Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-28/Recent research

@automatic detection of inconsistencies - active and useful projects Bulwersator (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis
 * User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images - list of articles without image in infobox in enwiki but with image on corresponding article in plwiki
 * http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/imagesforbio/ (without content for enwiki as of today)
 * Thanks! See also Death anomalies table (as background for the first link), Magnus Manske's Free Image Search Tool (FIST), and the Change Detector from the EU-funded RENDER project, where the reviewer of this paper is working. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding a lot of content I've seen recently, but especially the text "Unfortunately, the paper does not touch on Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which would certainly have added to their analysis. Despite the paper's claim to have received approval for research through a university research ethics committee [...]": You really need to decide whether you are trying to report news or trying to write opinion pieces. As everything in this publication is ostensibly straight news except for those articles labeled as opinion, it is jarring to see editors taking specific sides within articles. Most often it is to defend Wikipedia against whatever they see as an attack. Even if the writers and editors here lack a journalism background, even just experience writing for Wikipedia (and having to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR) should already have Signpost writers in the habit of not trying to make their own opinions be the story. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reporting of news requires analysis of the material; detecting significant features and identifying inconsistencies is part of reporting, and has long been characteristic of the Signpost, just as it ought to be.  DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Signpost articles are not encyclopedia articles, in particular it does not make sense to invoke WP:OR - on the contrary, original reporting is explicitly welcomed, see Wikipedia Signpost/About. Of course there are conventions for journalistic publications as well, but this section (the Wikimedia Research Newsletter) has since its inception invited not only mere summaries, but also reviews of recently published academic research papers, and conventions for that genre absolutely permit that kind of remark. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome graphic looking like a rainbow on the history of art - I never thought of Houbraken as being on the other end of the spectrum from Picasso. Actually I stared at this for a while, since it puzzled me why Houbraken was in the middle of a starburst, and then I realized that of course the other artist biographers that "bridge the gap" from Vasari are still pretty poorly covered. There is still a lot of work to be done onwiki for Karel van Mander and Joachim von Sandrart, which is why the Germans seem so underrepresented in the early days. Jane (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Love how the "History of Art" graphic looks like a work of abstract art itself, hehe. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)