Undid revision 948751088 by Bri (talk) probably just a distraction to my point Tag: Undo |
OneClickArchiver archived Extreme overcitation: Suggestion by Curb Safe Charmer (2020-02-05) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 1 |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
</div> |
</div> |
||
== Extreme overcitation: Suggestion by Curb Safe Charmer (2020-02-05) == |
|||
Possibly a record for overcitation? [[Special:Permalink/939287903|Draft:Computer_Forensic_Laboratory_(Hong_Kong_Customs_and_Excise_Department)]] [[User:Curb Safe Charmer|Curb Safe Charmer]] ([[User talk:Curb Safe Charmer|talk]]) 22:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, 145 citations for a 278 word article is impressive. I'm not sure where this would go in ''The Signpost'', though, or if calling attention to it is a good thing. {{ping|Smallbones}}, your thoughts? ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::It strikes me that there are many, many ways to do things wrong and we can't possibly cover all of them. But if anybody wanted t write this up, I'm not 100% against it. Remember though , no April Fools jokes. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 18:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggestion by MeegsC (2020-02-09) == |
== Suggestion by MeegsC (2020-02-09) == |
Revision as of 20:03, 3 April 2020
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Navigation
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
Settings:
Discussions are archived by Cluebot III when older than 60 days, or if marked with {{done}} |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
This page is for suggesting news to be covered in the next Signpost. We are a newspaper that covers subjects of general interest for our audience of Wikipedia editors. If you'd like guidence on editing for new editors, please inquire at WP:Teahouse. More general questions may be addressed to WP:Help.
For general discussion, comments or questions regarding The Signpost, please see our feedback page. You can also write a piece yourself! See the submissions desk for details. Or send a news tip by email to our tipmail.
Suggestion by MeegsC (2020-02-09)
The Signpost should write about... WP:MEDICINE has received some nice coverage in the UK version of WIRED about our various coronavirus articles. This might make a good addition to the next newsletter's "In the Media" section MeegsC (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- It will be "in the mediea" Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
In the news: Mapping Wikipedia
- Mandiberg, Michael (2020-02-23). "Mapping Wikipedia: An unprecedented data set shows where the encyclopedia's editors are, where they aren't, and why". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2020-02-24.
This article includes a county-level map showing the percentage of households in the United States who edit Wikipedia while not logged in, as well as other county-level data including political, religious, and income information and population density and broadband availability. It also has an interactive "by year" timeline of IP edits per county.
It also includes worldwide information about how many households edit from various countries without being logged in. It's no surprise that English-speaking countries dominate, but some countries with large populations such as China and Russia also show up in the middle tier. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Noting that the data is over on Github so that we could make our own graphics/maps/etc. (Technically our data but grouped appropriately for easy graphs). No reason some of this cant' be put to our mainspace articles on WP, at least, for example, country distribution. --Masem (t) 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wow! Yes we need this for The Signpost Can anybody make one (any) map out of this? For the short term this will be the lede story in "In the media" if I (or anybody else) has the time to write up a couple of paragraphs. A few thoughts:
- Mandiberg says they are a Wikipedia editor - I couldn't quickly find them (their pronoun). Could somebody let them know I'd like to discuss this with them. Try my user talk or Smallbones. I've found them now.
- The first thing the story reminded me of is this map of NRHP sites:
- The second thing (I'm an egotist) was that the international data reflect Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-11-29/Special report. While the 2 datasets are nominally about the same thing - international editors, the inclusion criteria are almost exactly opposite, IP editors vs. very active editors. Without making a detailed comparison - it looks like the same results either way.
- Short term goal, get this into "In the media". 1 month goal, get a good statistical/graphical write-up from whoever has the skills and wants to do it. @Masem, Davidwr, and Bri:
Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm unable to comprehend the Github data, but I went ahead and created a map for the U.S. state of North Carolina (where I live) based off of the US map Mandiberg created with his data:
I'm also noticing a some trend which Mandiberg does not explicitly observe. Namely, that there are several liberal/Democratic leaning places in the south where there is a a dearth of Wikipedia activity, not just conservative/Republican places (One of the hypotheses Mandiberg considers is that low-editing happens in conservative areas and may be due to conservative distaste for Wikipedia's historical left-lean and the existence of Conservapedia). These Democratic areas, such as north-eastern North Carolina are mostly rural and have significant black/African American populations. Historically, black Americans since the 1960s have voted mostly for liberal/Democratic candidates. The lack of editing in the "Black Belt" thus can be used to demonstrate the hypothesis that the political leaning has less to with editing activity than low population density (one of Mandiberg's observations is that low activity correlates with low density, but he seems mostly concerned with the overwhelmingly-white Western US). This North Carolina map is also of some more interest to me because while the cluster of the worst counties for editing in the northeast are very rural and have significant black populations, they have also been economically weak for years and are shrinking. For the sake of considering Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it may be important to consider that we might have problems on African-American figures or the places they live due to this low editing activity. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Indy beetle:, Michael Mandiberg here. This is precisely what I posited in the article: "The pattern of editing activity in Appalachia and the South appears to match population density, income, education, and broadband access. [...] the persistent and well-documented poverty of the rural South seems the more likely cause. This area of low editing, from East Texas to Virginia, includes the highest concentration of African Americans in the country, raising the likelihood that income, education, and internet access intersect with racial inequity as factors that prevent participation." I also noted that "The absence of participation from majority Native American counties, and rural, poor, black counties in the South, is troubling. [...] Wikipedia community’s forms of outreach are ill-equipped to reach these rural regions." I would also note that I specifically say that these patterns in the data do not match up so well with political beliefs/voting patterns, rather I note that outside of the South, religious adherence appears to match the pattern better. --Theredproject (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- My mistake, I must have missed your comments about the impact on African-American communities. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Smithsonian putting 2.8 million images/files in CC0
Coverage, SI Open Access site. I'm not seeing any gotchas for use at en.wiki/Commons, but this will be extremely useful. --Masem (t) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wow #2
- Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia -> Wikipedia?
I'm surprised that I can't find any mention of that debate in the current version of the Signpost. The RfC was listed for a month at WP:CENT. Links (and my views, FWIW) are at User_talk:Whatamidoing_(WMF)#Holy ..., a conversation from a couple of weeks ago. I know that people who are smarter than me (everyone, basically, when it comes to understanding WP–WMF relations) believe that it's generally a good idea to let things go wrong first and then deal with it; the problem, in this case, is that unusually large sums of money (according to various comments) are going into a world-wide effort to convince a lot of people that they should stand up for their right to have whatever it is they're doing called "Wikipedia", whether it has anything to do with encyclopedias or not. Some people claim that we'll be fine, because the final decision will be up to the Board, and they'll make the right call ... but by the time they vote on it, so much money will have been spent in an effort to tip the scales that they may not, realistically, have a say in the matter. That's why the "let things go wrong first" strategy might be dangerous, for this issue, given the feelings expressed in the RfC (roughly 10-1 against, with a lot of anger and astonishment ... and there's no indication that the WMF is taking the RfC seriously). FWIW ... I don't actually have a position on the issue (except for my one-liner in the RfC), rebranding issues go way over my head ... my concern is the likely loss of editors, given what was said at the RfC. Also FWIW ... the Board issued a statement yesterday here. I'd characterize it as "unhelpful", but you be the judge. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's been added to the upcoming Discussion Report ... thanks. A little sparse, but enough to spark some talk page comments I think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging User:Whatamidoing (WMF): since it's in the Signpost, there's probably going to be discussion. You know my thoughts, which don't (I think) line up with yours, but it would be helpful to get a WMF point of view into the discussion. I don't think it's realistic to shoot for the best possible outcome (I don't even know what that would be) ... but I also don't think it's unrealistic to try to avoid the worst outcomes. My next step is to wait and see how Signpost readers react. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by User:Sm8900 (2020-03-05); Re community event notices compilation
The Signpost should write about...
I have created a section at the Wikipedia:Community bulletin board which compiles a whole variety of events, edit-a-thons, contests, etc etc, taking place around Wikipedia, mostly at WikiProjects, but also elsewhere as well.
- LINK: you can view this at: Wikipedia:Community bulletin board#Wikiproject group activities and efforts.
I was wondering if we could provide the same information, here at the Signpost page? If so, let me know where, and I will copy and paste this compilation of items. I am proposing this at the suggestion of Andrybak. I appreciate any help, guidance, or input. Please ping me if you reply. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
WMF-funded events cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic
"All offline (in-person) public events funded by Wikimedia Foundation grants must be cancelled or postponed until further notice" – m:Community Resources/COVID-19 Notice - Evad37 [talk] 03:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
JSTOR open
Because of the Covid-19 issue, JSTOR has become open to all until June 30, 2020. No login needed: http://www.universitytimes.ie/2020/03/jstor-makes-database-accessible-to-the-public/?doing_wp_cron=1584647560.9826989173889160156250. kosboot (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Here's JSTOR's statement: https://about.jstor.org/covid19/?utm_source=jstor&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=dsp_jstor_home_right_covid19_03_2020 - kosboot (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm reading that as "Open to already-participating institutions and potentially to libraries" not to the whole public. That is, if your university has a partial JSTOR license, you now have a full JSTOR license. --Masem (t) 22:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is this their full ebook collection or only partial? If so, it's a huge deal. czar 22:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- This is the best news I've heard all week. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is this their full ebook collection or only partial? If so, it's a huge deal. czar 22:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm reading that as "Open to already-participating institutions and potentially to libraries" not to the whole public. That is, if your university has a partial JSTOR license, you now have a full JSTOR license. --Masem (t) 22:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not everything but, according to them, it's a lot. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, clarification from a librarian who said that a lot of misinterpretation is going around: "JSTOR is currently NOT opening their database to the public beyond what they already made freely available pre-Covid. That open access content can be searched here: https://www.jstor.org/open/. The exception to this are several journals in Public Health related directly to the virus, which they have made freely available." - kosboot (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not everything but, according to them, it's a lot. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Indy Beetle, Liz, and Kosboot: - if anybody could sort this out, it sounds like it's good for at least 2 paragraphs in News & Notes, perhaps much more. If you want to start it please let us know on the newsroom talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like it's only certain publishers? @Samwalton9 (WMF), do you know if TWL's JSTOR coverage expands at all per these offers? czar 20:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Unclear, I'll ask! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Czar: JSTOR confirmed with us that everything listed on this page was already in the Wikipedia Library collection, but ebooks aren't, so the short answer is no. Ebooks are something we've been asking for for some time, and they're going to take another look into it (the agreements on their end are slightly different so it's not a direct change they can make). Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Internet Archive accused of using Covid-19 as 'an excuse for piracy' : This also seems relevant. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Vikivestnik
It may be also interesting for you that we at Russian community have revived the Vikivestnik (Викивестник), literally "Wiki Herald" — Wikipedia/Wikimedia news bulletin in Russian language. It existed since 2008 in Russian Wikipedia as ru:ВП:ВЕСТ and was abandoned in 2015 and we have recently revived it at Russian Wikinews as n:ru:Викивестник. We use some material from Signpost, translating summaries. In 2016, an user created a project called "Signpost-digest", ru:Проект:Сайнпост-дайджест, a short summary of Signpost, but it was also abandoned after about 10 issues. --ssr (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Another Believer (2020-04-01)
Just wanted to share some additional COVID-related coverage:
- https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/wikipedia-fight-on-coronavirus-covid19-misinformation-through-india-collaboration-509537.html
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/wikipedia-has-covid-19-information-in-bangla-hindi-tamil-and-6-other-indian-languages/story-W6MgaCaqfxTjmku4bNcDeL.html
- https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/coronavirus-news-in-hindi-bengali-tamil-kannada-ordia-urdu-punjabli-english-wikipedia-6334262/
- https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/iran-blocks-wikipedia-amid-coronavirus-crisis-says-net-group-1.8624148
---Another Believer (Talk) 03:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
In The News: Trump uses Wikipedia?
https://news.sky.com/story/trump-gets-seoul-population-wrong-by-28-million-after-boasting-he-knows-south-korea-better-than-anybody-11966163 https://twitter.com/simonmaginn/status/1245340399348133891?s=20 I have noted the date but it appears genuine. It's a good joke, if not. Cavrdg (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
April Fools Day DYK
Would it be worth a mention that every single article of the 11 that featured in the DYK section on April Fools Day received enough views to make it onto WP:DYKSTATS? It is very rare (and I don't recall it ever happening before) that every article in a set gains 5,000+ views, let alone an 11 article set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion by Bri (2020-04-02) – Wikidata compatible with "pure and unadulterated evil"
The Signpost should write about how Wikidata has been proposed as a workaround for an article deemed "pure and unadulterated evil". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)