Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-26/Recent research

Great summary. Thanks to the contributors to this page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Study on quality of information sources about mental disorders
Sorry for just changing something that was deliberate - but I don't understand why it was. As far as I can tell from http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/org/org3277.html they're all psychologists. Even if the last author were a psychiatrist, why would that take precedence over the majority who did the work, including the actual comparing of the resources in the study. The journal appears to be indexed as both psychiatric and psychological, though not sure how relevant that is to who is making the claims. Nice summary of the study by the way. Eversense (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually have nothing against "psychologists" in the subtitle per se (in fact that's what I wrote myself in the first place, before Dario changed it into "psychiatrists"). But "psychiatrists" isn't wrong either, for the reasons I gave (btw, the "Orygen Youth Health Research Centre" which is stated as the affiliation for all authors in the paper seems to be associated with both the department of Psychology and the department of Psychiatry at the University of Melbourne). And as I should probably have made clearer, the point is that the subtitle of a Signpost section should not be changed after publication of the issue, because it has already been reproduced in various other places where it can't be changed easily (example). Sorry to dismiss your input, which would have been very welcome before publication - you are cordially invited to get involved in the editing process for next month's issue (on or before January 30, check out the Etherpad which will be linked here or the Signpost Newsroom).
 * Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Spelling. Almost anyone who wishes can load up AWB and fix a bunch of typos (I have 11220 in the queue right now). There will be some (many) it misses, naturally, and dealing with the false positives is as important fixing the true typos.  Having said that, spelling is the base level, we have no shortage of grammatical errors, tautology, cliché, jargon, POV language, clumsy expressions and so forth, even before we start to look at content per se.  I have to say, though, if we can't get these simple things right, between us, it bodes ill. The whole point of the wiki approach is that an expert on seventeenth century ormolu need not worry if their contributions are in stilted or mis-spelled English, nor if they cannot cover the horological details of what they write about. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC).


 * If only we had any contributors writing on 17th century ormolu .... Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the majority of the items (about three quarters) picked up by CheckWiki in the image are actually correct. Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC).


 * The spelling study was somewhat flawed and in my opinion not ready to be published in the Signpost. It wasn't measuring the current version of Wikipedia so will have missed many of the typo corrections, and much if not most of what it defined as typos were "false positives". I've done a review of it at User:WereSpielChequers/typo study. That said there is a bit of a backlog for AWB users, we found a typo yesterday that had sat in mainspace for almost nine months.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ink blots

 * Despite being the one who most consistently fought off efforts to remove all accurate depictions of ink blots on Wikipedia for years (hell, I even made the original .GIF version of the image used to illustrate the report above, which was deleted and uncredited after someone converted it to .PNG) -- not to mention the fact that a number of editors contributed to the consensus to first have one, some, and then all images there -- I guess one single editor will be forever credited as being responsible for the move thanks to some initial sloppy news reports and the copycat coverage that followed. DreamGuy (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)