The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-01-06. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
FWIW, and spilling over to other articles in the Japanese culture topic area is an accurate description of ArbCom's finding of fact, but it was not actually supported by any evidence presented during the case, is completely inaccurate, and was challenged a few months afterward. CurtisNaito was also found to have edit warred. is also a pretty gross misrepresentation of CurtisNaito's actual involvement in the case -- Curtis hounded me over several years[1][2][3][4] as revenge for me having nominated an article of his for deletion in 2012[5] (note how much of that predates the "Kenji incident", some by more than a year) and ArbCom did nothing about it because ArbCom doesn't handle harassment well; yes, as a description of what ArbCom recognized it is not a total lie, but is the Signpost supposed to be a mouthpiece for ArbCom, or is it supposed to be uninvolved and objective journalism? (FTR, I recently found out about the Signpost due to the ongoing ArbCom request, in which several Arbs have actually stated that they want to take the case because ArbCom has a reputation for not handling harassment cases well.[6] I Googled "Signpost Hijiri88" and found this article. That's why I'm "late to the party".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and has issued a threat of on-wiki retaliation was and is completely untrue,[7] and it is my intention to eventually get that statement amended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas Parker a sad reminder that we should treat other editors like real people. Something that often seems lost on us. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 07:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
As someone said on the German page, how do we know it wasn't just some rich food? Even if Wikipedia did kill him, it might just have been by increasing his time sitting, same as any of us. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldenberg Institute doesn't look like much of a "cybermobbing". I see discussion at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Andreas Parker (archivetranslate) that mentions an ANI thread (originaltranslate). I'm no expert at German, but is this different from the sort of thing that happens every day on ANI? Heart attacks are a common form of death ... sooner or later one of the people on an ANI thread is bound to have one. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editing WP can be stressful -- I often take a few days break from editing. IMO, the AfD on the Goldenberg Institute was wrong. Andreas Parker put a lot of effort into keeping that article. When it was deleted (by only a couple of votes) I can understand how it would literally break his heart. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to seem callous, but do we have conclusive proof that he actually died? I remember at least one instance where someone was banned from Wikipedia and then submitted a falsified notice of their own death. If Mr Parker did in fact die, then I'm very sorry. DS (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I just spent quite some time reading German Wikipedia discussions on this topic. There seems to be no evidence that Andreas Parker died, or that the person said to be behind the account ever lived. The HuffPo articles now lead to a "This article is being reviewed" page. In one instance a condolence message's author and signature didn't fit; after the Germans noticed the discrepancy, that message was removed. Of course none of this is evidence that Andreas Parker didn't die, but given that apparently some rather unsavory methods were employed by the organization that account was associated with, some skepticism seems to be called for. Huon (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia dying? Sure. Wikipedia will die a slow but sure death if it constantly refuses to pay its editors even at a symbolic rate, expecting them to offer their service as volunteers for free, based on this Wikipedia management's mistaken fixation on not accepting advertisements as a revenue source that can be used to pay the editors and expand the site. Wikipedia just doesn't understand that advertisements don't necessarily jeopardise your integrity. They are there to keep you going as a viable enterprise. This is the largest website in the whole planet that I know that simply depends on free labour from tens of thousands of contributors and all it can come up with is a lukewarm campaign for donations from users. This is hardly enough as you realise by now. So yes, your death is long overdue as volunteer editors get fed up with working for you for years and years against nothing and users use it for free not even willing to make a token contribution to help its survival. If you want to survive long-term, start working as a business enterprise that uses its assets and strength to become more viable financially, build up alliances with other business enterprises and remunerate all those who contribute to you. werldwayd (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Mark Twain almost said: "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". Perhaps "maturing" would be a better term, but that is less eye catching. Also we know from broad experience that death is the inevitable consequence of life. All respect to werldwayd's long commitment to WP, but I found the tone above a bit off, the views lacking in evidence to back them up and the conclusion unpalatable. Ted Nelson has been pushing Project Xanadu for over 50 years and is still vaporware. As for Wikipedia it's success is all around us. I do think innovative ways of developing new relationships would be helpful, but I think the proposal put forward here shows a poor understanding of what viability means in a broader social context. Leutha (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the image above in Leutha's space because I have little to say, except to ask "Where is the evidence that Wikiversity is dying?"--Guy vandegrift (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To werldwayd: Wikimedia management's resistance against ads? As far as I have seen the resistance is from us contributors. And why should you pay someone to do something they consider fun? Or if you started paying them, would that be leading to more quality content, or even more trash? The fact is that there are loads of wise people with buckets of time available and Wikipedia is some of the best way you can spend time, we just need to get the news out, not bite the newcomers and try to support they that have been around for some time. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been in terminal decline since about 2003 according to the ever-tiresome rotating gallery of prophets of doom. The cataclysmic tidal wave of vandalism, departure of editors, exodus of readers, and/or spontaneous combustion of the servers is always just around the corner. However, despite this, In that time en.wiki has grown to be the most comprehensive and widely-read encyclopaedia that has ever existed in the English language.
It's perhaps worth remembering how massively dominant Wikipedia is. There's a massive demand for encylopedia content online, and Wikipedia has something like 95% of the English-language market. Thousands of editors and millions of readers, no other comparable project, profit or non-profit comes remotely close.
Eventually, Wikipedia will be knocked off its perch (my guess is when Google or similar develop AI that can write better content than humans). But there's nothing to suggest that it's going to be anytime soon. --LukeSurltc 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will survive, in one way or another, for as long as humans have relatively unfettered access to the Internet. The WMF may not survive, but the free license means that the database is mirrored in many more places than we know, and so is MediaWiki. If Wikipedia dies, someone will resurrect it, and then someone else, and someone else, and eventually one mirror will become more popular than the others, and it will be the new Wikipedia. Encarta is proprietary, Britannica is proprietary, Wikipedia is open. For this reason, the database will, in one way or another, survive. And isn't that what's more important? DS (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the "impenetrable science" is that many people, like the aforementioned John Timmer or doom prophets like Jeet Heer, are eager to criticize Wikipedia instead of joining it and fix at least what they have spotted. Wikipedia would benefit from more knowledgeable people to make science-related articles understandable. Brandmeistertalk 09:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John Timmer, senior science editor at Ars Technica, tells us that the article Reproducing_kernel_Hilbert_space is not understandable by anyone who doesn't comes with some background. Indeed, you have to know what is a vector space, then an Hilbert space, then a linear kernel before to understand the circumstances that allows an Hilbert space to possess a kernel that has the reproducing property. This is not a cabal to intimidate anyone, this is the fact that floor and walls should precede roof. Maybe this constraint is the reason why there are not only books, but also teachers and Universities. What a marvelous discovery! Pldx1 (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your comment suggests a fix. What if we had hatnotes on such articles explicitly stating, "To fully understand this article, a knowledge of vector spaces, Hilbert spaces, and linear kernels is recommended." That would help those (like myself) who understand some of those objects but not others, and would keep me from making the unpleasant discovery halfway through the article that I'm unqualified to understand the rest of it. The only problem would be the risk of OR. FourViolas (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The kernels used in RKHS aren't null spaces, but rather bilinear kernels, defining a correspondance from where all these letters have to be correctly specified and is assumed to be a positive-definite kernel. Nevertheless, the idea of hating an article by a list of prerequisites is surely a sound idea. Are you sufficiently bold to try it?Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was the reason why Wikiversity was set up: to enable Open Educational Resources to be developed which would tie in with Wikipedia. It would be good if the project could be used in situations like this. Leutha (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree with the thrust of his comments, and have been involved in efforts by the Royal Society (UK Nat Academy of the Sciences) and Cancer Research UK very much targeted at this, show me someone who thinks "Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I have ever read have been in the sciences" and I'll show you someone who knows a lot about science and much less about the other things he looks at (biographies apart). This is the well-known effect of thinking the media generally cover things well, until they cover a subject you know something about, when their coverage reveals itself as shoddy and full of mistakes. Wikipedia is not much different, and an academic in the humanities is just as likely to think WP pretty good, except for his area. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Timmer is correct in his assessment. I'm reminded of Richard Feynman, who came to the same conclusion about California textbooks a half century ago.[8] If you haven't read Feynman's essay, please read it now. The problem he describes applies to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to tell it that way, but I am not sure that you have carefully read the Feynman's essay you have linked to. This essay is not mainly about the books themselves, but about how dysfunctional (and even corrupt) are the state commissions that are evaluating and choosing the books used in the states schools. Are you saying that, in Wikipedia articles, everything [is] written by somebody who [doesn't] know what the hell he [is] talking about, so it [is] always a little bit wrongbecause the WMF is so corrupt that it doesn't control seriously what is written here ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you are so confused. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A simple remark about Wikiversity. Searching for kernel Hilbert space returns only v:Boubaker Polynomials/Wikipedia/en.wp AfD 3, i.e. a byzantine discussion about the notoriety of v:Boubaker Polynomials. Remember, this is not Wikipedia discussing "what sources are saying". This is Wikiversity pretending to discuss about Science and Research. But nobody here seems able to take a pencil and obtain that (for ):
What a great inovation! Why not
What would have said Pr. Feynman ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Funnily enough that particular page was written completely by one user, who has since been more restrained following a period of being blocked. The user also identified himself as a former student of Pr. Feynman. What a small world! Those interested can look for themseles how all of this goes back to one persons view of a deletion of a wikipedia page itself created by a mathematcian (Boubaker themselves it is alleged, also blocked from Wikipedia). Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia, but a repository of OER, thus to "voice" a resource as "[t]his is Wikiversity pretending to discuss . . ." is perhaps to misunderstand the different ontologies involved. Also I agree that Wikiversity is not yet mature enough, but that may only change if sufficient people make it change. The point remains that instructional material is, by its nature, different from but related to encyclopedic material. For a better impression of Wikiversity please see Lua primarily by User:Dave Braunschweig. I think it would be better to build on what works, rather than focus on the idiosyncratic.Leutha (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that wikiversity is lacking in materials on kernel Hilbert space. It is not exactly a topic that is in high demand there. The one hit is indeed not of much use for understanding anything about mathematics as it appears to be a learning resource to study decision making within a wiki community and coincidentally came up in a search because it uses the AfD as a case study. v:Boubaker Polynomials/Wikipedia The sole author of those pages was given a great deal of latitude to v:Wikiversity:BOLDly develop the resource. Seeing it for the first time just now it looks to me more like a personal essay about wp notability, than anything about science or mathematics. --mikeutalk 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People have often remarked on the facts that (1) many knowledgeable people (subject matter experts in many fields) don't contribute (much/any) content to Wikipedia, (2) if they contributed more, the "impenetrable science articles" problem would be less salient, and (3) a major reason they don't contribute is that they can't get paid for the time they spend doing so. The latter is certainly true. Sometimes I can't help wondering, though, if there is also an element that they are afraid of what would happen to themselves and their ingroups socioeconomically, not just in money but in prestige and social power, if a "devastatingly clear and effective" Wikipedia developed—a Wikipedia with pedagogical brilliance pervading every science and technology article. It's almost a little something like "fear of a black planet"—am I crazy for suspecting that plenty of scientists, skilled professionals, and skilled tradespeople would prefer not to create an environment where the plebeians stop believing, as John Timmer said, "that it's something that has to be left to the experts and is inaccessible to anyone without arcane knowledge"? It's almost like a power trip or a strike action. In this hypothesis, withholding those content contributions is a move based on fear, in the grim hope that a devastatingly clear and effective Wikipedia won't develop—and if it does anyway (because of the people who do want to build it), "well at least it won't be because I stupidly contributed to my own/our own downfall" (so their thinking would go). This whole hypothesis seems so Marxian, and yet ... I have this strange feeling that I'm no longer naive enough about humans to not believe it's true. As for myself, the fact that I'm someone who is helping to improve Wikipedia indicates that I don't share their fear—but it's not simply because I naively think that a devastatingly clear and effective Wikipedia wouldn't disrupt some business models and prestige and social power/advantage. Yeah, it probably would. But I chip away at improving Wikipedia anyway because the other option feels shitty to me, too—even shittier. I don't like the current state of the art being that the free NPOV encyclopedia that we (humans) all heavily use isn't nearly good enough. I think that's even worse than the fact that if it got really good anytime soon, it would disrupt some things and present some new challenges. I just don't think that it would cause the sky to fall—I think we would all still figure out what the next business models and ingroup advantages would be. But meanwhile if you wanted to learn about X or Y, you could just go do it, without struggling with the impenetrability that John Timmer pointed out. Anyway, one last thought. User:Pldx1 was right to point out (above) that "Maybe this constraint is the reason why there are not only books, but also teachers and universities. What a marvelous discovery!" In other words, an encyclopedia by itself isn't a total replacement for textbooks, teachers, and schooling. Not even if it's devastatingly clear and effective. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Quercus solaris. Can you give us your expert opinion about the validity of the formula that I have stated above? If this formula is false, it would be a shame to use pedagogy or propaganda or anything else to further disseminate such formula. Pldx1 (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I couldn't possibly, and wouldn't care to, because that's all Greek to me, and I've never heard of any of it until yesterday. I'm not a mathematician nor an engineer. My comment was about two things: the pedagogical quality of science and technology coverage on Wikipedia overall, including health science and health care, and (2) the related theme of (a) who is not contributing to Wikipedia although we wish they would and (b) why and whether Wikipedia may or may not be dying. (Regarding b, I doubt it. Maturing, but not dying.) Both of those (1 and 2) are featured in this "In the media" edition, and they're interrelated, which is what my comment explored. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am much in sympathy with Timmer's thesis. Ideally, insiders write articles for outsiders. Alas, my first WP efforts were in telecommunications technology, the field in which I was 41 years an insider. My colleagues liked them and said they clarified points that were badly expressed in other literature. However, outsiders didn't understand them, because in my decades inside, I had forgotten how to look at these things with outsider eyes. So, I did some repairs, but spent more of my time on matters of which I have some knowledge but not that a true insider. Bicycling, astronomy, history. When I broke a wrist, I looked up relevant articles and, ugh. Distal radius fracture at that time talked about "digital mobility" and "malreduction" pretty near the intro. As it happened, I knew enough of the jargon to understand that the former wasn't about carrying your computer, and latter wasn't about botching the job of making something smaller. So now, the first several paragraphs are somewhat comprehensible for someone who is curious about his broken wrist. But no, I didn't dejargonize most of the article, and to some degree that's because I don't understand the jargon myself. Pretty much every technical topic is like that. Once you get beyond the broadest, most elementary ideas, mostly it's insiders writing for insiders, in large part because they can't see the topic from an outsider POV. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an encyclopedia for generalists; the first rule for communication and for writing in general is know your audience. The problem is that many editors don't care about their audience. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I played a role in allowing the formula to reside Wikiversity, but concede that I was mostly motivated by a desire to make the controversy go away. The internet at large is mostly junk if you count gigabytes of storage, but that does not imply that the internet itself is garbage. Likewise, most of Wikiversity (the vast majority in fact) is pretty bad. If you want something that is mostly good prose, write a book. Also: I have an idea for making Wikiversity a much better place. Unlike Wikipedia, we allow POV in mainspace, so why not exploit that fact to separate the sheep from the goats? Why not start a refereed electronic journal on a Wikiversity page? If necessary it will be a protected page, but such protection will almost certainly not be needed in the near future. Page protection is instead accomplished using permalinks. I think the easiest journal to maintain is one that focuses on teaching lessons that are routinely taught in the classroom. Everybody with a degree associated with such a topic has sufficient expertise to judge it. I will start the page as soon as three people with college degrees in physics or engineering volunteer to help. See Wikiversity as a haven for lone wolves --Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to noticing the signpost story I (randomly) compared Superconductivity here to Britannica. I found that both had a similar level of difficulty for the lay person and both helpfully left the gory details in a separate article, like BCS theory. The difference was that Britannica had much less information on the theory, while wp had extensive sections on Details, Underlying evidence, and Implications. It could be that there is similar information at Britannica, but I had difficulty finding it there. Having said that, I have occasionally had an experience similar to Timmer. I just wouldn't say that it is common in the many science articles that I read and/or edit. What is the difference between Superconductivity and the more difficult Reproducing kernel Hilbert space? The answer is in the New York Times search engine. There are plenty of news stories about the applications of superconductivity. The average curious person might see a mention and look it up in an encyclopedia. There are 0 hits for the latter. There were a few mathematician obituaries that mentioned Hilbert space, but I wouldn't call this notable coverage. Picking such an obscure topic weakens the argument. Ironically, Wikipedia Year of Science 2016 is about to kick of improve communicating science to the public. --mikeutalk 21:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Mu301. Describing the space where the Schrödinger equation is to be applied as an obscure topic weakens your argument. If we use http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/science/08super.html as the Bible about Superconductivity, we learn that superconductivity is what happens when "[it exists] a large energy gap between the lowest energy, superconducting state and the next possible, higher-energy configuration. That kept the electrons trapped in the superconducting state". And guess what is a state? It's an eigenvector of the Schrödinger equation, and therefore an element of some Hilbert state. Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mu301 and Pldx1: Keep in mind that it is impossible to index technical subjects in a way that completely eliminates confusion. When I did plasma physics many years ago, I found most of the articles in Physics of Fluids to be incomprehensible. One of our professors told us that when you first read a physics article you don't understand it...Then you read the article's references and you don't understand them either. It's only when you go to the third level do you begin to understand the original. That is why I am not much concerned that most of the technical articles in Wikipedia or Wikiversity are incomprehensible. Moreover, while "bad" articles should be deleted whenever they are discovered, they do little harm if they stay. In fact, "bad" articles are less of a distraction because the "good" ones leave you left wondering if you should attempt to understand them.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why there are no comedians with physics degrees. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One article that John Timmer mentioned in his Ars Technica as specially impenetrable is Ka/Ks ratio, which sounds obscure but is, he argues, important and ought to be readable by anyone. It isn't, even to those of us with biology degrees. Anyone care to help? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful link is this one which words it slightly differently "To advance new models for finding information by supporting stage one development of the Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This brings the number of trustees with ties to Google up to five, which is half of the Board
The Circle is not yet complete. We will know all with the "Knowledge Engine" and all will know us. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This new appointment is far more concerning than even the Doc James dismissal. I think we've about at the point where the Titanic cracks in half. At best, we've seen the ultimate and unaccountable ruling Board handed over from academics with principles to careerists who make a life of "managing" things. At worst, a majority of the Board may have a single owner already, and the rest (since it can be dismissed at any time) is irrelevant.
I fear that with this transition, Wikipedia reaches the point where we start seeing grave compromises in the mission. For example, note that Wikimedia's "Privacy Policy" (read the link at the bottom of any page) allows things like tracking pixels, local storage, etc. to watch users' activities, and offers free and open hunting to any "third party" who can compromise privacy by any means - the worst that can happen to them is they get told to stop, if caught. When Google is an empire that finds value in watching your searches, your emails, your video viewing etc., why should they be denied your Wikipedia page views? If the New World Order has a constitution, surely it includes a term that you shouldn't be allowed to flip your TV to an episode of Mob Housewives of Las Vegas without Google knowing which one.
I don't trust a bunch of stuffed suits to stand up for our right to neutrally document a car company's fraudulent emissions schemes, provided the company is willing to provide enough grant money to get their attention. I don't trust them to preserve controversial content, if they think an Islam-friendly site will sell more units of personal information. We needed to preserve the academic nature of the enterprise, and now that is over. Now all credit and blame goes to whoever does or doesn't mirror the site content while they can. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does begin to sound that the community representatives are token trustees and that if the rest of the Board wants to get rid of them, they can. The next time elections come up, I know what attributes I'll look for in prospective candidates. - kosboot (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thank the authors for writing this article. I find it shocking, stunning and deeply depressing. Moving from a community based funding model to the current one, arguably a corporate takeover of the WMF, is about the worst thing that can happen. I realize this has been going on for the past five years, but this article points to a exponential leap in the trend. The question becomes, can the Wikipedia community do anything about it, and if so, can it find consensus to do so. I had previously argued that the community was incapable of major corrective actions on internal affairs, and called for top-down corrections from the WMF Board. I believe that that thinking is now revealed to be incorrect. Jusdafax 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jusdafax, I would encourage you (and anyone else who cares) to get with User:Guy Macon. He's an engineer who has shown a deep and learned understanding of the overall problem. I dislike "they are both bad" arguments, but in this case, I think the Wikipedia community is just as bad (if not worse) than the WMF. Our article on agnotology should be required reading. Any attempt to fix the problem with self-governance on Wiki is met with teams of roving agnotologists, who will invent reasons why reform is a bad idea and will never work. If we can't even have a simple discussion to change the archaic, decade-old main page design, how can we possibly govern anything? No, I'm afraid, at the end of the day, the community has failed to lead the WMF and the WMF has failed to lead the community. We need to identify problematic thinking and practices and put a stop to them. It should not take six months to discuss anything, let alone three years for the community to act. We need to streamline discussions for efficiency and rapid prototyping of governance processes so that we can experiment with what works and discard what doesn't. For too long now, this place has wallowed in a fake stability. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, thank you for this article. I was not aware how deeply Google had penetrated the Wikipedia. I understand how enticing it must be to advise Google, or get to work for them and use all the fun toys. As a community member I do not feel that that the current board of trustees adequately represents this EDUCATION movement. We need to know ALL of the conflicts of interest of ALL of the trustees (and I consider any tie with Google to be a CoI). It should be the other way around - the community-selected trustees can have the other ones (ingrown? Self-selected?) removed if they appear to be championing any interests other than the community. The dissatisfaction of so many staff members with senior management are a wake-up call. The problem(s) need(s) to be discussed openly and soon. My 2 cents. WiseWoman (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, note that Wikimedia's "Privacy Policy" (read the link at the bottom of any page) allows things like tracking pixels, local storage, etc. to watch users' activities, and offers free and open hunting to any "third party" who can compromise privacy by any means - the worst that can happen to them is they get told to stop, if caught. " eh... there is not a single employee that can actually deploy/build something like that, who would allow that. The community asked developers to start measuring software changes, provide pageview logs and to enable vetted researchers to analyze Wikipedia for scientific purposes. The privacy policy was adapted accordingly. It's nothing else and the privacy policy goes out of it's way to explain what is in scope and what is not, for as far as it is possible to not cement people into a corner that needs to be chiseled loose again every 3 months. Stop spreading FUD. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ: What's the problem with chiseling them loose? One of the universal "features" of the Web is that privacy policies may change at any time. Why is it necessary to prepare Wikipedia with a privacy policy that adopts, as its only priority, the ability of developers to not be hindered by it in any possible project, at any time in the future, when they could change it in half an hour if they "needed" to anyway, in order to do some sort of research by "trusted" people that may or may not improve the site? This only makes sense if your weighting of privacy as a principle is 0.00000%. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one realistically looking to redo the privacy policy every 3-12 months. Our privacy policy is top notch, probably better than any other site out there. The only element that is failing you is your trust in those executing it. But a policy won't help you there, only not using the website. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Knight Foundation's Knowledge Engine grant: September 2015[edit]
Oddly enough, a priorpage on the Knight Foundation website announced a $250,000 grant for "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" on 1 September 2015, running from that date for a year, "to advance new models for finding information by supporting stage one development of the Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia, a system for discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet." There was nothing on the WMF blog in September. Why is this grant only being announced now as though it's something that just happened? AndreasJN466 09:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a slightly different take: why should we (or the WMF) care very much about a $250,000 grant? As of June 30, 2015, the WMF had more than $67 million in cash and investments. The WMF could initiate, on its own, a new $250,000 project every week for an entire year without making significant inroads on its funds, given that the WMF has been running large surpluses for the last few years (and the foreseeable future). -- John Broughton(♫♫) 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because these kinds of restricted grants affect the WMF's independence - that money has to be used in a certain way, unlike normal donations. Legoktm (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't use the money in that way, then what? I'll tell you what the worst-case scenario is: The recipient gives the money back and apologizes for changing its mind. That's it. And John has calculated above that the WMF could afford to pay out (not just refund) that much money once a week without going broke.
Furthermore, no responsible organization – neither the grantmaker nor the recipient – signs such a contract unless the recipient actually wants to use that money in that certain way. Consequently, there's no real "loss of independence"; the WMF is just getting paid to do what it wants to do anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Firstly, the Foundation took over $30m last month, so $250,000 is peanuts in the grand scheme of things – they take that in a December afternoon. Secondly, you've got sixteen people working on this thing, whose output may well be of supreme value to some corporates who make their money with free content, and $250,000 won't pay those WMF employees for more than a few weeks. The rest comes out of the WMF's own reserves, at the expense of other stuff the Foundation could be doing. It looks like the tail wagging the dog (which is perhaps where Legoktm's point comes in). I haven't heard an adequate (or indeed, any) explanation from the Foundation yet. AndreasJN466 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have incorrectly assumed that every single person in that group is working on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John Broughton, I don't think anybody is saying the amount of the grant is a reason to care. I went into the reasons for caring about restricted grants here: http://wikistrategies.net/grant-transparency/ And, for another example -- why did people care about the Belfer Center program? That certainly wasn't about the size of the grant, either. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Peteforsyth: The point I was trying to make was that the money from the grant is marginal; as such, paying much attention to it is a distraction from focusing on how the WMF uses its own money. As for the Belfer Center program you mention, it involved both personnel and precedent issues, and it's something that everyone can learn from. A grant that involves far less than 1% of the WMF's cash and investments? I see nothing to learn from, except if the WMF attempts to justify a major effort (that is, an effort much larger than the grant amount) based on receiving that grant. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you please tell us, WhatamIdoing, how many people in Search & Discovery and other departments are working on this? AndreasJN466 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I think building a knowledge engine is good thing, I find its emphasis on it rather vexing and it might illustrate a rather big disconnect between leadership and community. Currently WP doesn't even have a proper search engine for its own encyclopedia (with a slight improvement now coming after over 10 years) and now they want knowledge engine/answering machine? How about first things first?--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, that while many of us have been discussing the concept of a knowledge engine for some time now, mostly to help agument human knowledge in a persistent, transparent computing environment where hardware disappears and the interface becomes embedded in all things and accessible from looking, pointing, or speaking, there is another aspect of the knowledge engine that people need to understand, and that is this: a successful knowledge engine will also eventually disrupt and supplant the editorial community as an AI that researches, collects data, and writes articles, and ultimately replaces every user. If you don't see this happening, then you aren't paying attention. Virtually every major form of writing can be automated, from fiction writing to journalism, and many news organizations are experimenting with auto-journalism right now. At some point, the community will need to decide how to use advanced technology in an appropriate manner, or the choice will be made for you. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a separate issue and falls in he domain of how WP should deals with newer evolving technologies and how that affects the community. Moreover WP probably can't (and maybe shouldn't) separate itself from general trends in society nor can society's ills or problematic developments can be fixed in Wikipedia. The problems of increased automatization (in particular without a modified economic system) is an big issue for societies to solve rather than WP.
In any case the point that is vexing me above me above is of more practical right now nature and not that much related to general trends in society. Why do we build knowledge engines/answering machines without building a proper search engine first, which after all is our daily bread and butter for researching things in an encyclopedia. It's really annoying that very often you need google to find something in WP of which you may not know the exact/correct spelling, this btw might be also a smaller reason by lotsa people don't bother with the WP main page/main interface to begin with, it is simply doesn't provide a proper search engine.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read leapfrogging. There's no need to build a proper search engine when innovation requires an entirely different paradigm. Your assumption that a human will be using a text-based search engine in 2016, ignores the rise of voice command and intelligent personal assistants that have no need for such an interface. Wikipedia is uniquely positioned to leapfrog into the educational and commercial sector as both a learning device and as a intelligent research assistant. In terms of output, think of Amazon Echo, Microsoft Cortana, and Siri, as basic, but rudimentary examples for where this is going. And as for input, anyone should be able to contribute from anywhere without ever glancing at a screen or using a keyboard. We need to stop thinking of our users sitting in a chair behind a desk and start thinking of how to augment the everyday life experience of normal people engaged in mundane tasks. Voice assisted query capability with mobile integration raises the bar. Now make it responsive to a student. Then, allow researchers to do database queries by voice in natural language. Finally, like in the film Her, allow people to create unique accounts that respond to them conversationally about articles, and to help them create new content. An intelligent assistant could easily train a new user faster than reading dozens of policies and guidelines far removed from actual practice. Think about the applications in entertainment alone. You could rehearse lines from an agent reading from wiki sourced play, you could have a conversation with a historical figure and ask them questions about a war they started, etc. In theory, Wikipedia could revolutionize how we interact with content by deliberately leapfrogging over such a "search engine". It's time to think big like stars, and to stop thinking like amoebas. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but from my perspective that is polemically speaking a bunch of nonsense (or less polemic just beside the point I was arguing). The increased used of alternative interfaces doesn't imply that the traditional interacts are not used anymore. In particular editors/authors are likely to use "conventional" interfaces rather than digital assistants. I'm talking about what WP (and its community) needs now and not years down the road. There is nothing wrong with "thinking big", but that's a separate discussion. However one of the in my perspective most disturbing aspects of "thinking big" proponents in WP is, that they seem to lack, ignore or have forgotten how most of the (quality) content in WP is actually generated and that all the great usage scenarios end up being worth about shit, if the underlying content database lacks quality. Well researched (and sourced) quality content is neither written via digital assistant or smaller mobile devices (unless we're talking about laptops and alike). The latter are (at best) primarly used for small corrections and additions. What good are conversations with a historical figures if they are based on a content which is partially plain wrong and largely unsourced/unverified. More importantly why should all these interesting usage scenarios provided by WMF/WP itself Much of it seems better suited for 3rd parties, which btw should not outsource their work to volunteers at WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with just about everything you've said. I first started editing Wikipedia as a registered user in late 2004. In 2005, I began editing from a HTC Apache mobile device, along with a laptop and a desktop. In 2007, I edited using an iPod Touch, and then finally an iPhone. Designing and focusing on a desktop interface in 2016 misses everything that's happened in the last decade. @Cullen328: we've got a live one. Please read User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing in the meantime. The future is not based around the desktop, and in the present we are migrating to mobile, augmented, and VR workspaces. This is all going towards the pervasive computing paradigm, where the interface becomes part of everything around you. The quaint notion of someone sitting behind a desk editing Wikipedia needs to be cherished for its nostalgia, but ultimately discarded. Can I interest you in a buggy whip for your carriage? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Viriditas. Yes, I write new articles and expand existing ones, help out new editors at the Teahouse, and in general, do my best to be a productive editor, all while using a smartphone, with no significant difficulties. I use the "desktop" site on my phone which in my experience is far superior to the default mobile site for both reading and editing. But WMF seems so heavily invested in the clunky outmoded mobile site that they completely ignore editors like me. The current mobile site is, in my opinion, effectively a deterrent to reading and editing the encyclopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess given you use the "desktop interface", you would appreciate a proper search engine for WP as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Power users will be highly productive in a VR medium where one can manipulate text and documents with more depth and control. Eventually, the large goggles and head gear will morph into more of an augmented overlay, but VR and AR will be highly mobile from the start. I'm more interested in how I can review source articles without a desktop and input content without a keyboard. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It makes for a nice meme to phrase it as "old" versus "new" or "conventional physical desktop" versus "pervasive computing paradigm" and maybe for a nice rhetoric trick, but as I tried to point out above it misses the point I was making. The point is about basic functionality for readers and editors and not so much about the various interface layers through which you access that functionality. I did not suggest WP editors (creating quality content) are largely sitting behind physical desks, instead I suggested that most preferably work with a big(ger) screen and a keyboard (call it virtual desktop if you want, which may or may not be mobile). The functionality of search engine however is needed/useful no matter whether you access it from behind a desktop or a laptop, tablet or smartphone. Even if you use an digital assistance via a voice interface, that assistant needs internally a search engine being capable of dealing with mispronunciations/misspellings or more generally resolve a somewhat fuzzy notation of a term. By the way a good knowledge engine/answering machine probably incorporates internally the functionality of a search engine anyhow. However rather than waiting for the finalized answering machine, I'd have access to a proper search engine as soon as possible.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for joining an open discussion around the Knowledge engine. This is what I had requested back in Oct. I felt that before we pursued this as a major direction we needed to have a frank and open discussion of the risks and benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New trustee Arnnon Geshuri's background with Google anticompetitive agreements[edit]
An open letter has been sent to the WMF board asking for an explanation of their appointment and posted here. Perhaps a Wikipedia biography article for this notable trustee would help provide context and reliable sources? --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the two new trustees would grant an interview to The Signpost. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an essay regarding Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google. In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. A class action lawsuit forced the companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that summary. What a shame. We need someone with his expertise on the board. But yes. He shouldn't be voting on Wikimedia's forward direction. No way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious issue. The Wikimedia Foundation has appointed as a trustee someone who was a part of an illegal conspiracy in restraint of trade to keep salaries down.[9] From the lawsuit, which the parties are paying $415 million to settle:
This class action challenges a conspiracy among Defendants to fix and suppress the compensation of their employees. Without the knowledge or consent of their employees, Defendants’ senior executives entered into an interconnected web of express agreements to eliminate competition among them for skilled labor. This conspiracy included: (1) agreements not to recruit each other’s employees; (2) agreements to notify each other when making an offer to another’s employee; and (3) agreements that, when offering a position to another company’s employee, neither company would counteroffer above the initial offer. The intended and actual effect of these agreements was to fix and suppress employee compensation, and to impose unlawful restrictions on employee mobility. Defendants’ conspiracy and agreements restrained trade and are per se unlawful under federal and California law. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for violations of: Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code §§ 16720, et seq.; California Business and Professions Code § 16600; and California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. In 2009 through 2010, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) investigated Defendants’ misconduct. The DOJ found that Defendants’ agreements violated the Sherman Act per se and “are facially anticompetitive because they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract high tech employees, and, overall, substantially diminished competition to the detriment of the affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.”
The Wikimedia Foundation has thus appointed a crook to the Board. Given that choice, we have to question the competence of the board to run a non-profit foundation. John Nagle (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Community members should not legitimize this board by participating at the next selections (so calles elections) but withstand the insinuations of the department of communications. I'm not calling for boycott but hope to raise consciousness. Where there is no possibility to take part in decision-making, no possibility to vote invalid, no possibility to select a board member, standing aside is what is best for all. Further reading: Consent of the governed. Thanks for taking this into consideration, Sargoth (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Boycotting the election won't solve anything. Elect the candidate that will best represent the community, or a candidate who will burn it all down, or a cartoon animal. But not participating will only encourage the powers that be to ignore the community. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Punish one, teach a hundred. Besides, we're not able to elect a candidate. Please read the bylaws. Of course, you and whoever wants to legitimize the board by voting, do so. I will not. --Sargoth (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the entire point. It isn't enough to stop giving political legitimacy to the election. You also have to create your own shadow institution and supplant the original process to the point where the original board election no longer matters. To self-govern, you have to actually do it, not just ignore and stand aside. This is essentially what it means to "co-opt". Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Boycotting is not activism, it is pacifism. In politics, boycotting is like surrender--it is an abdication of power, not empowerment. It is as though political movements are won by having all its supporters go to prison; in reality, they are won by taking the fight to the enemy. It is not as though surrender is always bad, it is that there must be a balance, and the decisive winning action will be active and aggressive. E.g., a surrender can be useful by culling the enemy into a disadvantageous position, but in that case it is only a component of an overall active and aggressive strategy.
In war, a significant goal is to, LOL, quite literally, pacify the other side (make them pacifist in a way). So your argument that proponents of a cause will win by being passive is to deny the the truth and wish upon us an era of ignorance, deceit and failure. Boycotts can be effective if paired with a denial of legitimacy and with an eye toward an alternative takeover (takeover of power by a means other than an election) or some such activism, but like surrenders, they usually just end with fewer resources to fight with. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1, elect candidates who will be transparent and work with and for the community. II | (t - c) 03:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the dissatisfaction reaches high enough levels, a split might become a realistic option. Once upon a time a back then serious split of the Spanish WP helped to keep WP advertisement free.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
int21h, I don't talk about being passive or pacifying. To stress your image: taking part at the selections is like handing over our stone clubs to the enemy who already nuked us. Btw: I've read about quite useful military guerilla tactics. But I dislike those war alegories. They're useless. We're rather on a farm than in a war. Sargoth (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sargoth: The analogies draw upon the relationship between civil and military politics, which are well documented. And while I admit giving legitimacy to the current WMF board by participating is detrimental, if by participating we can trigger the unelected board members to remove yet another elected member, it will force the issue(s). They ignored history and good sense by removing a board member in such a way, now let us doom them to repeat it. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I have not taken part in the last election, and I will not take part in any more election unless the now remaining Board and the ED resign. What we have seen lately is an outrageous behaviour by the remaining Board members. I support James Heilman's call for more openness and for a bigger say of the editors in all processes. The morale of the employees the Signpost has reported on is another case in point. Wikipedia is being sold to Google and other external stakeholders.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to have true elections before we can elect anyone. In other words we need to see a change in the bylaws first. This is an interesting read for those who have not seen it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But "we" cannot change the bylaws, all "we" can do is electing somebody under the current procedures.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. We need to change the bylaws in order to get the volunteers into the Board, but first we need to replace the existing Board completely. And when I say completely, I mean completely, all of them. The Board has no moral right to continue its work. We also need to discuss strategy from scratch. We need a Board that listens to the community and that acts accordingly. We need democratic structures in the movement. In the future, the Board should report to the editors. And with the existing bylaws this cannot be achieved. I won't take part in any election that would legitimise the existing Board members. I also think the ED should be exchanged, we need an all new start in order to get Wikipedia back on track.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've been discussing above the problem of the lack of confidence between the board/senior management and the staff at the foundation. (It's not clear whether in fact the board is supporting the senior management,or whether they are thinking of making a change.)
But previously we've had many discussions about the lack of alignment between the staff at the foundation and the editing community: that most of the actual work at the Foundation is irrelevant to the actual work of the encyclopedias. I cannot tell from the information presented whether it is possible that the board/senior management is more closely aligned with the volunteers than are the foundation staff, or whether they are even further away from us. But it is certainly true that there is no active hostility between the volunteers and the staff at the foundation, at least not to the extent that there apparently is between the staff and the senior management. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've seen a huge change in the quality of the relationship between the WMF and the volunteer community over the last eighteen months, and I assume that's down to Lila, and the changes she's made. Those changes would have been quite disruptive to staff, so I'm not surprised there's been some blow-back. In the 10 November 2015 WMF metrics meeting [10] she says to the WMF staff
[at 2:48] "I travel quite a bit lately." [At 15:05] "I really value my time interacting with our communities. It helps me understand much more about who we are and what is important ... But when I came back I realised I had made a mistake in spending that much time out there. You needed more support and more of my time, right now. More than probably ever. I've heard a lot of your voices and thank you for letting me know about this because not everywhere do you have the gift of people coming up to you and saying, 'Hey, this is broken. Fix it.'"
She appears to have gotten the message. Hopefully she's now working on those relationships.
But please don't overlook the sea change that has occurred in the relationship between the WMF and the volunteers since she's been at the helm. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on something that, if it works, might be a game changer, but I am not yet at the point where I can discuss it. In the meantime I am, as a test of The WMF's alleged commitment to transparency, starting small and asking the following question once again (previous attempt):
Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[11] That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that.
I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely. Needless to say, nobody needs to know who got what furniture; an accounting with all personal information redacted is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns with how the senior leadership is directing resources have absolutely nothing to do with furniture and computers. Remember that the WMF has things like kitchens and video-conferencing rooms and a lobby. $2 million doesn't sound unreasonable to me, but I've never outfitted an office myself, so I really have no idea. There are definitely more important transparency issues than what the WMF is spending on furniture though. Some WMF employee (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a community-driven vote of no-confidence in the Board of Trustees would be most appropriate at this time. New England Cop (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Office furniture is hardly the most pressing issue concerning the Board right now. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the one consistent factor with this rigged, insiders-rule Board of Trustees? Jimmy Wales sits on it. He just was unanimously re-upped for yet another 3 year term. We need to make sure that three years hence this mistake is not repeated. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: The bylaws state "In the event that Wales is not appointed as Community Founder Trustee, the position will remain vacant, and the Board shall not fill the vacancy." I find that disappointing, because I think it would be hilarious if they appointed Larry Sanger to the Founder's seat instead. Gamaliel (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does advertising the Gender Gap... I would have thought it is pretty obvious that saying "Wikipedia wants, and needs, more women and girls to edit" will help, whereas the message "Wikipedians hate women, that's why women hate editing there." will have the opposite effect. I have never seen why some of my colleagues have thought the latter narrative would be the beneficial one to promote to the media. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 06:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Actually regardless of what the message is, we know both from WLM and fundraising that a positive wording is less likely to deter participation, while negative wording (in whatever context) has significant negative impact. The trick with canvassing is to try to make things sound fun, and gendergap is not fun (yet). On the whole, though, fascinating findings. Jane (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above sentiments whole-heartedly. Thanks to the authors for a great write-up here. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 11:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 great report! --Atlasowa (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It says right there in the article that they found negative wording reduced the gender gap in their test population. As a bonus it's easier and a lot more satisfying than positive wording. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the difference was between negative information about Wikipedia (i.e. the gender gap in editorial content and editors themselves) and a neutral description (neither positive or negative and not mentioning the gender gap at all). Secondly, the study didn't find that negative wording reduced the gender gap except in the sense that those receiving it were more likely to choose articles on women for the hypothetical improvement task. The second and more important finding is that the negative wording decreased the likelihood of actually contributing amongst both men and women, but was strongest for the male participants. As I have pointed out in the past, the narrative of the gender gap that was started by Sue Gardner and since developed via more and more hyperbole has proved both counterproductive and destructive. It infantilized and stereotyped women and turned our male colleagues from people into an equally stereotyped "other" from which we must be protected. With Gardner's 2011 blog post "Nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia", the negative narrative was set firmly on its course. Unsurprisingly, the gender gap in the number of women editors (to the extent it existed back in 2011) had really not improved at all by early 2015. So, instead of applying a bit of lateral thinking, the solution was to ramp up the negativity even more to a level where all perspective was lost. In any case, a very interesting article, and many thanks to Tilman Bayer for highlighting it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguingly, "the number of readers per editor is higher for articles about women, and the share of articles that no one reads is larger in the case of articles about men".
that does not imply:
In other words, readers prefer articles about women, editors prefer articles about men.
Lets say for example there are 100 articles about men, 10 articles about women. The men's articles have on average 100 editors and 100 readers per article, the women's articles 10 editors and 20 readers per article. Women's articles have more readers per editor (2:1 vs 1:1), yet, readers prefer articles about men (10000 vs 200 readers)... Prevalence (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a statistic available for the percentage of established editors who don't state their gender? I'd like to find out if that's a small minority or a majority of the population. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the stats as of September 2015 here: Wikipedia:Database reports/User preferences#Gender. That's about 615K editors who declared a gender in Special:Preferences, out of all 27 million accounts (perhaps 8 or 9 million of which have ever made an edit here) at the English Wikipedia. The percentage of editors declaring a gender is likely to be higher at languages that use different words/endings for male and female editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Leeds United FC fan! May I request that your next report be an update about the happenings in an arts-related wikiproject? --Pine✉ 07:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just recently, I was having a discussion with a friend about rugby and about it's great appeal. By reading these interviews, I do realise now even more that rugby has that definite "x factor" attracting us to the sports and to those who play it. This Wikipedia campaign is a well-deserved effort to improve our content on this fascinating sport. werldwayd (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. @Pine: Feel free to make a request at the WikiProject desk about an arts-related wikiproject of your choice, and I'll be happy to write about one! @Werldwayd: Indeed, rugby league and union are growing throughout the world. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Leeds United FC fan: I have put 3 suggestions for you on the WikiProject Desk. --Pine✉ 00:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^^agreed, please promote union instead...its the better format of the sport and is played by over 100 nations (15's and 7's) and 7's rugby will also be part of the Olympics this year .. less than 5 countries "actually" take League seriously..--Stemoc 12:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
