Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/On the bright side


 * I am pity happy that I came back to my best form of my life whereas I managed to contribute to Wikipedia significantly in the month of February. I am also very much happy that this year is my first leap year as a Wikipedian and managed to even deliver a barnstar to an anonymous user on 29 February User talk:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. Most importantly I am also happy that I managed to progress towards of round 2 of WikiCup with 27 points and I think with this achievement I made my country proud. Abishe (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, for sharing what's making you happy this week. I've also seen 2601.19188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 doing good work. Congrats on the WikiCup achievement, as well! Clover moss  (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I wrote my 9th article for the Women in Red project today! Sylvia Rose Ashby. Made me happy :-) Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delayed response. Thank you, for sharing what made you happy. I have read the article, and my interest was definitely piqued. I can't imagine surveying people on the opinions of the prime minister during World War II. Her dedication and persistence to the field of market research is incredibly admirable. I don't know much about the history of Australia in general, but I've been more learning more about many different subjects with how much time I've been spending at home lately. Anyways, Sylvia Rose Ashby made some very important contributions to history, and I appreciate your efforts to write about her.  Clover moss  (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Righting Great Wrongs or, euphemisms for "agreement"
"The community decided to celebrate..." The community did not decide that. A handful of editors steeped in a particular viewpoint chose unilaterally to make that article the six millionth as if it would help our floundering website; it will not. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that the process of choosing the article itself might have received a different response if more people took part in it, and that this is something that you care deeply about, as I've seen you comment elsewhere about the lack of participants. I usually think about "the community" as what the overall result was and how other people reacted to it. From what I've seen, most people have reacted quite positively. There were other articles submitted on that timestamp, which is why they were included as part of that week's content. I think that it would be better if we had some way to concretely determine what the 6 millionth article acually was, because it's more fair to everyone. I hope something about this can be done before the 7 millionth article, because I can't imagne the disappointment of finding out that an article may or may not be the one that met that milestone. Clover moss  (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the determination of the 5,000,000th article was a bit more straightforward. This time, a few editors decided that they would prefer to pick which article they liked the best under the guise that you can't really tell which article was number six million. I don't want a wider community participation as I prefer an objective, technical determination. My objection is that the action of a few editors is here portrayed as if it were the whole community, which it wasn't. As this process is now political, I won't bother with seven million except to deride the editors arrogating authority. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I agree that a technical determination that is objective is the best way to determine something like this. I disagree that this is political or that the people involved are arrograting authority, but we're different people with different viewpoints. I hope you'll understand that I don't really feel like discussing this at length. I'm not really sure what else to say. Clover moss  (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)