User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2014/January
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayen466. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
5th point
Hi Andreas, a courtesy note. I've added a fifth point to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/RFC_on_medical_disclaimer#User:WereSpielChequers_proposal after you had already endorsed the 4 point version, you might want to review your endorsement in case you don't like the addition. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, WSC. Will have a look. Andreas JN466 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
- Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic
- Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year
- In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?
- Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia
- News and notes: The year in review
- Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer
- WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition
- Featured content: 2013—the trends
- Technology report: Looking back on 2013
The Signpost: 08 January 2014
- Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant
- Traffic report: Tragedy and television
- Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit
- News and notes: WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
- WikiProject report: Jumping into the television universe
- Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology
The Signpost: 15 January 2014
- News and notes: German chapter asks for "reworking" of Funds Dissemination Committee; should MP4 be allowed on Wikimedia sites?
- Technology report: Architecture Summit schedule published
- Traffic report: The Hours are Ours
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Sociology
please have a look if you think much has changed in 4 years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Casliber. I have a feeling the problem here is a mismatch between WP:MEDRS, asking for review articles, and WP:GNG, asking for coverage in reliable sources (the latter requirement is I guess fulfilled through sources such as [1], [2] and [3] (the latter not represented in the article as is stands) as well as various press articles. Andreas JN466 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes indeed.Have been deliberating on a bunch of these articles, such as Emotional clearing too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no easy solution I can think of. :(
- (Long-term, one might entertain the idea of marking articles that are fully MEDRS-compliant. But that is not really advisable either as long as they are openly editable by anyone. Or alternatively, mark those that are not MEDRS-compliant.) Andreas JN466 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes indeed.Have been deliberating on a bunch of these articles, such as Emotional clearing too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 January 2014
- Book review: Missing Links and Secret Histories: A Selection of Wikipedia Entries from Across the Known Multiverse
- News and notes: Modification of WMF protection brought to Arbcom
- Featured content: Dr. Watson, I presume
- Special report: The few who write Wikipedia
- Technology report: Architecting the future of MediaWiki
- In the media: Wikipedia for robots; Wikipedia—a temperamental teenager
- Traffic report: No show for the Globes
Question About Kww and Phillippe Controversy
What did Kww do to use technical means with respect to the WMF effort to force the Visual Editor into production? I have seen the comment that the current ArbCom issue may involve old animosity. What did Kww do? I know that the WMF, as the employer of the developers, was trying to force Visual Editor into use against the wishes of much of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- – See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive253#Comments_requested_before_I_implement_consensus_at_WP:VisualEditor.2FDefault_State_RFC and [4]. If you're looking for the actual edit, this was the one that did it. The change was then implemented server-side by a Foundation contractor. Andreas JN466 04:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is interesting. The WMF was technically wrong, and apparently wrong in terms of their attitude toward the community, and, if I read this correctly, continued to be wrong long after it should have been obvious that they should have listened. In this case the problem is that the WMF was listening to the developers, who were its employees, and not to a much larger group of users. That is interesting. There might indeed still be bitterness on the part of the WMF toward Kww. What makes it complicated is that the WMF has two different roles, technical and legal, and they have recently handled one of them, providing a server environment, very badly, and I have no indication that they have learned any better. I trust that, with regard to their legal responsibilities, they are acting appropriately. I personally think that Kww acted unwisely in referring to an "illegal" state, when it was only a state that violates English Wikipedia consensus, and that Phillippe grossly over-reacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. That's pretty much how I see it too. Andreas JN466 18:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is interesting. The WMF was technically wrong, and apparently wrong in terms of their attitude toward the community, and, if I read this correctly, continued to be wrong long after it should have been obvious that they should have listened. In this case the problem is that the WMF was listening to the developers, who were its employees, and not to a much larger group of users. That is interesting. There might indeed still be bitterness on the part of the WMF toward Kww. What makes it complicated is that the WMF has two different roles, technical and legal, and they have recently handled one of them, providing a server environment, very badly, and I have no indication that they have learned any better. I trust that, with regard to their legal responsibilities, they are acting appropriately. I personally think that Kww acted unwisely in referring to an "illegal" state, when it was only a state that violates English Wikipedia consensus, and that Phillippe grossly over-reacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)