Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-07-31/Discussion report


 * "three high-ranking users" We have "high-ranking users" now?!? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a shame that Wikipedians are using these and similar terms more often, eg WP:Unblockables, or "high-status editors" (I think I've used that myself), or people ascribe to Wikimedians-in-Residence, admins, arbs, bureaucrats, oversighters, long-term editors, as having high rank or high status. I suppose there's a trade-off between recognizing reality - are we ever going to go back to the state where we could legitimately say we're purely egalitarian? - and encouraging or legitimizing "unblockability" by using the terms.  I'd love to hear what others say about this tradeoff. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. I guess I'd prefer to see a different version e.g. "[well-known/highly active/well-respected/long-term] [administrators/users with advanced permissions/users in positions of trust]" rather than the sort of term we see in media narratives about Wikipedia (kind of like those "Wikipedia moderators" who have the special ability to revert people's edits). But ultimately, like Smallbones says, that sort of term gets thrown around so much that it didn't even occur to me when reading this. It doesn't seem all that improper to think of advanced permissions as a sort of rank, at the end of the day. To my real point, though: how many chevrons or stars do I get for achieving the rank of rollbacker/autopatrolled? And does it depend on my 40-sided dice roll? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's gotta be my Magic 8-Ball. – Athaenara  ✉  10:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Advanced permissions" with a link to User access levels would be preferable to me. Keeping the editor-ship democratic, and unlinked to technical access levels, is a good thing. Bri.public (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right - another thing to add to my copyediting list of no-no's. "High status" might work in some cases (opinion, not news). But there will usually be some better way of saying it, without sounding naive. On the positive side of my developing copyediting skills, I did catch and delete an anti-New Zealand slur this issue. I don't think anybody really meant anything beyond a quick joke. Who knew that there is anti-NZ sentiment out there? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that the works of Lucy Lawless with Renee O'Connor are WOW-worthy! Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  20:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops! — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 20:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not as bad as "community leaders", which WMF folks use on occasion. For a more rigorous list of user rankings, see WP:BITED. --Yair rand (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll post my tl;dr comment about the az.wiki thing here for anyone who is interested in cross-wiki stuff since this is getting noticed on meta thanks to the signpost. Basically, I think it was poorly worded but the right outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal partly mentioned during the discussion which I'll fill out further in the next few days and link here. It concerns full-scholarship travel and lodging endowments organized by Wikipedia editors, and hopefully legally assisted by the Foundation. These proposed Diderot Endowments, named for Denis Diderot, the founder and co-editor of the 18th century Encyclopédie, would fund at least 300 additional first-time attendees to the yearly Wikimania conference. Expanded past that, they would also endow similar full-scholarships to major continental conferences. The initial 300 could easily and quickly grow to many more. The endowment would be mainly funded by substantial donations from individuals and not corporations, would be separate from the regular fundraising efforts of the Foundation, and would be solicited by long-time Wikipedians (prominent Wikipedians such as Jimbo Wales and Katherine Maher would be asked to please assist in solicitations, as Wikipedians and not as officials of the Foundation). The Diderot scholars, initially composed of long-time editors and administrators who've never attended Wikimania, would then be able to effectively interact and strategize with their fellow editors from around the world. More on this idea shortly. (first posed August 1, edited August 2) Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The commentary after the box ..."what gives?" We just report scuttlebutt now, unchallenged and untested? Did you put those statements to Mardetanha or did you just repeat them because they were there. Please apply a filter of decency and fairness. There are far more appropriate ways to make post-action commentary without character assassination.  — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reporting seems to be fairly summarizing what's at m:User talk:Mardetanha where I see familiar names from ENWP. you might want to go back and add a link to the discussion report. Bri.public (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is replete with insider talk, incomprehensible abbreviations and argle-bargle. It would be nice if the writers could explain what is going on in plain English, but that might take some serious editing, and I understand how challenging that can be for volunteers. Kudos to the staff anyway! Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to write my column for me, go ahead. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 02:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With regards to azwiki: for the record, it looks like there's now a closure review at Stewards%27_noticeboard. I also found the preceding discussion with the closer on their meta talk page at m:User_talk:Mardetanha, although there might also be other discussions I'm not aware of. Sunrise (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)