Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-05-28. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee (2,079 bytes · 💬)

Extended confirmed protection

The Committee has not explained what "expectations" means in this context. It appears to be some kind of policy statement. The Committee is not allowed to make policy, that is reserved for the community. If this is not policy then what is it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC).

It was pretty clear that the restrictions related to 30/500 were in regard to AE and DS. An administrator cannot enact the specified sanctions as an AE or DS remedy and therefore are subject to rules regarding any other admin action and are not backed by arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel resigns

Why is Gamaliel "currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia", and therefore unable to act as an arbitrator, "as a result of circumstances ... which in no way reflect negatively on him"? While I do not want to invade anyone's privacy, the community is entitled to some explanation of why an arbitrator that we recently elected is "currently unable" to fulfill his duties as an arbitrator.—Finell 18:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not actually entitled to that information. You're not entitled to any information about people's personal lives.--Jorm (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the announcement said that the reason had to do with "information about people's personal lives."—Finell 20:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Most people (rightly) assume that when someone steps down from a role, saying "I am unable to continue with this," and doesn't say why, that it's a "personal life issue". And thus: you are not entitled to any more information than that.--Jorm (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision (1,270 bytes · 💬)

For me, the section I consulted most on Eurovision Song Contest 2016 was the ongoing updated voting tally (See OGAE section by the various OGAE committees about their actual choice, OGAE meaning French: Organisation Générale des Amateurs de l'Eurovision, English: General Organisation of Eurovision Fans. OGAE consistently voted for France as winner, and Russia as runner-up. Other favourites by these committee votes were Australia, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain and Austria. Refer to OGAE voting table. You notice no preference whatsoever for the eventual winner Ukraine. France voted the winner by OGAE actually finished sixth. werldwayd (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
What about the copyright of the scenic/costume design? czar 20:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Featured content: This week's featured content (521 bytes · 💬)

Great choice of pics, again! Tony (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax (6,337 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedians' fragility

I brought this coverage to the notice of the editors and my lack of empathy got me cursed at. I'd like to point out that over-sensitivity to this issue of suicidal feeling enables ne'er-do-wells to exploit us by threatening self-harm when they're called out for making problematic edits. I encourage all to discover the context behind this media coverage. Sure, I can threaten to jump off a bridge to my death if The ed17 doesn't give me an immediate apology but that would be dishonest. I am a misanthrope so if Ed jumps off a bridge I don't care. Accordingly I can't see why anyone would care if I did. Certainly, people with mental illness need to seek help and I guarantee that help isn't to be found on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course, if you were to read this week's Op-Ed you might see an example of how you're wrong. Still, don't let nasty human feelings get in the way of your misanthropy. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  - Bingo, Owen. Chris, if you don't see what was wrong with your comment, I really don't know what to say. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Games People Play are an issue. However there is no reason we cannot provide a soft-landing for editors. One big advantage of doing so is it removes or reduces the opportunity to play games. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC).

Timely story, as I've been dealing with an anonymous stalker harassing me on here for the past two weeks now. I'm thinking the nature of this platform makes block evasion a bit too easy. Funcrunch (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Until I read these comments, I thought I knew who the editor was, but I guess not. Wikipedia has some toxic waters, and cyber bullies who often have their enablers. Yes, block evasion is easy for anyone bent on doing it. I almost quit in my early days because of one prolific cyber bully sockmaster. I would only edit if not logged in because of that individual, who, I might add, is globally locked, but still manages to operate as new socks every now and then. Since then, I have learned that "this too shall pass" and get on with my own goals. But that's me. We have minor aged children editing on Wikipedia, and people with mental and physical challenges trying to find a safe outlet to be productive. Really qualified professional-level editors sometimes only last a few weeks or months before throwing in the towel. So, what is the answer? — Maile (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I've never edited anonymously, and don't intend to start now because of an anonymous stalker (though I understand why others would do so). Even if I wanted to, many of the articles I edit are frequently semi-protected due to vandalism and trolling as they're about controversial topics. I've been an editor for over seven years, but only very active recently, and my experiences since I became active have really made me question a lot about the Wikipedia project. Funcrunch (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- This article by Anil Dash about online abuse is also on point. Funcrunch (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This problem is easily explained with a bit of self-confession. When I have the odd scrap of time to get online & contribute to Wikipedia, I come here to edit. Not to see if there are any personal interactions that need my interactions or meddling. That is a strength because I am improving the content of Wikipedia -- which is why others come here. But it is a weakness because there are many people, many conflicts, & many instances of maintenance that need would benefit from my attention -- which are often often overlooked unless one goes looking for them. And when I feel my contributions are ignored by others, I have to remind myself that most people come here to edit & not to go looking for people to help or interact with, & the few who are willing to assist others are stretched so thin that it is easy to get overlooked. -- llywrch (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly

"Yet it's impossible to turn back time, Thonemann argues, finishing his piece with the suggestion that academics should bite the bullet and 'spend a bit more time editing Wikipedia ourselves'." Exactly, on both counts. Quercus solaris (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Citogenesis

I love that Thonemann credits "Wikipedians" for the term "citogenesis", when as far as I can tell, Randall Munroe invented the term outside of WP and we adopted it. So it goes.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but Munroe is credited at both citogenesis and Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.245 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting (772 bytes · 💬)

Metrics meeting

As usual, the video is also available on Commons apart from YouTube, alongside the presentation slides - it might be worth embedding it directly here. See m:WMF Metrics and activities meetings/2016-05. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I boldly added this (in a volunteer role albeit with a bit of a COI, happy to be reverted if needed). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian (3,428 bytes · 💬)

This was a really interesting read; I think a lot of the editors here can relate, to some extent. Thank you for sharing. – Rhain ☔ 23:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Very thought provoking. It is quite often possible to get a feeling for other editors characters, but it is also certainly possible to get it completely wrong. That is one reason that we need to WP:AGF, but we also need, those of us who are in a suitable state ourselves, to attempt to empathise with other editors, and find a pragmatic solution to issues.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC).

An amazing story and a good reminder to treat each other well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I too use WP as a social network, more effective when it's limited to elevated, refined discourse with people smarter than me. Facebook similarly serves the vulgar, spontaneous side, even when it's the same people. I hadn't thought of WP as therapy, but indeed it works that way for me, taking off some of my craziness. Bicycling, especially with groups, also does that in a different way. WP doesn't give me sunburn, dehydration and occasional bruises, but it also doesn't burn off fat. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Jake, its always very striking to read this piece, each and every version is more and more striking, and reminds me more and more of the deep need for empathy in our community. Lets keep talking about how human we all are, how complicated we all are, how much we each are changing and growing and frequently just need time. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an deeply touching story Jake. I and others can relate to this with regards with the urge to edit Wikipedia daily and I agree that we need to remain calm when disagreements arise. Z105space (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your story, Ocaasi. For sharing it at all, but especially for sharing it in such compelling and eloquent words. I hope there is some catharsis for you -- and I know this will be a valuable piece for many of us to read as we reflect on the role Wikipedia editing takes in our own lives, and in those of our friends and colleagues. Kudos. -Pete (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Humans. We are all humans. It is easy to forget sometimes, but so important to remember. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
You're amazing, Jake. I'm honored to be part of your team at the WP Library. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent research: English as Wikipedia's lingua franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies (7,946 bytes · 💬)

"English still the Lingua Franca of Wikipedia" reminds me of a time when websites that would work well only with M$ Internet Explorer would claim that most of the traffic to them was from IE browsers. I recently handled a workshop where I had to get Hindi speakers to consider contributing content to Wikimedia Commons and we chose the Hindi language option and horror-of-horrors - the interface simply is impossible to understand or incomplete to the extent that it is NOT possible to use. I subsequently checked the situation with several Indian languages and it is very incomplete. Even when one chooses German, the interface is largely translated but the information template for files is still in English. It appeared to me like the Android App - "Upload to Commons" was a much easier target for localization (although user registration would still be a blocker). Internationalization/localization really seems to require a much greater push if there is to be adoption by non-English users. Shyamal (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Schyzofrenia.. does it even exist?

The first thing about an article about schizophrenia and genetics is that the two parts exist. There is a lot of literature scientific at that that denies schizophrenia exists. That makes the second part irrelevant. The next and obvious question is, what are we talking about. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya paper

This is a minor gripe of mine but we (probably me) already reviewed this here back in Dec 2014 (this is the very same paper, published not January THIS year as the newsletter states, but February LAST one, compare [1] and [2], we probably reviewed a pre-print back then, but any changes if exist are minor). In my relatively comprehensive (or at least I'd like to think so) lit review on the subject from March THIS year that has yet to be reviewed by the Research Newsletter I have a note saying "Meseguer Artola et al.'s (2015) study incorporates and builds on an earlier work of its contributors, Eduard (2014) and Lladós, Aibar, Lerga, Meseguer, and Minguillón (2013), using the same data set and arriving at more refined conclusions. For that reason, those works are not reviewed or cited separately." I was wondering if the said authors published yet another remix of their research, but no, it seems to be a mistake in our review. I suggest removing that section. We have plenty of unreviewed research (hint: dear readers, we have a backlog - help!), no need to discuss the same paper twice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Good catch! I have added a mention of the previous review of the preprint. In general, it's not impossible that there may be added value in reviewing the final, published version of a paper that had already been covered as a preprint. But if their content is identical (I haven't checked), that is indeed not necessary. (Still, even though the previous review was much more thorough, this one by Textaural added some important information that had been lacking in the previous one, namely about the methodology - "survey of 800 professors ...".)

"published not January THIS year as the newsletter states, but February LAST one" - I don't know what "the newsletter states" refers to here. [3] gives February 2015 for the "version of Record online" and May 2016 as the journal issue in which it appeared (the latter is cited in the reference here); this kind of discrepancy between formal (or print) and factual (or online) publication date is not too unusual in academic publishing today.

In generally, I at least always try to check if a publication has already been covered before adding it to our todo list for the next issue, by searching the newsletter's archives (this however is affected by a bug in our on-wiki search function that my colleagues from the WMF Discovery team probably won't be able to fix very soon, phab:T129762) and/or our corpus on Zotero (example for this paper - there however we are way behind with tagging those publications that have been covered already). See also the notes on our production process.

To go off on a tangent for a little: The big picture is that while after almost half a decade of its existence, the research newsletter/"recent research" section has built up a very useful corpus of Wikimedia-related research using a pragmatic bibliographic process that keeps the ongoing effort somewhat manageable, this process is still brittle and inefficient in various aspects. I'd love to be able to set aside some time to revamp it with the help of some people who are knowledgeable in this area (some have already offered to help and worked on some parts, but someone would need to take the lead in identifying other needs and tasks and then moving things forward on this, and I at least haven't found the time for that yet). A small step would be to file bugs for the Zotero export issues that hit us basically every month here (also in the case of the paper discussed here [4] [5]). I have left a somewhat longer version of this comment for later reference here.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not double-checking the item before reviewing it, I just trusted the todo list. A brief doesn't do much harm in my opinion, other than to the reviewer's time (but I didn't consider my time to be wasted in this case). Nemo 19:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Availability of broadband

I have been told if I pay more I too can have broadband at home. I decided not to spend the money. I have no problem contributing at home, but I have often copied the information from other sources at libraries. At one time this was because I couldn't access the information at home, but now the resource that I used the most is unavailable unless I travel about 30 miles. But the truth is I don't have the patience to wait and wait at home. Only those few sites I spend a lot of time on ever approach the speed that they do at libraries. That first time accessing a site (a long way from actual research) can take a very long time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The difference between information acquisition and learning knowledge

That article would be interesting if it used recent sources. The newest is from 2012, and all but three are from the 2000s. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director [Updated] (11,121 bytes · 💬)

San Francisco has the highest cost of living in the country, and thus salaries. What can you do? -- GreenC 21:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- So did the salary of all other WMF staff & contractors also raise to 150%? --T.i 03:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Move the WMF headquarters from San Francisco? There are less expensive high-tech clusters in Austin, Texas, North Carolina, & here in Portland, Oregon -- just to name US alternatives. Or the Foundation could prioritize its educational mission & perhaps investigate another city where there is a deep pool of educators & non-profit professionals to hire from. -- llywrch (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable and judicious use of limited non-profit funding. -- GreenC 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

And...

"High ranking employee, who probability had pending job offers, is payed extra money to stay on until her successor is found, after she quit" is not news. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Re-read the story. It's actually saying "high-ranking employee is paid more to be a 'special advisor' after her successor is in place." (and she is still a special adviser today. Note: this is a personal, volunteer edit) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

And she did a great job as ED. Thanks Sue! I doubt that you'll find many Wikipedians who begrudge her the extra money. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, not at all

Is Lila staying on as an advisor too? wbm1058 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that really sounds like a great job done, well organized and documented, when you are needed for more than 2 years after your leave to "dig a document out of her files", "dug up files", "some remaining transition obligations", "briefing Lila on the organisation, its history, structure, operations, financials, guiding principles, etc.", "reconstruct how revenue targets had been developed", ... because you are the only one of 200+ people and the Board who knows that? Really, really great job - not only by the ED but also and especially by the Board! --T.i 03:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones — Oh, don't worry, you'll find plenty. Go ahead and start an advisory RFC of support for the WMF Board on this matter if you doubt me... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, you are saying that somebody should be paid 300k? For what? Isn't this a foundation? Since 2014 WP has crashed in terms of views and editor counts. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sue, you have done a great job! Jeblad (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AK & Tony1, you have done a great job! --T.i 03:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

They are worth every cent we pay them! Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, it's always a special day when I agree with you so heartily. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume this $188,841 was her severance package. This would have been her pay $112,500 Next year we will get to see Lila's severance. I imagine it will be much greater than this which will be slightly depressing but it is what it is. With respect to the latter yet unknown amount I would have much rather seen the money spent on expanding the community tech team but we had to pull the foundation out of the downward spiral it was in. I am just guessing however and had no involvement nor saw any details about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

(For anyone reading this who doesn't know, Doc James is a former Board member.) I infer from your comment that the Board doesn't look at compensation for anyone other than the current ED, even that of other top executives or former executives retained in "special" roles? It sounds like the comment I read somewhere a few months ago (I forget where) is accurate: the Board appears to regard its duties as consisting more or less solely of hiring an ED. I also infer that the terms of any severance for the ED are not spelled out ahead of time in the ED's contract, as you say you don't know anything about Lila's. Is there anyone familiar with corporate governance who can say whether this is the norm? Anyway, I am excited to state that I am hereby offering to perform Gardner's current job for the WMF at half her salary. With that kind of savings the WMF could hire another developer to get to work breaking important parts of the site with no warning! --71.110.8.102 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

These things are determined by a subcommittee of the board (which I was not on). Additionally Sue's arrangements were determined before I joined the board as was Lila's. And of course Lila's severance was determined after I left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As a summary, 250K$ is huge, but 301K$ is not that huge. Great maths ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Is there a public source for the numbers on the severance package you quote? effeietsanders 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said "I assume this". I have seen no evidence to back it up user:effeietsanders Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: But is there any basis for the assumption that it is split in the 188k lump sum and 112k salary, or is that a random number as example? Maybe I missed something here. effeietsanders 13:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay user:effeietsanders I understand now. If you look at page 52 and than turn you heard sideways you will see "Sue Gardner Special Advisor" Base compensation = 112,500 Other reportable compensation = 188,841 than a couple others for a total of 320,057. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is value in transparency, and policing how WMF spends it funds, but I can't help but read this with a tad of distaste. Part of it wonders how WMF salaries compare to those of other comparable NGOs, without it it is hard to say if - as I think is implied between the lines - those figures are too high or not. Part is that I, personally, think that The Signpost should neutrally report on the community controversies, including how some community members feel about WMF. Instead, I think TS is taking a non-neutral side in this, and I don't feel it is the right thing to do. How about TS prepares an article on WMF transparency? Budgets overview through history? How money spending trends evolved over the years? This would be the reporting I'd be happy to see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do it.^{[See also: m:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap]} In my eyes the text is very well as neutral as necessary - this is a news site not an article. --T.i 19:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"Just do it!" Ok, see [Charity Navigator CE Compensation Report] (2012 data). They of course give ranges and medians and realize that larger non-profits ($13+ million in expenses is the largest group) and different locations and types of programs (education has the highest CEO salaries that I saw). But you might start on page 4.

Guidestar has a more up to date report (looks like same type of data, slightly different methods) at [6], but it costs $374 for a single reader. Tony1 (talk · contribs), could you be sure to include some type of comparisons when the usual hub-bub by the usual people (see below) happens when fund raising starts in December? There is a group of editors (or banned editors) who always make a point of tearing down the WMF and saying that anything the WMF spends is too much. Comparisons are the way to go here. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Once donated $5 to the WMF. Only 1/64.011th of her salary. I feel so bad, as a peon I should give more to my rightful lords and ladies. Someone Not Awful (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sure to tell my friends and acquaintances, when they find out I write stuff for WP, "Never, ever, ever give the WMF money — they have more than they need and they waste it." Further evidence here. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride (2,393 bytes · 💬)

Thanks, guys! The redundancy means so much to me. Without redundancy there can be no competition. EllenCT (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Topviews

@Serendipodous and Milowent: Saw you are doing a lot of math to get the numbers for the traffic report. There is a caveat with toollabs:topviews, as you might know, which I will try to explain again. The WMF pageviews API gives us the top 1000 most viewed pages on a per-day basis. So given a date range, Topviews will sum everything up and sort it accordingly. So the only time the numbers are wrong for a given page is if that page was not in the top 1000 at some point during that date range. For the top 10, you're probably only going to have a few pages that are off, and should only be off by a few thousand at most.

BUT there is any easy way to get the exact numbers. For each entry, just click on the view count on the right which will open that page up in toollabs:pageviews within the same date range. The total view counts you see there are 100% accurate, as they sum the view counts for that article for each day. There are rare cases where the top 10 in Topviews differs from the top 10 in WP:TOP5000, in which case maybe go by TOP5000 and cross-reference with toollabs:pageviews to get the exact numbers.

Very annoying work, I know, but usually you'll just be able to do the first aforementioned workaround in only a minute or two, and have the data you need. Fixing Topviews to work around this caveat isn't really feasible, but the analytics team is (hopefully) going to add weekly stats, in which case you won't need to do any extra work at all, the numbers at toollabs:topviews will always be right. You can track that progress at phab:T133575.

Let me know if you have any questions. If you want, I can prepare the top 10 (or top 25, whatever you prefer), for the next Signpost, and show you how I did it. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)