Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/Recent research


 * "delegated voice" is red, and I can envision several slightly different meanings. It's only mention anywhere on en.wp is this Signpost item. Could someone figure out what it means and make it blue? DMacks (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a redlink in the Signpost article, anywhere. More generally, I'd guess (without reading the referenced article) that "delegated voice" means that Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what is in reliable sources, and that originality of opinion, or synthesis by Wikipedia editors, is disallowed per WP:NOR. So a limited number of opinions (news articles, authoritative statements) are filtered through Wikipedia editors ("delegated") in the process of going into Wikipedia articles (being "voiced" there). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's red right there in my comment:) It's not linked or explained at all in the Signpost blurb, which is my main concern. In lay language, it could just as easily mean that wikipedia takes on (is delegated) the voice of the source, stating something "is" rather than that "[some source] says". And that's exactly why having it undefined and leaving us to speculate is a problem. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "fixing of spelling mistaken"? That's cute, but isn't that more of a typo than a spelling mistake? – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we really need the editorialising second paragraph in the story about the research into Admins? It seems rather self-indulgent. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems really out of place on a page that otherwise consists of summaries. Op eds are all well and good, but this piece seemed to just be taking isolated points from the paper as a springboard for unrelated RfA and administrator criticism that has no empirical support. The connection to the linked essay was unclear as well. Dcoetzee 19:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The format of this research report explicitly allows for reviews, which contain personal opinion almost by definition. That said, I understand the concerns raised in this specific case, and had suggested before publication (see my talk page) that those personal reviewer comments should be balanced by more detail about the paper's methodology and results, but in the end neither I nor other people got around to making such edits or additions to the draft; unfortunately my own available time for this issue was very limited.
 * FYI, one of the authors has reacted to the review here.
 * Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, in the end, as with everything else, we need more volunteers to help review papers, offer second opinion, and so on. If you would like to join, you are more then welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Does wikipedia actually implement or use any of the research and studies for these type of systems (such as Automatic classification of edits)? --74.202.39.3 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)