Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
::::Thank you... that helped. |
::::Thank you... that helped. |
||
::::I am not happy that this is a default function operated by a bot... the fact that this particular bot is listing '''un'''related articles under the heading of "related articles" is a problem. I have fixed the issue at the specific article by suggesting better links... but I have to wonder how many ''other'' completely '''un'''related articles this bot is connecting. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
::::I am not happy that this is a default function operated by a bot... the fact that this particular bot is listing '''un'''related articles under the heading of "related articles" is a problem. I have fixed the issue at the specific article by suggesting better links... but I have to wonder how many ''other'' completely '''un'''related articles this bot is connecting. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 15:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
== A science experiment run on Wikipedia without notification == |
|||
This issue has sought a forum at ANI (introduced by {{U|Antimanipulator}}: {{diff2|802768953|permlink}}) and the conflict of interest noticeboard (introduced by me, {{U|Bri}}: {{diff2|803504715|permlink}}) without effect. It's an issue I think the wider community should have a chance to weigh in on. A summary of the circumstances is a not-yet-peer-reviewed [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039505 working paper] coming from academics at MIT and University of Pittsburgh. In a nutshell, the paper involved graduate students creating new Wikipedia articles over a period of years and observing the results on other media. It is not clear to me what was the source of funding for the experiment, whether or not the graduate students were compensated explicitly for the articles, and which individual or individuals operated the account ({{U|Carolineneil}}) that appears to have introduced the material to Wikipedia. My concerns are as follows. |
|||
# This appears to be psychological research on uninformed experimentees. |
|||
# Undisclosed, yearslong research projects on Wikipedia concerning introduction of material ''in and of itself'' could undermine confidence in Wikipedia content. |
|||
# We don't know what the arrangement between Thompson and Hanley and their staff was; was it coerced? paid? cooperative? This is important. |
|||
# Was the material introduced through one account, as appears to be the case? if so this is a violation of [[WP:ROLE|no role account policy]]. |
|||
# Copyright attribution and Creative Commons licensing since the paper explicitly states that "PhD students drafted articles", which is related to issue 4 on role accounts but an additional legal-ethical violation if one individual attested to license consent granted by the others. |
|||
I'm closing the COIN discussion so that things can continue here with wider participation, and wider consideration of concerns beyond conflict of interest. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:42, 3 October 2017
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
Wikimedia Conference Russia 2017 (Oct.14-15) banner
Dear colleagues, please comment on CentralNotice banner proposal for Wikimedia Conference Russia 2017 announcement (Russian globally + other languages for readers from Russia). Thank you.--Frhdkazan (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Interlanguage link problem
Maproom said in responding to this help desk question that only one English language article can link to the corresponding article in another language. I asked about this before but from the point of view of the other language. I thought I had found the solution but the German article Siemens VAI does not link to the English article Siemens VAI. I have proposed, but gotten no response, that because the German Siemens VAI is a redirect to Primetals Technologies, and the English Siemens VAI has no content that seems worthwhile, the English article should redirect to Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau (in German, a redirect to the German Primetals) and content from the Siemens article should go there or in the English Primetals Technologies. This would be the only solution since it doesn't seem possible for the German Wikipedia to link to the current English Siemens VAI.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The results are in for the Administrator Confidence Survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team Wikipedia English Administrator Confidence Survey results are in. Thank you to the 117 participants who filled out the survey. :-)
A copy of the raw results can be found on the results page. Initial impressions of the raw results are welcome on this talk page.
On Monday, October 2, 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team will share further results from the comments section of the survey and our preliminary analysis. The team wants to work with the community to identity significant findings and how that it could influence our team's work on tool development.
Later in October, we will have second discussion that will focus on the finding in the survey comments sections that are directed towards policy changes or different ways of reporting and managing cases.
Again, thank you for participating in the survey. And look forward to discussing the results on Monday. For Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
PD-textlogo on Freightliner's 1996+ logo?
Hello!
The PD-textlogo banner was already present in the permission field of the infobox for the 1996+ Freightliner logo, so I reused it as main banner for the license section (although it appears to be an old version of the template?): the logo was formerly misdated as a 1942 version, giving it then the PD-US-not renewed banner. Was it the right way to go about it? -- BarnCas (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye
Hello,
As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.
The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.
Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
UTM coordinates
The project is centred on UTM coordinates 510,000 E 7,350,000 N (UTM WGS 84). Where is this in lat/long coordinates?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what "the project" is, but this page should be able to do the calculation for you: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/utm-latitude-longitude-d_1370.html Note that you need to specify the UTM zone as well as the east/north values. Chuntuk (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello :-)
The Anti-Harassment Tools team reviewed the feedback from the Admin Confidence Survey and did a preliminary analysis of the comments related to tech tools. We are sharing these results today so that the English Wikipedia community can begin discussing the results.
In two weeks the Anti-Harassment Tools team will release more preliminary analysis about the survey comments related to policy, training, and reporting methods.
Again, thank you to everyone who participated in the survey. Whether you participated in the survey or not, we are interested in your thoughts about the results.
If you still would like to provide comments privately to the Anti-Harassment Tools team, you can email the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikimania userboxes
Some years ago I created a set of Wikimania attendee userboxes. It occurs to me that I should let people know these exist!
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2005 in Frankfurt, Germany. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2006 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2007 in Taipei, Taiwan. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria, Egypt. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2009 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2010 in Gdańsk, Poland. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2011 in Haifa, Israel. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C., United States. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong, China. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2014 in London, United Kingdom. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City, Mexico. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario, Italy. |
![]() | This user attended Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, Canada. |
Cheers! bd2412 T 04:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I am confused by how Wikipedia chooses its "related articles" to link to in mobile view ... and I can not figure out how to edit them.
To give the specifics that bring me here: I was reading our article on the actress Molly McGreevey (who happens to be a relative of mine). At the bottom of the page (in mobile view) are several links to "related articles". Included are links to the articles on her husband (the Actor Earl Hindman, and her Grandfather (the businessman Augustus G. Paine, Jr.)... both of which seem appropriate ... But there is also a link to the article on former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey... and there is absolutely no connection between Jim and Molly.
I tried to edit the link, but can not figure out how to do so. These "related articles" don't appear anywhere in edit mode (neither in desktop view nor mobile view) ... and I don't think this is another Wikidata insertion (it isn't there either). So... two questions: 1) how does mobile view determine what articles are "related" (and thus linked)? 2) and how does one edit "related articles" that may be inappropriate? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- You can't edit them and they're not based on Wikidata. I believe there is a phabricator task to be able to edit them. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- so how does a user gain access this "phabricator task"? Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- They are determined by a search feature but it's already possible to override with
{{#related:}}
. See mw:Extension:RelatedArticles. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you... that helped.
- I am not happy that this is a default function operated by a bot... the fact that this particular bot is listing unrelated articles under the heading of "related articles" is a problem. I have fixed the issue at the specific article by suggesting better links... but I have to wonder how many other completely unrelated articles this bot is connecting. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- They are determined by a search feature but it's already possible to override with
- so how does a user gain access this "phabricator task"? Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A science experiment run on Wikipedia without notification
This issue has sought a forum at ANI (introduced by Antimanipulator: permlink) and the conflict of interest noticeboard (introduced by me, Bri: permlink) without effect. It's an issue I think the wider community should have a chance to weigh in on. A summary of the circumstances is a not-yet-peer-reviewed working paper coming from academics at MIT and University of Pittsburgh. In a nutshell, the paper involved graduate students creating new Wikipedia articles over a period of years and observing the results on other media. It is not clear to me what was the source of funding for the experiment, whether or not the graduate students were compensated explicitly for the articles, and which individual or individuals operated the account (Carolineneil) that appears to have introduced the material to Wikipedia. My concerns are as follows.
- This appears to be psychological research on uninformed experimentees.
- Undisclosed, yearslong research projects on Wikipedia concerning introduction of material in and of itself could undermine confidence in Wikipedia content.
- We don't know what the arrangement between Thompson and Hanley and their staff was; was it coerced? paid? cooperative? This is important.
- Was the material introduced through one account, as appears to be the case? if so this is a violation of no role account policy.
- Copyright attribution and Creative Commons licensing since the paper explicitly states that "PhD students drafted articles", which is related to issue 4 on role accounts but an additional legal-ethical violation if one individual attested to license consent granted by the others.
I'm closing the COIN discussion so that things can continue here with wider participation, and wider consideration of concerns beyond conflict of interest. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)