding how to either change things there or supply values locally. There are further barriers in even being able to see when changes happen, as explained above. There are barriers to readers here being able to see whether content supplied from Wikidata is sourced and to what. There are barriers to editors here being able to change sources or remove inadequately sourced content on Wikidata when they perceive that is needed, first because of the tech issue and second because consensus here (or French, or Spanish, or Catalan) about what sources are "adequate" may not match that on Wikidata or on other Wikipedias. And on and on. You might not perceive these barriers, but that doesn't mean others do not. And by erecting these barriers, we are also excluding contributors, and also creating a space in which only the elite (those with the technical understanding necessary) can edit.
 * There are benefits to using content from Wikidata here, and there are also costs. The RfC close indicated that this should be done carefully and deliberately when it is done, which means that efforts to "deliver" it should take such issues into account - even if you personally believe Wikidata integration is an unambiguous benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between content and source supplied locally directly to en-wp and indirectly via Wikidata. It's still the same source and content - and just as easy to curate. Well, no, it's not "just as easy". There are technical barriers to editors, who are not perhaps as familiar with the workings of Wikidata and templates as you are, in understanding how to either change things there or supply values locally. There are further barriers in even being able to see when changes happen, as explained above. There are barriers to readers here being able to see whether content supplied from Wikidata is sourced and to what. There are barriers to editors here being able to change sources or remove inadequately sourced content on Wikidata when they perceive that is needed, first because of the tech issue and second because consensus here (or French, or Spanish, or Catalan) about what sources are "adequate" may not match that on Wikidata or on other Wikipedias. And on and on. You might not perceive these barriers, but that doesn't mean others do not. And by erecting these barriers, we are also excluding contributors, and also creating a space in which only the elite (those with the technical understanding necessary) can edit.
 * There are benefits to using content from Wikidata here, and there are also costs. The RfC close indicated that this should be done carefully and deliberately when it is done, which means that efforts to "deliver" it should take such issues into account - even if you personally believe Wikidata integration is an unambiguous benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)