Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost | Newsroom

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 12.217.87.18 (talk) at 13:50, 17 June 2014 (→Lamest edit wars makes NPR's Ask Me Another: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
← Newsroom
WP:POST/TIPS
Suggestions


Archives: October 2013–April 2014, May–September 2013, January–April 2013, July–December 2012, May–June 2012, March–April 2012, January–February 2012, November–December 2011, September–October 2011, June–August 2011, May 2011, March–April 2011, August 2010–February 2011, March–July 2010, November 2009–February 2010, July–November 2009, January–June 2009, October–December 2008, older: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation

This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please use Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

You can leave a tip in several ways:

Requests for WikiProject features should be made at the WikiProject desk.

Not every mention of Wikipedia in the media will make it into the Signpost, but please consider adding to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2025 or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source so we have a comprehensive record. Please do not post newsletters to this page; news from WikiProjects is always appreciated, but templated messages are much more likely to be ignored.

Royal Society journals

New JSTOR-like free subs offer for the Wikipedia Library - will probably formally open for applications on Monday 27th April. See Wikipedia:Royal Society journals. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now open for applications. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, big news: Oxford University Press has donated 150 "Humanities Packages", including access to Grove Art/Grove Music, Dictionary of National Biography, and more. See Wikipedia:OUP for deets. The applications are open as of today. The Interior (Talk) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Psychological Science (APS) Wikipedia Initiative

I never heard of this before I saw an announcement from the Special Libraries Association: "APS is calling on psychological scientists to support the Association’s mission to deploy the power of Wikipedia to represent scientific psychology as fully and as accurately as possible and thereby to promote the free teaching of psychology worldwide."

"More than 3,300 psychological scientists and their students have joined the APS Wikipedia Initiative (APSWI) by editing and rating article quality and students, under the supervision of their professors, are using Wikipedia entries as course writing assignments. The APSWI portal helps set up a class, makes assignments, tracks individual student contributions, and supports peer review."

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative -- kosboot (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't news. I've already mentored two psychology classes for WEF under this initiative. WikiProject Psychology has not been too pleased about it from what I gather. I guess I'm surprised this isn't more widely known. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the Psych WikiProject hasn't been too psyched (sorry) about the education program since the beginning. They've had significant problems with student editors writing in incorrect content or using unreliable sources (see WP:MEDRS). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Tricks and Extensions to Make Wikipedia Awesome

The Best Tricks and Extensions to Make Wikipedia Awesome is an article in LifeHacker. The tips are stuff probably well-known to Wikipedians, but interesting that a tech journal is giving WP a spin to make it more sexy than the usual defaults. -- kosboot (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kosboot! I've included it in this week's edition. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Executive Director For WMF

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/01/wmf_announces_new_ed_lila_tretikov/ -- kosboot (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Board Meeting ; Privacy_Policy_-_Information_We_Collect_:_proposed_disclosure_is_misleadingly_incomplete

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Privacy_Policy_.E2.80.94_Information_We_Collect_:_proposed_disclosure_is_misleadingly_incomplete and the board meeting in general. --Elvey (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. What an original suggestion, below, that we cover the Privacy Policy change. </sarcasm> --{{U|Elvey}} (t • e • c) 23:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia in the classroom: a cautionary tale

Not totally negative: A professor at the University of Michigan blogs about having allowed a student to do her coursework on Wikipedia: http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale . (My issue is that people must first understand WP is a social encyclopedia. If one first makes contact with editors one has a better chance of success in editing.) -- kosboot (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive thread on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Super-spreader_student_problem Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, included this week! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New ARBCOM policies

There are a couple of new policies being finalized for ARBCOM including an important one concerning discretionary sanctions that will affect all editors working in these contentious areas. These motions have been discussed and debated since late last fall but I think they are entering in the final stretch and any changes will be minor. It would be good to give these policy changes some publicity so editors won't be surprised when they receive an "alert". You can find out more information on the arbitration noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DS one was already in motion; which others are you thinking of, Liz? Tony (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this week's NAN, Liz. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, Ed and Tony. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Examiner (conservative POV paper) reports that the Export-Import Bank of the United States had an intern make 50+ edits last year to the article. This looks to be correct and the apparent COI editor was definitely a SPA. One twist not in the Examiner, her 1st edit was on the talk page, laying out what she was about to do and asking for feedback on it. IMHO -if we cannot make clear to all involved that we do not accept paid propaganda directly from the US Govt (or from corps for that matter), then nobody should take our claim of being an NPOV encyclopedia seriously. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find, @Smallbones:. This is a good case example of problematic behavior, indeed. Here's a diff link to the bulk of the user's edits. -Pete (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the diff provided by Pete highlights some of the problems. A lot of it is arguably factual, extensive, and single sourced to the Exim bank website. Pretty hard for us to combat once it gets in the article - we need to let folks know beforehand that this is not what NPOV means. But my favorite section is the Pickle paragraph:
"Jenny Fulton, the owner of Miss Jenny's Pickles, a small North Carolina food manufacturer, used Ex-Im's export-credit insurance to export her pickles to China. After only 3 years of business, Fulton and her business partner have expanded their business to 1,000 stores in the U.S. and 40 stores in China. By putting more emphasis on exporting in China she expects her export sales to increase by 400%. She comments that: "Ex-Im Bank's export-credit insurance enables us to offer terms to our foreign buyers, so they don't have to pay for the whole order at once...Our export sales have permitted us to hire our first full-time employee and four part-time employees, and with the new orders from China supports by Ex-Im's Express Insurance we hope to turn those part-time jobs into full-timers by the end of the year." "
I draw the line at paid pickle propaganda. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these people are just gherkin us off. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New privacy policy

Please publicize in the Signpost the new (draft) privacy policy detailed at meta:Privacy policy.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Wavelength! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also.—Wavelength (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're a bit anal about our stats and record keeping, but this is something that's pretty cool. Using Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality, we figured out that we have 1004 articles collectively that are either featured articles, featured lists, A-class, or GA-class (the total includes a GA that passed about an hour ago, that isn't reflected in the numbers listed in the category page; there should be 669 GA's). However, two of the A-class articles are lists/timelines and aren't featured, so as such they can't be good or featured. As a result, we have 1002 total. Since 1,000 is a pretty awesome number, I figured we should let you guys know. And I'm particularly excited, since the 1,000th was 2003 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, which I got to GA status and which passed on May 4th. Not sure if that's the sort of thing that belongs in the signpost, but I thought it was impressive, at least :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can note it next week—this week's edition is already published! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cdtew retiring

The ed17 and Hahc21 do you remember Cdtew? He worked briefly on the Featured content report and did a good job. He posted a retirement notice on his userpage. I just gave him a barnstar. Would you like to sign it also? --Pine✉ 07:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there, Pine. Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been archived

Just a heads up that October 2013 through April 2014 have been moved to Archive 22, which is linked to above. For a page like this, anything over a few weeks old generally can be archived. Assuming no one responds to this thread, I'll just zap it next time I see it. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sven! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We could also set up autoarchiving. Anyone for or against that? --{{U|Elvey}} (t • e • c) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


An update is timely; see here.--{{U|Elvey}} (t • e • c) 00:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? I thought I kept up on this topic, but don't understand the section title. The link seems to be to a pretty old comment. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historians approaching Wikipedia

Steviebill83 recently wrote Improving Wikipedia: Notes from an Informed Skeptic for American Historical Association about his experience editing Panic of 1837 in the winter of 2012. @Rjensen and Tobyhigbie: Chris Troutman (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, you can find this in an "in brief" in this edition! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media viewer launching next week

Hopefully in time for this week's issue - Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Media Viewer launches next week on the English Wikipedia.

The Media Viewer functionality is going to be deployed as default for all readers on enwiki this coming week (provisionally 22 May, but may be delayed if there's performance issues). It's been a beta gadget until now, but is default for all readers on various other large projects, including nlwiki, frwiki, and (as of yesterday) Commons, so it can be trialled simply by following an interwiki link if desired. (Note that when live, it will be opt-out through preferences for users who dislike it!)

It's a fairly simple system - when clicked, images open in a lightbox over the article they're embedded in, with a footer giving basic author/license metadata, rather than going to an image description page - you can still click through to the local file description if needed, though. There's some interesting user-survey results here, which seem to indicate it has a sizable minority of people who dislike it, but broadly it's seen as useful, and the responses are tending to become more positive as it beds in. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed for a week, now. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Gray: I included an unfortunately short IB in this week's edition. Care to add more context and background to it? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended a little and pointed to last week (doesn't seem worth recapping the entire description!). Andrew Gray (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you very much Andrew Gray! I moved it back into an IB for readability (it was a bit jarring to go from WMDE straight to a couple paragraphs on the media viewer), but otherwise left it intact. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should make it possible for ordinary people who aren't editors to stop using this thing. It's horrible.

PBS NewsHour

  • Wholf, Tracy (May 18, 2014). "'Wikipedian' editor took on website's gender gap". PBS NewsHour. PBS. Retrieved May 19, 2014.
You can view the news report at the link, above.

— Cirt (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also watch this program directly on YouTube. — Cirt (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sad and inspiring. Tony (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABO: Interactive Journal for Women in the Arts, 1640-1830

Academic journal dedicated its entire issue to Adrianne Wadewitz.
Read more at "Adrianne Wadewitz, 1977-2014", by Laura Runge.

— Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cirt! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia on NPR station

Last Saturday, after Car Talk, I didn't bother to change the radio station. So at 2:00 a program came on (TED Radio Hour, I believe) where the topic was going to be collaborative online projects, and Wikipedia was a big part of the show. I heard Jimmy Wales' voice, but I'm not sure whether that was suppoed to be an interview or a clip from years ago. And so many of the topics that we Wikipedia editors run into, such as the neutral point of view, were covered.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can listen to the interview/talk here. But it apparently is a replay of a 2013 segment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true, has the Signpost covered it?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we did, but my memory may be failing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and Communism

You guys ought to do something about the marathon battle over this article, recently deleted. Personally I think it's a good example, maybe even a rare example, of Wikipedia processes working well (though not smoothly), and of how one editor can make a difference.

Basically this article, as its name implied, talked about the historical association of Jews and Communism. From the beginning it was beset by accusations that it was anti-Semitic propaganda. There was an AfD which closed as "no consensus," though the majority of !voters said "delete." Acrimony continued. It went to ANI. Much screaming and hollering. I caught wind of it at ANI and raised the issue on Jimbo's page. That raised the attention given to the article, and a host of new editors arrived on the talk page. Further debate, more screaming and hollering. During this debate, it emerged that the article was copied to the anti-Semitic wiki Metapedia. This further aroused people, that anything on Wikipedia would be suitable for inclusion on such a horrible site.

A second ANI was launched, but this one was a landslide of "deletes." What made the difference is that one editor, User:Smeat75, dug out evidence that the article was largely copied from an anti-Semitic website. During the course of the debate, as in an episode of Law & Order, the chief defender of the article (User:Director) changed his vote from "strong keep" to "blow it up." The debate concluded recently. An AN discussion commenced and the article creator (User:Producer) was topic-banned. It took a long time, there were a lot of bruised feelings, but in the end the right thing was done. There is now some discussion here and there as to whether this indicates that Wikipedia policies need to be strengthened to prevent this kind of thing recurring.

My posting on Jimbo's talk page is archived here.[1] Here's the second debate, which includes a link to the first one [2]. The spirited article talk page discussion is gone now, of course, but maybe an administrator could fetch it for your perusal. The AN debate is here.[3] Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's a bit too much for me to sink my teeth in for this edition, which I just published :-) I'll try to carve out time for next week.

Medical articles in the news

A recent study of Wikipedia articles on medical subjects has just hit the news media:

"Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists". BBC News. 27 May 2014.

The original journal article is here:

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.7556/jaoa.2014.035 instead.

And also covered here:

Julie Beck (7 May 2014). "Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?". The Atlantic.

-- Impsswoon (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one with long threads at the project, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Poor_paper_.5B4.5D_on_Wikipedia, plus Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Paper, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Medical_articles_in_the_news and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#do_not_let_wp_stop_your_ethics. It was also on the Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph blog. Plus I should have a blogpost tomorrow on the Cancer Research UK science blog([4]) on it. The study design has considerable issues, and the data is only summarized. Are we sure we haven't covered it before - the story was revived by an interview Hasty gave. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My CRUK blogpost now up Wikipedia – is it fit for patient consumption? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another, better, story in The Independent today. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best media story so far, from the news section of NHS choices (ie the National Health Service (England)) "Wikipedia 'not a reliable source' of health advice". They go into considerable detail on the study. And Hasty has done a short video Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of WikiConference USA

Hey Ed, are you going to have anyone report on this weekend's WikiConference USA 2014? Points of particular interest (to me, at least): a session dealing with the recently spun-off Education Foundation, and a good number of board members from the Wikimedia Foundation are attending and/or giving presentations. -- kosboot (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some slides and many photos are now up at commons:Category:WikiConference USA 2014, and I've uploaded a transcript of my opening keynote (in which I spoke in my personal capacity, not as a Wikimedia Foundation employee). Sumana Harihareswara 14:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to directly write up the education related sessions myself, but have notes related to a good number of sessions from the conference, and will be writing up a number of things over the next few days about the conference as I can, which will end up signposted or elsewhere around in some capacity. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker of the House of Commons in the UK is asking Wikipedians for advice

See the project page on meta. It is hoped that the response to his questions will be answered collaboratively, similar to the way Wikipedia articles (and policies) are written. At the end of the process, the idea of using a wiki-approach to parliamentary policy and evidence will be reviewed. Seems appropriate for the Signpost. Mark M (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark L MacDonald! I'll note it in an in brief this week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride

A quick plug for Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014 would be much appreciated. The campaign runs throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21 and surrounding dates. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Another Believer, I'll put it in an IB. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. National Archives Open Government Plan

I'm biased (as I helped in writing it), but I think this might merit some major coverage. The National Archives' updated Open Government Plan was just published on Wednesday with this announcement. It places a lot of emphasis on how the National Archives plans to work with the Wikimedia community in order to help fulfill its mission, especially the "Make Access Happen" goal.

From the executive summary, the document notes: "Over the next two years we will work to increase the number of National Archives records available on Wikimedia Commons, continue our work to engage local communities of volunteer Wikipedians with on-site events, and collaborate on the development of the GLAM-Wiki U.S. Consortium." On pages 19-20, there is a fleshed out section about the agency's strategic approach to Wikipedia:

Expand Wikipedia Efforts
NARA has been engaging the Wikipedia community since 2011, when we welcomed a Wikipedian in Residence and began holding events to build awareness of the records of the National Archives. In 2013, we welcomed a full-time employee devoted to engaging the Wikipedia community along with NARA staff members to promote greater access, reuse, and context for our records on Wikipedia.
Our work strengthening digitization and description fuels our ability to make records available on external platforms like Wikipedia. In 2012, we shared 100,000 digital images from our holdings to Wikimedia Commons. This work enabled digital copies of our records to be incorporated into Wikimedia projects and Wikipedia articles. The 4,000 Wikipedia articles featuring our records received more than one billion page views in Fiscal Year 2013. Over the next two years we will work to increase the number of National Archives records available on Wikimedia Commons, which furthers our strategic goal to “Make Access Happen” and expands re-use of our records by the public.
We are continuing our work to engage local communities of volunteer Wikipedians with on-site events, including skills-building workshops and “edit-a-thons” for improving Wikipedia content related to our holdings. In addition, we are establishing a model for “scan-a-thons” to enable citizen archivist stakeholder groups to digitize our records for access.
We have worked to develop policies and best practices for NARA staff and other professionals to contribute to Wikipedia articles and NARA staff members regularly engage in sharing our experiences and insights about Wikipedia with other cultural institutions. We are also collaborating on the development of the GLAM-Wiki U.S. Consortium, which brings together archivists, librarians, museum professionals, and Wikipedians to work on building skills and shared understandings.

The rest of the document touches on other open government, crowdsourcing, and "citizen archivist" initiatives that may also be of general interest to Wikipedians. It even cited Simple English Wikipedia's definition of "API". As far as I know, this is likely the most prominent policy document from a cultural or government agency to enshrine collaboration with Wikipedia in institutional strategy (though the previous NARA Open Government Plan from 2012 comes close), and I think we succeed in talking about Wikipedia engagement in a way that Wikipedians will find ethical. Dominic·t 17:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dominic, we're putting the finishing touches on this edition and won't be able to include it ... but let's get in touch later this weekend, and I'll do a story on it for next week. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! Dominic·t 18:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Game

I don't think we've covered this, but could be wrong...

Two-three weeks ago, Magnus Manske released the Wikidata Game, which takes certain small tasks for Wikidata (defining if someone is a "person", entering gender, birth-death dates, etc) and lets users set the information through a simple interface. By Tuesday, this had hit over 350,000 individual contributions by ~850 editors, which is pretty remarkable both in terms of what it means for Wikidata's usefulness and what it might mean for future tools to help with Wikipedia maintenance. Definitely worth highlighting! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations

The signpost may like to cover:

  • There is what must be one of the highest amounts of simultaneous good article nominations ever at WP:GAN, currently 463 nominations (408 waiting for a review).
  • The drought of reviewers and lack of knowledge about how to review
  • The 'topic nominators' who have been assiduously getting swathes of articles up to GA standard, including SabreBD regarding Scotland, Hildanknight and Singapore law-based articles, and ChrisGualtieri with an extraordinary amount of parks and houses.

Cheers, LT910001 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning my efforts. If SignPost wishes to cover them, I would be more than happy to contribute to the writeup. To clarify, I am polishing and nominating many Singapore-related articles that are close to GA standards. These articles were written by others, including the SMU Law Programme, the NTU Linguistics Programme, Aldwinteo, AngChenrui and Sengkang (all former editors who focused on Singaporean architecture). Please support my 2014 Singapore GA drive to counter systemic bias, as the work is too much for one editor! --Hildanknight (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both! We aren't going to cover GAN this week, as we have quite a bit of other news to get through, but I'm going to try for next week. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longest disambigation page

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/30/longest_disambiguation_pages_on_wikipedia_an_investigation.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, this will be included this week! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news from Wikimedia-l and Education email lists

  • Wikimedia Bangladesh received government approval after 2 years of waiting
  • Education announcement from Israel
  • Education announcement from Serbia
  • FDC Advisory Group recommendations announced
  • PR firms make pledge regarding Wikipedia conduct

--Pine✉ 07:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pine! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's most influential people

An algorithm-driven investigation of Wikipedia has found a Swedish botanist from the 18th century to be more influential than Jesus.Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not considering the effect of {{taxobox}} will tend to do that ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this on my watchlist, I was hoping that I could use this as another way to pay homage to our beautiful, glorious User:Bishzilla. I am so disappointed. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy.—Wavelength (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this will be included this week! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride, Cascadia Wikimedians, Wikimedia LGBT

First of all, another plug for Wiki Loves Pride would be much appreciated. We are mid-way through the campaign, and the June 21-ish edit-a-thon is yet to come! (Results thus far.)

Also, it might be worth noting that the groups currently known as Cascadia Wikimedians and Wikimedia LGBT both decided to apply for Wikimedia user group status in the immediate future. See both talk pages for ongoing discussions. Discussions have been taking place for some time, but decisions were made at WikiConference USA to move forward, plus allow time following the conference for people not present to participate in the discussions and add on as user group founders, if they wished. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AB, we noted it last week and we don't normally repeat IB topics. Please let me know when the Cascadia and LGBT groups apply, and I'll put it in an IB! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is underway with the Affiliations Committee (Cascadia). Not sure if you wanted to know when discussion began, or when it ended. Feel free to mention it whenever you think is best, but in general, people might be interested in knowing about developing user groups. No formal submission for the LGBT group yet. -Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX Versions of Wikipedia Articles

There is a website on the WikiMedia Foundation Labs that lets you create PDF Versions of Wikipedia articles. The PDFs are generated by xelatex which is the same technology as the one used for the print on demand versions you can buy using the book generator, with the advantage that you can actually access the PDF document as well as the xelatex file for free instead of just the printed book for a fee. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Academics Continue Flirting With a Former Foe: Wikipedia

Academics Continue Flirting With a Former Foe: Wikipedia -- article by Avi Wolfman-Arent in the Chronicle of Higher Education. I like the first line of one of the comments: "Academics are, unfortunately, the last ones to embrace innovation and democratization of knowledge." -- kosboot (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal that all 2-letter language identifiers used for the language versions of Wikipedia be released by ICANN

The domain registry Top Level Design has proposed that all 2-letter language identifiers used for the language versions of Wikipedia be released by ICANN. This request is being made with support and on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. "We [Wikimedia] hope to host URL shorteners on [2 character language identifiers], thus fr.wiki URLs would redirect to fr.wikipedia.org, en.wiki to en.wikipedia.org, and so on". Outlined public benefits include "lowering barriers to online, educational access", especially for users in developing nations where shorter URLs and bypassing search engines (which can incur data fees) allow greater access, and "catering to local language communities and proliferating the use of non-English resources".[1]

Furthermore, the application states, "These 179 SLDs will be given to the Wikimedia Foundation free of charge, as a charitable donation".[2] A letter by Erik Moeller Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, begins on page 15: ICANN Registry Request Service (PDF). Community input re: "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" can be left at this ICANN forum link.

  1. ^ "ICANN Registry Request Service" (PDF). p. 2. Retrieved June 16, 2014.
  2. ^ "ICANN Registry Request Service" (PDF). p. 5. Retrieved June 16, 2014.

--Another Believer (Talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused at first - have I got this right? This is all two-letter domain names in the .wiki top-level domain - no new TLD would be created. The .wiki TLD is already run by Top Level Domains but their agreement with ICANN currently prevents registering two-letter domain names. Top Level Domains are thus a) asking for this to be waived for a certain set of domain names; b) planning to immediately assign these to WMF. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct that this refers to the .wiki TLD, not the creation of a new TLD. This is a joint request by Top Level Design and WMF. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It means though that no one else will be able to create a domain called xxxxxx.fr.wiki - precisely the turn of events that the ICANN prohibition on two letter domain names was intended to prevent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pops up in bibliographies, and even college curricula

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-wikipedia-20140615-story.html#page=1 -- article by Larry Gordon in the Los Angeles Times. -- kosboot (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia credited in Think Like a Freak

In the next Signpost, you might want to mention that Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (the authors of 2005's Freakonomics) state the following in their 2014 book Think Like a Freak: "Let's also raise a glass to Wikipedia. It has improved immeasurably over the years that we have been writing books; it is extraordinarily valuable as a first stop to discover primary sources on nearly any topic. Thanks to all those who have contributed to it intellectually, financially, or otherwise."

  • Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J. (2014). "Notes". Think Like a Freak. William Morrow. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-06-221833-9.

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like --Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lamest edit wars makes NPR's Ask Me Another

NPR trivia show Ask Me Another pulled questions from WP:LAME for a quiz: [5] 12.217.87.18 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions&oldid=613283787"