Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-21/In the news


 * I am the first one surprised to think this, but still: Mrs.Bufe is not that notable herself, I guess. So why "pillorying" her son for being a narcissist? Just wanted to say that the news is not that relevant IMHO. --Elitre (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be an en dash in 2010-2011. Ref names should be added as well, using Reflinks 180.95.18.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Fixed the dashes - thanks and feel free to make such minor corrections directly next time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that calling something a conflict of interest without an investigation is itself a point of view (POV). Have we considered the use of the term "vested interest" and let people draw their own conclusions rather than impose those of the editor. billinghurst  sDrewth  03:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

When I began reading How Small Businesses Can Get a Link from Wikipedia, I expected it would describe some dodgy practices marketers use to promote themsleves or their clients. Instead, it shows that Wikipedia forces some honesty onto that industry. Anyone can hype themselves, but try doing it on WP and they'll soon be forced to face their own inadequacies. And if their contributions to society have had little value or notability, again they'll be forced to admit it when they find that no one cites them. Just like academia. Death may be the great leveller but Wikipedia comes a close second. LordVetinari (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It rather reminds me of this XKCD comic. Eventually, SEOers will evolve to the point where they realise that the world will reward them if they produce useful and valuable content rather than attempting to learn the secret cheat codes for Google rankings. Eventually they'll learn that their Wikipedia links will stick around if and only if they actually have some value to the reader rather than basically being marketing vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...evolve into something was worth reading...
Is the quote "I wanted it to be able to evolve into something was worth reading" a typo? Guy Macon (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks.
 * By the way, Wikipedia is mentioned again at the very end of the interview, after Cunningham envisages a "grand challenge" to use information technology for "making it possible to see and understand everything" (e.g. involving what journalism does today): "It's not that far from the challenge that Wikipedia has taken for itself, but it's that a 100 times over". Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ward has had a long fascination with process -- especially with finding a "developer review process that couldn't be abused". A years back he gave a presentation was able to sit in on (but I admit more than a little went way over my head) about a web portal he created for the Eclipse Organization. What excited him was that he was able to anchor the working code at every point to the tests that assured the quality and accuracy of each tool in the portal. If you changed the code, there was a button which you could then click on; this immediately validated the changes you made against the test cases which defined what the portal was intended to do in the first place. No need to submit a change for review, wait for the meeting, then argue why its adoption made sense to programmers, end users, & the bottom line. (He wrote a blog about it, it appears to have gone offline; see my own blog post about his presentation for more details.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Iman al-Obeidi referenced in the media
In case it happens to be Signpost-worthy, the article on Iman al-Obeidi has been referenced 6 times in the last week in notable media, which are listed and quoted on the article's talk page under the "mentioned by a media organization" template. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)