Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
→Misallocation of effort: zOMG very long TL;DR psuedo-rant-ish reply |
||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
::::::::Ok, at this point you've lost me and I don't really know what to respond to. Since it does look like that article violates copyright, I'm going to delist it. The "don't understand copyright" thing was in reference to your assertion (as I understood it) that because a website didn't assert copyright it could be copy/pasted into wikipedia. And just to be clear, while I'm using DD tool as a... tool, after I see that it indicates lots of copying (not just "two lines of text" but most of the article) I go through and use another tool, my eyes, to verify that the article does indeed copy extensively (in many cases there are short to medium strings of text which are not copyvios but official names or names of other sources and the like). So yes, it's actually a lot more time consuming then it might seem - I'm not listing every single thing I did when reviewing for copyright violations just like up until recently I have not been listing every single article I've checked.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::Ok, at this point you've lost me and I don't really know what to respond to. Since it does look like that article violates copyright, I'm going to delist it. The "don't understand copyright" thing was in reference to your assertion (as I understood it) that because a website didn't assert copyright it could be copy/pasted into wikipedia. And just to be clear, while I'm using DD tool as a... tool, after I see that it indicates lots of copying (not just "two lines of text" but most of the article) I go through and use another tool, my eyes, to verify that the article does indeed copy extensively (in many cases there are short to medium strings of text which are not copyvios but official names or names of other sources and the like). So yes, it's actually a lot more time consuming then it might seem - I'm not listing every single thing I did when reviewing for copyright violations just like up until recently I have not been listing every single article I've checked.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Oh, and the "not name names" was not in reference to you either.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::Oh, and the "not name names" was not in reference to you either.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{undent}} (after ec) I believe I can follow this thread in this manner: |
|||
# Several people, largely comprised of FAC reviewers and perhaps with Malleus as their most vocal member, jumped on DYK for consistently low-quality production. [Mind you, this has been brewing for a very, very long time. I personally lost at least one or two !votes on my RfA for complaining about it, and that was a fairly long time ago.. and that was also far from the beginning of this saga.] The focus of the complaints seems to have narrowed at some point to '''copyvio''', although I am aware that the complaints have been far broader than that over the history of this issue. |
|||
# DYK people, feelings hurt by the sharpness of the thrust of the negative comments, say "I know we have problems, but we are not alone!!" They then begin producing examples of other Wikipedia processes that have shoddy output. |
|||
# Once this flushing of skeletons out of the closet commenced, people began looking for problems that the group of complainers overlooked, with special emphasis on Malleus. |
|||
# Tit for tat ensues; individuals from both "sides" guilty of it (but not everyone from either side, of course). More feelings hurt. More tit for tat. Lather, rinse, repeat. |
|||
Is that a fair summary? ...Now, we've all been around Wikipedia long enough to know that mutual apologies are completely out of the question, and the very idea would provoke indignant noises from both sides of the tit for tat. So let's brush that option aside and think about other ways to be productive. Hmmmm. How about this: |
|||
# Every single process on Wikipedia sucks to one degree or another. Every... single... one. |
|||
## Wikipedia is a unified construct with individual components that seem vastly different, but really aren't. |
|||
##No one is paid to do this; we do it in our free time. |
|||
## There are no (well, few) bureaucratic processes that create the kind of redundancies that we love to hate (by and large, for good reason), but that do in fact shore up the labors of the group. |
|||
# FAC perhaps sucks noticeably less because it is a very prolonged process involving a team effort, often employing a fruitful division of labor... It also attracts the most experienced content reviewers (some of whom have published academic articles). But even FAC can slip up. |
|||
# All processes – even FAC – suffer from an inadequate supply of experienced reviewers and editors. that's one more reason why all processes suck to one degree or another. |
|||
# Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is '''quite''' difficult to catch. As we have discussed ''ad nauseum'', downstream Wikifluvia makes determining "who said what, when" a very, very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Given that, missing instances of copyvio is simply to be expected from any one reviewer, and even (to a lesser degree) from a group of reviewers. Simply put, it is a cost of doing information business on the Internet. |
|||
# Given all of the above, can we now deal with the situation realistically, as a nearly unavoidable feature of the Wikipedia construct, rather than as a forum for airing interpersonal griefs? – [[User:Ling.Nut2|Ling.Nut]] [[User talk:Ling.Nut2|(talk)]] 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== FAC today == |
== FAC today == |
Revision as of 01:22, 29 July 2011
About me | Talk to me | To do list | Tools and other useful things | Some of my work | Nice things | Yukky things | Archives |
2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 Jan– |
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
Mission: Impossible – Fallout | Review it now |
Blackrocks Brewery | Review it now |
If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, .
Why POV?
Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A bit more
Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The Fat Man
At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hallmark
Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.
Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome
I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:SCROLL
Hey Sandy, you made a comment about the collapsable table in A330. I think it actually is in compliance with that policy. See: [1]. The table was intended as an organizational device to summarize and tabulate the alphabet soup of plane model names, design names, and major features within the background section. Very tough sledding at the beginning of the body text. Pure prose is difficult when we refer to things that have these type designators, for people unfamiliar with the subject. A graphic helps the reader...would do the same in a corporate report. If you look at the text of the WP:SCROLL, it allows collapsing such tables. That said, I'm happy where we came out with it smaller, right-aligned, and uncollapsed, as that serves the reader best. Not a huge point or anything, but in case you weren't aware of the sentence further on in the policy, wanted you to at least have seen it.TCO (reviews needed) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously. Appalling.
I've just noticed the new tab at the top of talk pages. Honestly. Whose brainchild was that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, it can be disabled in gadgets, but that won't stop nimwits. The irony!!! Check out the first person who used it. Perhaps he can send some to The Fat Man :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 which helped in the process of getting this article to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for advice/assistance
Hi Sandy, could you point me toward what methods you use at FA to detect copyvios and plagiarism, including too-close paraphrasing? I am interested in improving the quality of articles vetted via DYK. I do not expect new articles to reach FA perfection quickly, but we should detect violations of WP:PLAGIARISM. Sharktopus talk 14:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Shark, there are several tools available that reviewers run, but I'm unclear where to find them or how to run them-- surely some of my TPS will fill you in on that. However, running the tools isn't enough, since they mostly pick up mirrors. What we do is make sure that every new nominator gets at least one manual review of sources. If issues are found on any nominator, I request subsequent reviews on all of their nominations. It's tedious work at FAC, but shouldn't be so hard at DYK, where articles are much shorter. It really takes a hands-on, get in there manually and take a look approach. And, the other advantage that FAC has is that the buck stops with Karanacs and me-- it's up to us to remember which frequent nominators are cleared and which aren't, and there's no clearing house like that at DYK to keep track of which new and old editors have been known to paraphrase too closely. When I look at DYK, my personal approach is just to find the most often-cited online source, read it, and compare it to the article. It rarely takes me more than 10 minutes, using that approach, to locate the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. My usual method is just to pick out a phrase or two and Google looking for a too-similar source. I just imagined you had some useful page with tools or guidelines, but as you say having everything vetted by someone experienced helps. Sharktopus talk 14:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Butting in - I go to the first source, read it, compare to the page, and if I find problems I note them. If I find problems with the first source, I stop there, with the assumption the editor will take the initiative to clean the rest. That's a very wrong assumption. Each source has to be looked at. It takes time. 15:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, Truthkeeper, I just went to your talk page and asked for your advice on detecting plagiarism too. I do carefully check sources referenced in the hook fact, but perhaps I should be checking more widely. Sharktopus talk 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, Shark, if we had to thoroughly check Every Single FAC, it would be a monumental task. We have many repeat nominators whose work has been checked several times, and we know they don't plagiarize or commit copyvio. In other words, we have some institutional memory re who has been checked, and we try to check all new nominators or those known to have a less than stellar understanding of sourcing and paraphrasing. I'm not sure how you could do same at DYK, unless you have a directorate. Also, picking out one phrase and hoping it pops up on Google or on a search of the source is, for my tastes, too prone to miss. I read one source thoroughly, then the article. On a brand new or child editor (I find it highly unlikely that anyone without a high school education will know how to paraphrase and accurately represent sources correctly), I check more than one source. I always do it manually, because that allows me not only to watch for copyvio, but also to check for accurate representation of sources, which is another DYK problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Butting in - I go to the first source, read it, compare to the page, and if I find problems I note them. If I find problems with the first source, I stop there, with the assumption the editor will take the initiative to clean the rest. That's a very wrong assumption. Each source has to be looked at. It takes time. 15:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- And just to add, I believe that the spotcheck requirement is now being applied to all FACs which is appropriate. My most recent FAC wasn't promoted until spotchecked, although I've put through five recently and scrubbed numerous pages. The checking is time-consuming and should be done to all main page content. Quite honestly I think it needs to be done across the board, but that's a monumental task. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not to my knowledge, TK, although reviewers are welcome to do more. But, I would never ask for a spotcheck for close paraphrasing on, for example, Brain boulton (just to pick one-- there are many others). We should focus limited resources on new editors, first-time nominators, or editors for whom past issues have been identified. Once a nominator has been checked many times, and their work is well known, it shouldn't be routinely necessary. In the instance of copyvio that got by FAC last year, I for one knew that work was not typical writing for that nominator, and I should have checked. My mistake was that I assumed the prose was better than typical for that editor because Malleus had copyedited. We all make mistakes of assumption ... hopefully not more than once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There was some considerable misunderstanding around my role in that hoo-hah last year, with several editors suggesting that it was at least partly my fault (and even done maliciously) that the plagiarism went undetected for so long, because part of my job as copyeditor was to check the sources. I want to make it very clear that I never check sources when I'm copyediting, I don't consider that part of the job. So nobody should assume that because I've moved a few commas around I'm in some way vouching for anything other than the standard of written English. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I never assume a copyeditor has checked the sources. Very few do that, and usually only when the article was in really bad shape when they started. I almost never go back to the sources when I copyedit unless I'm confused. Those who suggested maliciousness on your part are, well, nuts. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ha, well, I got blamed for it as well :) Talk is cheap :) Anyway, neither did I assume you had checked sources, Malleus-- I assumed you had made the prose better than typical for that editor, so I was faulty in not looking for copyvio myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since the spotcheck requirement was added while I was on a wikibreak, out of fairness, I've been asking for an initial spotcheck on just about everyone. Now that I'm back in the swing of things and am seeing repeat noms I won't be asking for them on people who've cleared the vetting a lot. So you weren't being singled out, Truthkeeper, I just hadn't passed one of your FACs in a while :) Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is Karen, I thought it was appropriate, particularly to avoid allegations of cliqueism (if that's a word), etc. Obviously I can screw up as well as anyone else. All FACs have image reviews, source reviews, and prose reviews, so I think the spotchecking should be applied to everyone. Welcome back, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- If we had the peoplepower, yes to all-- but we don't, so we have to assure we at least do our best. Image reviews are a highly specialized area-- I request them because I don't intend to become an expert in that area, but anyone can detect copyvio issues in prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is Karen, I thought it was appropriate, particularly to avoid allegations of cliqueism (if that's a word), etc. Obviously I can screw up as well as anyone else. All FACs have image reviews, source reviews, and prose reviews, so I think the spotchecking should be applied to everyone. Welcome back, btw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, ha-- I hadn't checked. Speaking of your break, that reminds me of something ... when a nominator is up for whom previous issues were found, I don't want to say that on the FAC page, as it seems rude to rub their noses in it, but then you might not know of such cases, so I just reiterate in those cases that I'm waiting for a spotcheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There was some considerable misunderstanding around my role in that hoo-hah last year, with several editors suggesting that it was at least partly my fault (and even done maliciously) that the plagiarism went undetected for so long, because part of my job as copyeditor was to check the sources. I want to make it very clear that I never check sources when I'm copyediting, I don't consider that part of the job. So nobody should assume that because I've moved a few commas around I'm in some way vouching for anything other than the standard of written English. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) These are the tools I use to do a quickie check: here and User:CorenSearchBot/manual. These are both blunt force approaches, it won't catch subtle stuff, but it's a starting spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
IB INTERVIEW User:Poysndi
Hello my name is Andres and in my ITGS (Infromation and technology in a global society)course, of the IB I need to interview someone who is related tot he issue of my choice. Since my issue is Wikipedia I was wondering if I could possibly interview you. I would greatly appreciate if so. Please provide me a way to contact you such as an e-mail address so I can send the interview. Thank You Poysndi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
- Thank you for the request, but I have never been comfortable participating in such ventures (offWiki surveys, studies, interviews, etc), so I must politely decline. Good luck with your Project! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
possible heads up on User:Taro-Gabunia sockpuppet
The new editor User:Claptonish is exhibiting a couple of similar behaviors as TG; though he hasn't made any edits, he's pestering me directly about getting Portal 2 to FAC (another sock, User:TGilmour did this before and brought that article to FAC before I felt it was ready), and seems intent in the same manner to get Eric Clapton to FAC. I believe you have had experience before so you might be able to judge better. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- That does look like our friend Taro to me. TGilmour also kept pestering people with "Will you take this to FAC?", and edited some of the same articles. 1, 2 Ucucha 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it to me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked. Ucucha 14:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it to me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quack? JefffBeck (talk · contribs) just appeared again on P2, along with contributions to a number of music artist articles. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this edit, I'm inclined to agree. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also see the name change-- I don't know who's going to do the blocking honors, but I've barely got enough time the rest of this week to get through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this edit, I'm inclined to agree. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK reform
Any suggestions? at how it can be improved?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many of the regulars at DYK are tone deaf; they don't seem to understand that DYK displays Wikipedia's worst shortcomings on the mainpage, those that do move along, and there's a new crop there every three months who refuse to address the problems. I'm in the midst of a move, but when I'm done, someday, I don't intend to sit by quietly if I don't find reform. Getting increasingly shrill at WT:DYK doesn't seem to do anything about the tonedeafness over there, and the seriousness of the problems. On the other hand, I have no idea what you're thinking to be complaining when they finally pulled an article based on non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- PS, speaking of tonedeaf, I hope you can see how disgusting the drive for sensationalist hooks at DYK is from this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- A little macabre I agree. But more catchy than many of the boring hooks you regularly see. I'm not sure what you mean by a drive though, you rarely see such sensationalist hooks from me. The problem is that DYK is redundant in itself as practically nobody will know about most of them or frankly even care less about them, so of course they wouldn't know. I think it needs to be replaced with something, reform is definitely needed. The main page is the most visited page on wikipedia after all. I personally think far too many articles are going through now anyway and although sharing reviews cuts the log down it is revealing that many of the reviewers are incompetent to do so and not picking up on obvious issues. But the tendency of some is to be overpicky with certain articles and not bother with others. We need a balance and some sort of formal review I think and a different format.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- PS, speaking of tonedeaf, I hope you can see how disgusting the drive for sensationalist hooks at DYK is from this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about your hooks: DYK has no accountabiity so one can't tell who proposed the hook, who passed it, who prepped it, or who put it on the mainpage. No accountability, no archives, no transparency, leading to the same issues occurring over years and years in spite of complaints. I only know you worked on that article. Anyway. Please don't come to my talk page with this childish drive for "catchy" hooks, which are quite often immature, unprofessional, misleading, and disgusting. An alleged "encyclopedia" may just be boring sometimes. We need to scrap DYK entirely since many working over there are tonedeaf, and they are honestly, seriously-- really-- having a discussion about whether articles need to employ reliable sources. Regular DYKers think it's OK to use non-reliable sources to cite text.
I challenge anyone to remember one of their historically disgusting misleading medical hooks, where they impugned an entire hospital in New Jersey because some nutty physician recommended something stupid like smoking or drinking in pregnant women-- oh, yes, that was cute and catchy, and the hospital didn't deserve it. IIRC, that may have been an Alansohn DYK, but I could be wrong. The folks working at DYK have no sense whatsoever of basic human decency, much less understanding of Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, one poster in that entire mess (Dominic) got it. Gatoclass is outdoing himself to miss the point-- he has said several times that the recent discussion is not about reliable sources, although I've said many times it is, and given several examples of hooks that aren't even based on reliable sources. And then someone comes along and suggests negative political bio hooks should be based on two reliable sources-- have these folks never read WP:UNDUE, or do they just lack any intelligence or sense of decency wrt what goes on the mainpage of one of the net's most viewed websites? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about your hooks: DYK has no accountabiity so one can't tell who proposed the hook, who passed it, who prepped it, or who put it on the mainpage. No accountability, no archives, no transparency, leading to the same issues occurring over years and years in spite of complaints. I only know you worked on that article. Anyway. Please don't come to my talk page with this childish drive for "catchy" hooks, which are quite often immature, unprofessional, misleading, and disgusting. An alleged "encyclopedia" may just be boring sometimes. We need to scrap DYK entirely since many working over there are tonedeaf, and they are honestly, seriously-- really-- having a discussion about whether articles need to employ reliable sources. Regular DYKers think it's OK to use non-reliable sources to cite text.
- Hang on, I'm not sure what you mean by "Please don't come to my talk page with this childish drive for "catchy" hooks". Who mentioned anything about catchy hooks? I came to your talk page because I've seen your thoughts about DYK and think there is an element of truth in them even if your criticisms initially seemed a little harsh. And I believe that with your support and that of other influential people on this website we could see the reform that is obviously needed. I most certainly do not have a childish agenda or anything in regards to it and would likely not bother with DYK myself but for the fact I enjoy working with other editors and having a bank of half-decent articles. I appreciate that you only want the highest standards on wikipedia and that DYK on the front page is a major problem unless there is some sort of formal review and minimum expectation of quality. If you actually compare the amount of people who daily visit the main page and the amount of people who actually visit the DYK hooks there is a massive discrepancy which in itself illustrates that most editors couldn't care less about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who mentioned anything about catchy hooks? Please read what you wrote: But more catchy than many of the boring hooks you regularly see. That is one small part of the very problems that prevail at DYK, including non-reliable sources, misrepresentation of sources, shoddy sensationlist hooks, UNDUE, plagiarism and copyvio, and negative political bios, now furthered by Quid Pro Quo reviews from editors sharing POV. All documented over many years, all getting worse. I've been harping on DYK for years, and have encountered nothing but tone deaf regulars there; as long as boatloads of marginal editors are getting mainpage time, there will never be consensus to get DYK off the mainpage-- too many editors have enough pull to keep the disgust coming. I intend to do something about it once I'm finished moving, unless I see major reform there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I mentioned that because one of the biggest complaints about DYK has been that the hooks are simply just boring. The thing is Sandy, the quality does vary considerably. Some editors like Mjroots, Thelmadatter or Simon Burchell only present near GA quality articles at DYK and their articles are mostly a pleasure to read. If that sort of quality was mandatory then they'd be far from disgusting. I think you are letting the bare minimum factory drilled barely past stub class articles on politicians, footballers etc which we usually see overshadow that of some of the decent content which does actually go through. An idea would be to place DYK proposals in front of a "committee" or something and only the cream of the crop so to speak reach the front page and for a longer duration like 12 hours or even 24 hours. The problem is a lot of people consider anything to do with DYK a waste of time. If it can be done in a way to encourage major improvement in quality of existing articles and actually gives an incentive to editors to radically improve existing content using reliable sources then it could be a positive thing. But the current situation of drilling any "reviewed" DYK for only a couple of hours has to change I think, there needs to be a minimum standard which is seen as such even by yourself and others who have high standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the quality is variable: I know many very good FA writers who start out at DYK. But the lowest common denominator prevails, and we should never be putting that kind of crap on the mainpage. I've proposed many times that they need a directorate or someone where the buck stops-- someone responsible for the horrid things they put on the mainpage. Why are you here? I periodically glance at DYK, see it's getting worse, post on their talk, get no one to pay attention, give up and leave. I have no desire to revisit DYK on my talk page-- I have real work to do, and that place is tone deaf, disgusting, embarrassing and hopeless. I've already told you I will look in after my move, and if I see the same STILL, I intend to take it on. Why are you proposing change here? I'm just one of many-- not enough-- who thinks DYK is an unmitigated disaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sandy you are undoubtedly one of the most respected individuals on wikipedia who has the potential with enough support to make major changes to the website. That's why I'm here. I agree we need to rid of the sloppy entries and pick the cream of the crop of those which are headed towards GA or higher. There is no such rush that every entry ever proposed for DYK hits the main page. We could cut it to only the best and try to get editors to raise the bar. If you think I'm tone deaf or ignorant of the obvious concern shared by yourself and many others on here which appear to be increasingly apparent then you are mistaken. But I agree with you that others are trying to shut out the concerns and still think of DYK as having some dignity . In reality DYK has lost almost any level of esteem or respect it ever had, if it did ever have it. I think this is wrong as it should at least be at a level where it is at least acknowledge by most as a positive thing. But I need your help and that of similar minded individuals if we are to give it the major reform that is needed. Everywhere I look I see disparaging comments towards DYK. And when it is directly involved with the most visited page in the whole encyclopedia and one of the most visited on the whole Internet its not good enough. Also I am aware of the achievement it is for an FA to be promoted and then eventually reach the main page and DYK requires a tiny percentage of the work and hits the main page. DYK should show case the best new content not every example of new content. I hope you will consider what I've said and when you finished moving that we form a formal proposal and try to get something changed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I've said, when I have time, if I don't see reform, I do intend to do something. But there are too many editors stalling necessary reform-- in fact, editors who don't understand the basic policies of Wikipedia or who have no sense of decency whatsoever-- and I doubt that I have enough influence to combat their numbers. DYK is symptomatic of the 95% of Wikipedia articles that are total garbage, and I don't see that changing-- that's why I prefer to stay away from those areas. It's disgusting and depressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm sure most editors who contribute to DYK are doing so in good faith. The problem is that many treat it as a game and are willing to warble on and use non RS just to get it through DYK. That's usually where the "disgusting" DYK percentage is derived from, rather than hose by the likes of Mjroots and Burchell who have itnent to nominate for GA soon after. The front page coverage should be seen as a major achievement, but the rapid fire of DYKs going through every few hours has taken this away. I for one have never cared about my DYKs hitting the main page, but I do like collaborating with other editors and building on each others' work which is what wikipedia is about. What we need above all is to enhance our number of GAs on the path to become FA. In order to achieve this we could set a bar that only GA candidates are eligible to hit the front page in a DYK and try to give it back some esteem from anything and everything hitting the page every few hours. How does that sound? Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The timing of your proposal wouldn't work-- it takes more time to work an article up to GA than it does to put up a crappy plagiarized non-reliably sourced DYK. Put up a proposal to scrap DYK and run GAs in their place. And start tracking the daily DYK outrage-- I have never, ever, not even once, glanced at the mainpage and not found a serious problem in DYK. Embarass them into some awareness by tracking their daily debacle-- I can't even remember some of the more horrid hooks and articles I've found over recent months, and wouldn't know where to go about relocating them. The first step is to create a Hall of Shame, because that's what DYK is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mmm. The way I see it we need a mechanism which dramatically increases our number of GA candidates (and which increases our number of competent GA reviewers to review them) as they are a precedent for the ultimate goal FA. Editors are willing to create poor quality start articles but are not motivated to produce GA quality work. That needs to change. What we need is to raise the esteem of DYK to the point where editors will be willing to spent more time on their article and pay attention to sourcing and quality of prose for being rewarded with it reaching the main page for a longer duration like 12 hours. As you say to oust DYK and replace with GA would be a good idea, although GA candidate did you knows would seem sensible. This way they would likely be of the standard you expect and showcase the cream of the most recent article expansions. A few of the DYKs I've created which had more time and effort put into them have ended up with a little more work passing GA and I've personally got much more satisfaction from writing them and being rewarded with a GA. That's exactly what we need to raise the standard and get every contributor to DYK to put that much more time and effort into individual articles rather than treating it as a game. What better way to do that than make the DYK proposals GA candidates. Getting support for this is going to be tough I agree but it is possible. We need to see the importance of GA in the whole process I think and encourage more editors to write to this level. If editors are motivated by having their articles appear on the main page (I'm not but most appear to be) then this could produce results.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't follow what you're talking about. Making new articles GA candidates will overwhelm GAN with ill-prepared articles. I don't have more time to spend on this now-- I just want DYK to stop stalling, denying, promoting sensationalist poorly sourced garbage and start meaningful attempts at reforming, or get their debacles off the mainpage. They have NO business being displayed on the mainpage, because the lowest common denominators there outweigh the good work done by some. It attracts marginal editors, who don't even know Wikipedia policies. Please take this discussion to an appropriate forum. I've already told you that I think the best way to address the DYK scandal is to begin to document the offenses in a daily DYK Hall of Shame. Otherwise, there are too many editors at work there who just don't care and have no sense of decency or understanding of policy. I'm repeating myself now-- there is nothing left to say here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes that could encourage many inappropriate candidates you are right. But we need something to only select the best articles for front page appearance not every article proposed. Anyway, I'll keep this in mind. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Here; you spot the problems. From a now-known DYK serial offender, yet they're still running 'em. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sandy and page watchers. I have proposed to oust did you know for new articles appearing on the front page with good article DYK and to demote the new expanded articles to a sub page. I have made a proposal here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, now I understand what you mean about tone deaf. Maybe you should create a DYK Hall of Shame, it might make some of them stop ignoring problematic articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Doubt it. We've got numerous regulars at DYK who don't understand sourcing, don't even know their own policies (how can you accept that a DYK is a certain size or expansion if most of the aricle is built on blog or unreliable sources, and most of the reviewers don't know what a reliable source is?), and who don't know plagiarism from copyvio from outright verbatim copying? They are truly ignorant, so can't help themselves-- DYK should be removed from the mainpage as it promotes the worst of Wikipedia's faults. Those editors who use DYK legitimately and understand Wikipedia policies will get their GAs and FAs anyway-- the problem is the editors who are using DYK to collect "rewards" but never go any farther and don't understand Wikipedia's policies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The astounding thing to me is that some of the "oppose" votes seem to deny that there is any flaw whatsoever with the "DYK is working perfectly fine" type comments. With people around like that we'll never get any reform. People just don't like change I guess. Or just like their 15 minutes of "fame" by having their articles appear on the page for 2 minutes. If that is all people are motivated by it seriously makes me question their purpose on here. If anything that's part of the problem, quite a few editors bloat their articles out with crap content and sources just to make it long enough to pass DYK requirements just so they can get their credit. It has to change as the front page is the most visited on the website. I don't know how we push this through, i think it would have to take a major scandal with a BLP or something to actually get any reform. The stalemate has also been the problem with new page redesign of course... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's like a drug-- they get addicted to their time on the mainpage, which they can get with a few moments of plagiarism, and don't want it taken away from them. It's an endorphin thingie I think. DYK attracts mediocrity-- those who move on to FA and GA are legit, but the serial offenders never do, because they can't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I believe you are right, why else would these people continue to ignore the obvious concerns of many on here and not even acknowledge or respect their concerns and justify keeping it without any effort to at least improve. Sigh. It is impossible to get any form of consensus in this way. Somehow though the wikipedia skin was changed to vector, I believe to be based on general feedback from wikipedia users. Perhaps it would be better if they just decided we are replacing DYK with good articles snippets and forced people to accept it. Sometimes intervention is needed. They are completely kidding themselves if they think a DYK appearing on the main page is suddenly going to ignite a passion and suddenly everybody starts contributing. The vast majority ignore visiting DYKs, the statistics show for themselves. We have an average of about 4.8 million visiting the main page of english wikipedia everyday. The vast majority of DYK articles don't get more than 2000 hits. If you do the math it works out as something like 1 out of every 2500 people actually visit a page which is rather pathetic. And I can count the number who have actually added meaningful content beyond basic edits to any of my DYKs (once it has hit the main page) on one thumb. Maybe its time we added a pop up on the main page and ask visitors on whether they could care less about our DYK feature. I suspect that way a consensus would be very clear.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Blofeld, what have you to say about this main page error DYK report? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing at DYK
Hi, at the RfC there's been a rather loud, colourful complaint by Philcha that WP:PARAPHRASE is just a proposal. I don't know what to do about this in relation to the RfC. Tony (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see Sandstein's also mentioned it. The issue is that it is not so much a stand-alone essay, as a practical interpretation of a very firm and pretty universal policy on copyvios and plagiarism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's always an excuse, a reason to continue enabling poor editing, isn't there? That's why I see the only solution is to shut it down-- we'll be having this same conversation with a new crop of DYKers, who don't know the history or policy, a year from now. There has been no improvement whatsoever since last October-- in fact, it's worse now. Proposal or not, we are seeing blatant verbatim copying-- and DYK regulars endorsing it. I'm done for today: gotta life ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh noes!
Space debris early closed again? Did you see that the person who added the cite needed tags did so with the note that they were for illustration purposes only, and could be removed after discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Space debris/archive2 here? I posted about this as well. What am I to do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Space debris/archive2??? With all respect, it's pretty presumptuous to consider this ready for FAC again. Nageh (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A question for you and your TPS's
A comment that Ling.Nut made some time ago has been haunting me ever since. To paraphrase him brutally, his basic premise was that anyone who can write ought not to, but should instead teach others how to write. And to extend that by putting words in Tony1's mouth, I've often seen him suggest that his copyediting footprint can be be bigger if he doesn't get too involved in specific articles.
My question therefore is this. For those of us who are more concerned about the quality of Wikipedia's content than our own bauble counts, or at least equally concerned about both, where should we focus our efforts? What's the best way to encourage better contributions, as opposed to more contributions? Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that's one way of looking at it. I try to copyedit as a reviewer at GAN and FAC - I think that is a good place to try and inoculate articles and article writers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- But rather few venture as far as GAN or FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should learn from the valued contributors who love to put smiley faces and cookies on each other's talk pages. No really. I'm not being sarcastic. I mean it. You see, the prob is, there are two hugely different worldviews at play, but we shouldn't leave it to the cookie patrol to always try to understand our POV. Our POV is that folks who tend to look strikingly like cookie patrollers come in, bollocks various articles up (all in good faith), make a big stir on various talk pages, nominate six woefully underprepared FACs at once, annoy everyone, and usually end up being chased off. But we need new blood, and there has to be a way to get from point A, where the cookie patrollers actually are huge PITAs, to point B, where they are genuinely valued contributors. Maybe we need to hand out more baubles bottom up, as an individual effort, rather than top down as some sort of official award. And more kind words too. If people like Malleus and I are too curmudgeonly to do so, then perhaps we should learn the wisdom that all frat boys know: every keg party needs a designated driver. So maybe FAC needs a designated nice person. ;-) But.... you know... backtracking on my own words just a tad, even while being nice, we have to urge people to respect the process. Many do not do so. I am not looking at anyone in particular as I write. Who should we nominate to be our Designated Nice Person? – Ling.Nut 02:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- But rather few venture as far as GAN or FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I don't think Tony's footprint exists as he thinks it does-- the minute he leaves FAC, the prose on some goes back to being as sloppy as ever. The only way to combat that is to stay in there, and Tony doesn't. Second, I don't think copyediting FACs for the nominators serves to teach nominators to write better, even if it does results in a few better articles, leading to ... Third, I think the biggest way to make a difference is to keep FAs clean (thereby giving an example) and by ample use of the Oppose button at FAC, instead of doing it for them, so that writers learn what won't get through and what they need to improve. I see 56 revisions to my page since I last logged on, so it's unlikely I'll wade through whatever is below this until I'm back home later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I learned to write from Tony1 and Malleus - from the lists of examples of poor prose listed on my nominations. I could take those examples and apply that to other articles. I also relied heavily in the beginning on some of Tony1's userpage essays on good prose. We need to be pointing more new editors to these types of essays, and giving concrete examples to help them. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Me too, I think alot of the sticklers for prose have been successful at imparting their knowledge onto others. It is one of the hardest things to learn - one only has to look at how indifferent many people are that are actually employed to write prose to see this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You give me too much credit Karanacs, and it's only fair to point out that Tony and I haven't always seen eye to eye, but then I guess nobody's likely to be surprised by that. To answer SandyG's point, my idea has been that by establishing good quality articles (FAs, GAs) then other editors have a template to follow. Despite what I often pretend, I have no particular interest in 17th-century English witch trials for instance, beyond what any other curious reader might have; my idea was simply to establish a way of writing them, as a model for others to follow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Misallocation of effort
While DYK certainly has problems, if your purpose is to get badly sourced, POV, policy-violating content of the main page I do think that a much better target of your awesome wrath would be "In the news" and "On this day". At least DYK has SOME standards, even if it doesn't always live up to them. Both of the other two don't even have that. Hell, In the News basically states outright it doesn't give a flip about quality of content:
Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article.
In other words, "sup-par" is perfectly alright. And I have yet to seen anyone really give a shit about "quality of the updated content" on those articles. The practice seems to be, if it's news it gets up there no matter how crappy the underlying article. "On This Day" is not much better. I've seen articles with a plethora of tags - NPOV, OR, Wikifiy, just to name a few - go up there. There's absolutely no credibility or oversight to these two projects.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, there's a thought. The very first link in the first item of On This Day, right now (it'll change in 18 minutes or so)... nearly one thousand words, number of inline citations, exactly one. And that's in the lead. Is there close paraphrasing in some of the rest of the article? Well, I don't think anyone's even going to find out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- So your defence of DYK is that it isn't as bad as OTD or ITN? Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Suppose it is. What then?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't "what then" obvious? What many have been arguing for some time now, that the main page needs modernising and a complete rethink. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- So why not start with OTD and ITN? Where's the (much more deserved) criticism of these features of the main page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't "what then" obvious? What many have been arguing for some time now, that the main page needs modernising and a complete rethink. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Suppose it is. What then?Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The main page does? Or Wikipedia does? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is he defending DYK? I thought it was pretty indefensible. How about On This Day?
- From Wikipedia's article on Anatolia, linked from the main page in the On This Day section just now;
- "Located on the west coast of Anatolia, the Aegean region has a fertile soil and a typically Mediterranean climate; with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The broad, cultivated lowland valleys contain about half of the country's richest farmlands.
- The largest city..." (Incidentally, half of which country? Anatolia isn't a country.)
- From Turkey: A Country Study, prepared in 1995 by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, and not cited in the Wikipedia article at all;
- "On its Asian side, the Aegean region has a fertile soil and a typically Mediterranean climate; with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The broad, cultivated lowland valleys contain about half of the country's richest farmlands. Major crops are olives, ..."
- Well, it's certainly not paraphrasing, that's for sure. Maybe the book's public domain as a federal work and therefore this isn't a copyvio. Google Books doesn't seem to think so, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think what you're getting there is the probably subconsciously known but rarely discussed fact that as soon as you scratch something like ... I don't know, 85%? of wikipedia you're gonna get exactly that. Plagiarism and copy vios. In a strange way the POV battleground articles are better in that respect since there you at least get people making stuff up. Crazy stuff oftentimes, to be sure, but at least their own crazy stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, the main page needs to be completely rethought, and all the petty barons who claim control over some small part of it need to be eliminated. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The main page shows off what the "encyclopedia"'s about. And it does exactly that. In a way it's not its fault. Anyway, like I'm saying, if you're gonna start agitatin' for removing crappy content of the main page, ITN and OTD are much better places to start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed with both of you. Appointing more "directorates" (or petty barons, if that's what you want to call them) is unlikely to be the way forward. And the Featured Article part of the main page isn't immune either. From People's Republic of China, currently linked from the main page in the "Today's featured article" section;
- As I said, the main page needs to be completely rethought, and all the petty barons who claim control over some small part of it need to be eliminated. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- "In November 2010 Japan's government said, output in China, the largest maker of mobile phones, computers and vehicles, surpassed Japan for the second straight quarter in the three months through September 2010. The Chinese economy overtook the UK as the fourth largest in 2005 and tipped Germany from third place in 2007."
- From the cited source;
- "Output in China, the largest maker of mobile phones, computers and vehicles, surpassed Japan for the second straight quarter in the three months through September, Japan’s government said today. The Chinese economy overtook the U.K. as the fourth largest in 2005 and tipped Germany from third place in 2007." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Re Anatolia, you got the same copy vio in Geography_of_Turkey.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Mmm, Malleus, what exactly are you referring to? The China article? Or the Anatolia one?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of Anatolia or China? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question? Anyway. The Anatolia source dates back to 1995, clearly predating Wikipedia. The China source dates to Nov 14, 2010 (at least that's what it says). At that time the relevant text was NOT in the Wikipedia article [2]. But maybe I'm something, which is why it'd be helpful if you bothered to articulate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please try engaging your brain. And when you've done so please try arranging these letters into a well-known phrase or saying: "kufc fof". Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You really can't help being a useless asshole can you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm useless? I've done more to improve Wikipedia than you could ever dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you two don't stop arguing, I'm going to give both of you a User:Ling.Nut/Barnstar of Awesomeness. Malleus is right; downstream Wikifluvia is a huge problem in determining what is or isn't copyvio and plagiarism. It makes the wayback machine necessary. – Ling.Nut 02:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will never stop arguing. Do you know who it was said that truth springs from argument amongst friends? Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- So can you clarify this? Or else I'm going to start always referring to him as Malleus "I've done more for Wikipedia than you can ever dream of" Fatuorum. At best, the text was sourced to old text from Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may refer to me as you please. But I will of course refer to you as "dick head". Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't actually looked at the dates in question, but I can tell you, this is a huge problem. I used to spend literally twent or thirty minutes per passage going back and forth between the article history (trying to find the genesis of the passage on Wikipedia) and the wayback machine (trying to find the earliest off-wiki version). What a HUGE PITA! There's a wikiblame gadget that looks useful in this respect. I haven't used it yet. – Ling.Nut 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm useless? I've done more to improve Wikipedia than you could ever dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- You really can't help being a useless asshole can you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please try engaging your brain. And when you've done so please try arranging these letters into a well-known phrase or saying: "kufc fof". Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(←) Mayhaps this will help: article blamer. – Ling.Nut 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Turkey book appears to contain no material later than 1996. It was being published in 2004 by Kessinger Publishing, but was more likely published earlier than that in other editions. Anyway, in 2004 neither the Anatolia article nor the Geography of Turkey article contained anything even remotely resembling the text in question. (Turkey, as at 1st January 2005, has only a fragment of it.)
- As for the Bloomberg piece, it lists Shamim Adam as the reporter writing the piece, and Chris Anstey as the editor responsible for it. It provides email addresses for both of them. So we could email them asking if they copied a Wikipedia article that said "in November 2010" and turned it into a Bloomberg piece saying "today", but I don't think we'd get a very positive response. And anyway, the Wikipedia article cites the Bloomberg piece as its source, as I already said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps in this case the malfeasance is on the Wikipedia side, but the Wikifluvia problem still remains real... As for your original complaints, however, I agree that all of the sections of main page should be up to WIAFA standards!!!!! That "others will fix it" stuff is horsesh*t that should be reserved for stubs only. We should take pride in the quality of our main page in its entirety; not in having our names associated with a piece of rubbish that mars it. – Ling.Nut 03:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually they would have added "Japan’s government said today" - which I doubt was ever "freshly" in a Wikipedia article. So either it's a pretty major piece of journalistic dishonesty or it was in fact a Wikipedia copy vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is fairly clear that User:Gsarwa copied the Bloomberg piece in this edit. The Bloomberg article appears in a number of news sources, all attributing Bloomberg. It's their business to supply financial reports to newspapers and to be 100% certain of their facts. People make financial decisions based on what they write. Their clients would be extremely upset if the reports they paid for were not original, fresh and accurate content, but in fact rehashed text from Wikipedia [Though I don't disagree it happens regularly elsewhere]. A quick scan of Gsarwa's contribution history and talk page shows that while he's pretty good at citing his sources, he's not perhaps up-to-speed on the need to be original. Take this edit and this source for example. He even copied the headline. Colin°Talk 07:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Executive summary: The original point of this thread was "stop singling out DYK; other sections suck worse". We have established that other sections do in fact suck. Along the way, we have established that determining who sucks is not always straightforward, though at times it may be. That's about it. – Ling.Nut 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- So... what was Malleus "I've done more... ok I'll leave that out just this once - going on about with the "you need to spend more time to investigate who's copied from who"?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- And btw, someone might wanna look into copyvios in GAs [3]. There's probably more but I got bored. They don't seem hard to find though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're boring and I'm bored. Wikipedia is a mental sump, and I'm unsuited to it. Go about your business spreading your crap all over the internet, I can't stop you. Malleus Fatuorum 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) This thread has already accomplished every positive thing that it conceivably could (and it has established one or two facts; see executive summary above)... as for all else... This is sandy's talk page. If you have some perverse desire to mire yourself in a pointless and probably prolonged (alliteration: it's catching) personal argument with Malleus, his talk page is thataway -->. As for GA, Sandy doesn't work there. it's pointless to walk in to McDonalds and complain about BurgerKing. – Ling.Nut 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- it's pointless to walk in to McDonalds and complain about BurgerKing - I thought we were complaining about fast food in general. I was just complaining about the over priced fast food.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's disappointing, Malleus, since your expertise and experience could be very relevant in one of the GA issues Marek has highlighted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Meh. Stop arguing and start fixing, lest ye become a part of the problem rather than the solution.... It's what we're here for, isn't it? – Ling.Nut 08:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, let's hope to see more of that - regardless of whose particular corner of territory problems are found in (or sought in). Now, we'd better move all the furniture back to how it was before, before Sandy returns and sees what a mess we've been making. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck off Demiurge, I really have had it with you and your like. It's quite clear that what Wikipedia needs an infinite number of children typing away at an infinite number of articles, in the hope that one day they'll make something useful. Until then you can go screw yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it is the responsibility of FAR to examine every linked article in an FAC isn't it? I really think Demiurge would appreciate that if one clicks on a link in an article anywhere on Wiki the probability is that you will find errors of those sorts after a while; and more importantly the article in question has been de-listed as an FA since mid 2009 and is at B-class presently. Being an FA does not guarantee that the linked articles are going to even be at C class.
- P.S. - where is the copyvio notice that you placed on the page? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting question - I haven't reviewed the listing of the responsibilities of FAR, so you'll have to tell me what they are. The point here is that there has been some considerable outrage about plagiarised articles being linked from the main page by the DYK project, and Marek was pointing out that DYK is far from the only project where that occurs. In fact, possibly it occurs less at DYK than in the other sections. Just because something isn't an FA doesn't make it acceptable for copyvio to be linked from the main page, does it? As regards copyvio notices, I was following SandyGeorgia's approach in making it a priority to alert people of the issue first. Having re-examined the relevant guidelines, I must admit that's probably not best practice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're boring and I'm bored. Wikipedia is a mental sump, and I'm unsuited to it. Go about your business spreading your crap all over the internet, I can't stop you. Malleus Fatuorum 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Note, not ignoring this discussion intentionally, but just ran out of time today and haven't even read it yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK, my apologies for the delay in responding here ... I have a few moments this evening. I agree that ITN and OTD are every bit as bad as DYK, and I agree that 85% of Wikipedia suffers from this crap. Here's what makes DYK "special". Have you *ever* seen an RFA launched with a claim of good content based on the number of ITNs or OTDs? Have you *ever* seen a serial sockpuppeteer or disruptive editor claim in an arbcase that their contributions are worthy because they have hundreds of ITNs or OTDs? Have you *ever* seen an editor at ITN or OTD create hundreds of useless, policy-violating stubs and do nothing else because they're capable of nothing more? I haven't. ITN and OTD and yes most of Wikipedia below the GA level is complete garbage, but the difference is that DYK rewards, enables, and feeds these kinds of editors systemically and in HUGE quantities based on the ease with which they can put up complete crap, get rewarded for it, and then use those "rewards" to claim they are good enough editors to earn the tools or to avoid sanction at ArbCom. I know one serial sockpuppeteer who has written nothing above the DYK level, unwatched faulty DYKs the minute she got her "reward", and never corrected issues raised on the talk there, but is considered to be a good content creator because of the number of DYKs. Anyone who watches RFA can attest to how often DYK is used to grease the climb up the RFA pole, by editors who have no notion of Wikipedia policy. And I know of no other process on Wikipedia that rewards editors for churning out hundreds and hundreds of articles that violate policy, without anyone ever correcting them. DYK is either indifferent, incapable, or both, because every serial offender who turns up there has done so much damage to the Project by the time outsiders start screaming about it that there is no chance their garbage will ever be cleaned up. ITN and OTD do not offer the possibility of such widespread damage (although I admit that they both offer a haven for POV pushers, based on my experience). I hope that answers the question, and apologize for the fast, sloppy typing and delay. DYK breeds bad editing at levels which cannot ever be cleaned up, and they have done NOTHING about if for years, and their addition of QPQ reviews after the last highly publicized debacle only made it worse. Of course I'd rather see all of them off the mainpage, replaced by vetted content, but DYK is by far the worst offender. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- One more thing: by shining a light on these glaring abuses, change can be effected. Years (MANY years) ago, GA was atrocious, with anybody passing anything, akin to DYK. Many editors kicked and screamed until, lo and behold, editors like Malleus and Geometry guy got in there and fixed it, and a GA by and large today means something, and offenders are rooted out. Shine a light on the worst mainpage offender (DYK), get it cleaned up, and see how much easier it will be to next clean up ITN and OTD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving the copyvio issue on that GA, Malleus, I knew you wouldn't let us down. Let's keep GA a wholesome example, and keep atrocious behind us. I am all in favour of green blobs, and I even do a little to oppose
graygrey goo. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving the copyvio issue on that GA, Malleus, I knew you wouldn't let us down. Let's keep GA a wholesome example, and keep atrocious behind us. I am all in favour of green blobs, and I even do a little to oppose
Sandy, I think you're right - but note that the problem is also with RFA, which allows this process to take place. Also I'm not quite sure that GA is immune from some of these problems. It took me a little more than half an hour to find three articles (probably about 1/4 of articles I checked) with copyright violations in them - and that's just the blatant ones, where an English language source being violated is linked within the article. One of them, as mentioned above, was fixed by Nev1 and Malleus, the other two are still up there despite the fact that I brought it up in a bunch of different places [4] (I'm going to take care of it myself though my intent was also to alert the GA people to the fact that they may have a potential problem on their hands). I'm also not going to name names here, but it seems that some GA reviewers don't actually understand what "copyright" means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Butting in, I think it's a systemic issue and most likely exists to some extent or another one a large percentage of pages, whether or not they've been reviewed. Sorry, Sandy, I was keeping up with this situation, but too many posts, and I was pulled off in a different direction - finally trying to catch up. If anyone has a question regarding copyvio, to verify it, or how to explain, whether eyes are needed on a page, please don't hesitate to ping me. VM, I've looked at your example above and see that there's a fundamental problem in explaining to an editor that copy/paste and then dropping in a cite, is not the way to go. Let me know if you need help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- VM, yes on both. What brought my interest to the DYK issue is how RFA feeds the faulty editing there. On GAs, I always and specifically look to see who passed the GA-- that usually tells me all I need to know. The problem at DYK is that an outsider can't easily look to see who did what-- hopefully that is being solved by an archiving system, which was also done at GA, and which gave GA more accountability. When a GA appears at FAC, the first thing I look for is who passed the GA. I have no doubt that 85% of Wikipedia contains copyvio-- my issue with DYK is that they have instances of multiple editors who create hundreds and hundreds of them, and DYK never detects them or addresses even the known instances (they knew about the Hathorn issues for years, and they never detected any of their repeat offenders until they came to my attention at RFA, and there are by now about a dozen or so of those). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It might be of interest that all three of the GAs with the copyright vios in them (the third one being Lajjun), went through DYK in more or less the same state and the problems were not caught there at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of accuracy, in the article that Nev1 and I fixed up (Rochdale Town Hall) the problem was plagiarism rather than a copyright violation, as the material is in the public domain. Arguably it was even in strict accord with Wikipedia's rather lax policy on plagiarism, but that's no excuse of course. It ought to have been caught sooner, but it's fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well since I awarded GA to Lajjun and also Ein Avdat which is under review by Volunteer Marek (see Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2), I assume that Volunteer Marek is specifically having a go at my GAN reviews: even if he/she/it is not going to name names. Well, Volunteer Marek, there are another 399 reviews for you to look at (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) and there is more to follow. I'm not too impressed, by your Talk:Ein Avdat/GA2, I know bullshit when I see it. Apparently if we get enough monkeys typeing they will create the works of Shakespear. Well in this case it seems to be a case of a biased editor, pre-deciding that reviewer(s) don't know about copyright, running a tool, finding apparent copyright violations, doing minimal date checks, and making sarky comments about reviewers; and ignoring the copyvio procedures. If you were that concerned about GA copyvios you would be providing proper training and instructions to GAN reviewers, rather than bad mouthing them here. I'm tempted to cherry picksome of Malleus' comments - but I might get banned. Perhaps that is good: no more Copyvios', at leased in the eyes of a biased editor. Supprisingly the reviews don't write the articles, that's no allowed, so we did not make the copyvios we just failed to find them. Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of accuracy, in the article that Nev1 and I fixed up (Rochdale Town Hall) the problem was plagiarism rather than a copyright violation, as the material is in the public domain. Arguably it was even in strict accord with Wikipedia's rather lax policy on plagiarism, but that's no excuse of course. It ought to have been caught sooner, but it's fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It might be of interest that all three of the GAs with the copyright vios in them (the third one being Lajjun), went through DYK in more or less the same state and the problems were not caught there at the time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whoa there. I don't think I even realized that you reviewed both of these articles for GA until just now. I probably WOULD have brought it up had I noticed it, since it does seem to be pertinent. And no I'm not "having a go at" your GAN reviews - I have no idea who you are, never (AFAIK) interacted with you before etc. I was just clicking more or less randomly on various Geography GAs (since then I've started a more systematic approach [5]) and checking them for copyvios and these were two of the three I found (and yes MF is right that the Rochdale one technically was not a copyvio since the source was in PD).
- And what do you mean you are not "impressed" with my comments at Ein Avdat/GA2? Is it a copy vio or not? What do you mean it's "bullshit"? It certainly looks like a copyvio to me. And what do monkeys and Shakespear have to do with any of it? And fuck you too buddy (I've been civil - in fact hardly said anything to you - up until now but this is too much), I've spent quite a bit of my valuable time making sure that the sources used in the article did in fact predate Wikipedia ("doing minimal date checks" - nope). I did not "pre-decide that (you) don't know about copyright" - I've never said anything about that (or much else to you). However, your comments at Ein Avdat/GA2 do suggest you're not very familiar with Wikipedia copyright policy and you yourself admit there that "I'm no expert on copyvio". And how the hell am I biased? Let me spell it out for you again: I don't even know you.
- You're over-reacting here. What's worse you're actually mis-reacting here. Rather than saying, "oh shit, stuff slipped through, should've been more careful, will fix it", which would've been the proper response - and hey, it happens, people do make mistakes - you're freaking out, accusing me of all sorts of things and denying that a problem exists with those two articles. Not very good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not just you Pyrotec, me as well, as I did the review on Rochdale Town Hall. What can I say except that we're all fallible humans? Unlike DYK though there's proper archiving of all GA reviews, so it's easy to see who's done what, and when. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, Pyrotec, I think I just found another (major) GA copyvio and it looks like you'll have some respectable company from the reviewers soon, so don't worry. And I'll probably end up as the most hated person on Wikipedia (after Malleus of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- In response: I would never say "oh shit, stuff slipped through, should've been more careful, will fix it", so that is not the "proper response" for me. I've already placed on record that, if and when you prove copyvio in Ein Avdat, I'm happy (I stated: I have no objections) to you removing GA-status. I was not aware until now of Lajjun, but similar comments apply: if there are copyvios, remove GA-status. Doing a GAN takes considerable time and effort; and, to quote your own comment above "I've spent quite a bit of my valuable time making sure that the sources used in the article did in fact predate Wikipedia", you appear to have spent considerable time over and above my review in verifing the presence of copyvios in Ein Avdat. Your own comments "I haven't done GAR before" suggests that you are not familar with GAN/R reviews: and, let's face it, you are not doing a full review, just proving sufficient evidence of copyvio, with a predetermined (rightly so) agenda of removing GA-status if and when the copyvio is not fixed. Its your approach, that causes me the most irriatation. You appear to be a copyvio expert who knows little about GA reviews. I do understand what "copyright" means", but what I don't understand is "proving" copyright violation. Anyone can run a tool that shows two lines of text are very similar: but I was not aware that they existed on wikipedia. Proving that, for example, wikipedia copied text that originated on another web site, rather than another web site hosting text that it copied from another site that was copied from a mirror of wikipedia, is not a process that I have ever practiced. You do not appear to be interested in providing practical help and assisting to GA reviewers in checking for copyvio and for "proving it"; and you appear to have no appreciation of the workload of a full GA review plus a full copyvio check when suspect lines of text are found. I have encountered copyvio before, there was a very strong suspission of copyvio on at least two educational-project GAN articles I reviewed; I called on the expert services of User:Moonriddengirl to "prove" copyvio. I have no objections to my reviews being overturned for copyvios that I've not found, but I do object to comments such as "denying that a problem exists with those two articles" and not "understanding copyright". Pyrotec (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, at this point you've lost me and I don't really know what to respond to. Since it does look like that article violates copyright, I'm going to delist it. The "don't understand copyright" thing was in reference to your assertion (as I understood it) that because a website didn't assert copyright it could be copy/pasted into wikipedia. And just to be clear, while I'm using DD tool as a... tool, after I see that it indicates lots of copying (not just "two lines of text" but most of the article) I go through and use another tool, my eyes, to verify that the article does indeed copy extensively (in many cases there are short to medium strings of text which are not copyvios but official names or names of other sources and the like). So yes, it's actually a lot more time consuming then it might seem - I'm not listing every single thing I did when reviewing for copyright violations just like up until recently I have not been listing every single article I've checked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and the "not name names" was not in reference to you either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- In response: I would never say "oh shit, stuff slipped through, should've been more careful, will fix it", so that is not the "proper response" for me. I've already placed on record that, if and when you prove copyvio in Ein Avdat, I'm happy (I stated: I have no objections) to you removing GA-status. I was not aware until now of Lajjun, but similar comments apply: if there are copyvios, remove GA-status. Doing a GAN takes considerable time and effort; and, to quote your own comment above "I've spent quite a bit of my valuable time making sure that the sources used in the article did in fact predate Wikipedia", you appear to have spent considerable time over and above my review in verifing the presence of copyvios in Ein Avdat. Your own comments "I haven't done GAR before" suggests that you are not familar with GAN/R reviews: and, let's face it, you are not doing a full review, just proving sufficient evidence of copyvio, with a predetermined (rightly so) agenda of removing GA-status if and when the copyvio is not fixed. Its your approach, that causes me the most irriatation. You appear to be a copyvio expert who knows little about GA reviews. I do understand what "copyright" means", but what I don't understand is "proving" copyright violation. Anyone can run a tool that shows two lines of text are very similar: but I was not aware that they existed on wikipedia. Proving that, for example, wikipedia copied text that originated on another web site, rather than another web site hosting text that it copied from another site that was copied from a mirror of wikipedia, is not a process that I have ever practiced. You do not appear to be interested in providing practical help and assisting to GA reviewers in checking for copyvio and for "proving it"; and you appear to have no appreciation of the workload of a full GA review plus a full copyvio check when suspect lines of text are found. I have encountered copyvio before, there was a very strong suspission of copyvio on at least two educational-project GAN articles I reviewed; I called on the expert services of User:Moonriddengirl to "prove" copyvio. I have no objections to my reviews being overturned for copyvios that I've not found, but I do object to comments such as "denying that a problem exists with those two articles" and not "understanding copyright". Pyrotec (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
(←) (after ec) I believe I can follow this thread in this manner:
- Several people, largely comprised of FAC reviewers and perhaps with Malleus as their most vocal member, jumped on DYK for consistently low-quality production. [Mind you, this has been brewing for a very, very long time. I personally lost at least one or two !votes on my RfA for complaining about it, and that was a fairly long time ago.. and that was also far from the beginning of this saga.] The focus of the complaints seems to have narrowed at some point to copyvio, although I am aware that the complaints have been far broader than that over the history of this issue.
- DYK people, feelings hurt by the sharpness of the thrust of the negative comments, say "I know we have problems, but we are not alone!!" They then begin producing examples of other Wikipedia processes that have shoddy output.
- Once this flushing of skeletons out of the closet commenced, people began looking for problems that the group of complainers overlooked, with special emphasis on Malleus.
- Tit for tat ensues; individuals from both "sides" guilty of it (but not everyone from either side, of course). More feelings hurt. More tit for tat. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Is that a fair summary? ...Now, we've all been around Wikipedia long enough to know that mutual apologies are completely out of the question, and the very idea would provoke indignant noises from both sides of the tit for tat. So let's brush that option aside and think about other ways to be productive. Hmmmm. How about this:
- Every single process on Wikipedia sucks to one degree or another. Every... single... one.
- Wikipedia is a unified construct with individual components that seem vastly different, but really aren't.
- No one is paid to do this; we do it in our free time.
- There are no (well, few) bureaucratic processes that create the kind of redundancies that we love to hate (by and large, for good reason), but that do in fact shore up the labors of the group.
- FAC perhaps sucks noticeably less because it is a very prolonged process involving a team effort, often employing a fruitful division of labor... It also attracts the most experienced content reviewers (some of whom have published academic articles). But even FAC can slip up.
- All processes – even FAC – suffer from an inadequate supply of experienced reviewers and editors. that's one more reason why all processes suck to one degree or another.
- Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is quite difficult to catch. As we have discussed ad nauseum, downstream Wikifluvia makes determining "who said what, when" a very, very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Given that, missing instances of copyvio is simply to be expected from any one reviewer, and even (to a lesser degree) from a group of reviewers. Simply put, it is a cost of doing information business on the Internet.
- Given all of the above, can we now deal with the situation realistically, as a nearly unavoidable feature of the Wikipedia construct, rather than as a forum for airing interpersonal griefs? – Ling.Nut (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
FAC today
Hi Sandy. My internet has not been turned on at the new house (grrr) and I have limited time not at home today. It may be turned on today, but no guarantees. I could probably run through FAC tomorrow, but no time today. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sympathise Karen, I was off the air for 2 days following our recent move, twice as long as I was led to believe by our supposedly premium provider... :-P If you are lucky enough to be up and running tomorrow, I think Valston Hancock has had all the required checks and supports, though of course I'm biased... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to whine about my moving problems, 'cuz ... well, never mind. I'll do what I can as soon as I'm able (I haven't even read the thread above yet ... I spose DYK will have to continue to abuse of the Wikipedia and I need to return my attention to FAC until their next egregious offense). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- My internet is back up and running! Only took 4 hours on the phone with AT&T followed by a four-day delay before they sent someone out. Reminder, I am leaving town Friday and won't be back until the 8th. Heaven knows I need a vacation - and so do you, Sandy! Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm taking mine :) Would you be able to get through today, and then I can handle next week? I won't be home til Sunday ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oopsie, Karanacs, still catching up, I see you already went through. Thanks !!! I'll get next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm taking mine :) Would you be able to get through today, and then I can handle next week? I won't be home til Sunday ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- My internet is back up and running! Only took 4 hours on the phone with AT&T followed by a four-day delay before they sent someone out. Reminder, I am leaving town Friday and won't be back until the 8th. Heaven knows I need a vacation - and so do you, Sandy! Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to whine about my moving problems, 'cuz ... well, never mind. I'll do what I can as soon as I'm able (I haven't even read the thread above yet ... I spose DYK will have to continue to abuse of the Wikipedia and I need to return my attention to FAC until their next egregious offense). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
For your information (re: Billy H and DYK)
A CCI request on Billy has been filed here. At this time, it has not been formally accepted, but you may wish to comment anyways, as I have, or follow the situation as it unfolds. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, Sven, I appreciate it, although I doubt I'll have time to followup from here on in-- he is but one symptom of the systemic problems at DYK, and we should stop these problems where they start so we don't breed more editors like this. I don't see how CCI can keep up, and the sourcing issues with this editors are as problematic as the copyvio issues, but the real problem is that DYK enables and breeds this type of editing. I'm not going to be able to follow for the near future ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
S&M FAC
So what's happening with the FAC for S&M? It hasn't failed has it? Because I've done near on everything which was asked, I was about to complete it. Calvin • 999 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Linky. Calvin999, the review was archived, which means it was not promoted to FA status this time around. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why? I had done 99% of what was asked of me? What else was there possibly to do? And why hasn't the article history been updated saying not promoted then? Calvin • 999 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's a bot that does that, it probably hasn't been through yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Calvin, it's not just marking off the examples the reviewers put down. If there aren't any support declarations, then the article can't be promoted. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Four opposes are a hefty burden to overcome, and reviewers are unlikely to continue to engage, as the level of Oppose could indidcate the article wasn't FAC ready. You'll have a much better shot if you make sure you've satisfied all previous opposers and then come back in two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why? I had done 99% of what was asked of me? What else was there possibly to do? And why hasn't the article history been updated saying not promoted then? Calvin • 999 13:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this?
What does "db-g6'd" mean here and here? --Boycool (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted as routine cleanup. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since I'm here, may I re-nominate Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger or would you like me to wait until tomorrow? --Boycool (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Boycool: the first FAC for that article was closed on July 16th, so you need to wait 14 days, or until July 30th to renominate it. Additionally, I would suggest that you contact the opposers from the first FAC to get their opinions on the current state of the article before renomination. A premature renomination may just be an invitation for opposition again this time around. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since I'm here, may I re-nominate Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger or would you like me to wait until tomorrow? --Boycool (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Fine. SandyGeorgia, do you think Chuck Versus the Cliffhanger is now ready to be re-nominated for featured article? --Boycool (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)