Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2011-01-24

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-01-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Features and admins: The best of the week (1,215 bytes · 💬)

Are we going to continue selecting articles/pictures of the week? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in RL work prison at the moment. It will ease up after Thursday, but then get worse until 21 March. Finding judges is a bit time-consuming, and hit-and-miss where you wait for days for a reply, and then have to ask around late in the day. I can only just manage to do the page without the judges. We would love to collaborate with another editor-journalist on parts of this page, which might make the choice of the week doable over the next two months. If not, I'm afraid that aspect will have to take a break and return in late March. Tony (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Very nice to see a gnome being elected admin, for a change. Congrats, Gimme danger! --Waldir ^talk 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the news: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited; Wikipedia still failing to fail; brief news (1,938 bytes · 💬)

This is is the most interesting In the news is a long while. Nice write up of the Spanish fork issue! - BanyanTree 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure on that Imperial College thing. What was that Oxford University notice about? Simply south...... 02:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The celebrity referred to by the New Zealand Herald is Martin Devlin, and submissions identifying him were rejected not directly due to the New Zealand suppression order, which has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia, but because no reputable news source could publish his name. Shortly after the Herald article, Devlin identified himself and so a reliable source became available for the Wikipedia article.-gadfium 04:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish WP fork

Link to the removed discussion. --Elitre (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Until I read the interview, I had thought what caused the Spanish fork (based on what was written or said circa 2003) was that Jimmy Wales had proposed for discussion that Wikipedia be funded by advertising; once the Spanish group bolted, supporting Wikipedia by advertising was declared an unacceptable option -- not that there ever was any serious support for the idea. Sanger's role, or even if he was around when the idea was voiced, was not mentioned. But then circa 2003, Sanger was something of an unperson. -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news (5,286 bytes · 💬)

• Feel free to revert me if I did wrong. --Elitre (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Reverting, I can get it, I asked for it. Reverting in such a manner, no. The news about an article being deleted is now outdated, as the article was deleted. Plus, the very fact that an article (not the only one that was written by the user I guess) was going to be deleted or has been deleted does not say anything about the real experience of the guy, whether he/she is disappointed now, plans to leave, understood what was wrong and so on. But hey, thanks for reminding that I should lurk more and help less in some cases. --Elitre (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here I thanked you for your help fixing another story, right before you posted the above comment. I think your last comment and this edit summary are a bit unfortunate - your input is truly valued; you just can't expect people to agree with everything of it, especially if it consists of deleting what others wrote.

Signpost articles are not encyclopedia articles. They consists of news reporting and carry a date (and a byline), and feature expressions like "currently", so the concern about the statement being "outdated" is beside the point. I explained the revert in the edit summary. A main reason why Signpost articles should not be changed significantly after publication without a pressing need is that, like most newspaper articles, most readers will only read them once, soon after publication, and should not feel the need to check back for changes to get the full picture or the correct information. (Another is that articles are likely to be construed as expressions of the writers named in the byline, see also Wikipedia:Signpost/About.) And I do not understand your rationale for the deletion - the AfD was not mentioned to entice people to vote there, but to illustrate that this newbie's continued contributions after the course ended had not been without problems. Many megabytes of discussion have been written about the possible effects of AfDs on newbies. If you disagreed with the judgement that the AfD was newsworthy in this context, you would still have been welcome to rewrite the story before publication (possibly getting included in the byline), or to write up this news item yourself - check the Signpost Newsroom in the days before publication.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that your edit summary was unfortunate, being harsh for no reason, as I was the first one implying "I don't know the rules, you're free to revert my edit". Anyway I previously stated the reasons for my edit, but I guess I just can't expect people to agree with everything. --Elitre (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded harsh, it certainly wasn't meant to. I was just trying to explain the reasons for the revert (including one such rule, about changes after publication) in a concise way. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• It just had to be said: doesn't a "GLAM fellow" sound unbelievably gay? Lampman (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL! --Elitre (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, it's an intentionally lighthearted (some would say silly) name, but ultimately it's just a shorthand way of saying "Cultural Partnerships Fellow". Personally, I hope David Bowie takes notice and edits Wikipedia as a result :-) Also, you might want to read the essay, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. Sincerely, Witty Lama 12:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Anything to brighten up the dark dusty corners of museums basements and gallery backrooms. They could use a little levity, a smack of color, heck, a boa. Ocaasi (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Well, as Jerry Seinfeld says: "Not that there's anything wrong with that." Lampman (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news (1,801 bytes · 💬)

In addition to allowing MediaWiki to be used for evil, JavaScriptDistiller is also quite a bit faster than JSMin. As Trevor Parscal reported on bug 26791:

Library	Time (sec)	Minified (bytes)	Compressed (bytes)
JSMin (MediaWiki)	1.71	105990	29087
JavaScriptDistiller	0.87	110178	29987

As you can see, distilled evil provides great performance improvements. Reach Out to the Truth 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(I've hidden all but the two main rows of your table for the benefit of those who wouldn't know which they were supposed to be comparing. Hope you don't mind.) Yes, it's quicker on the server - so fewer server kitties will perish compressing the files after updates - but at a slight cost to the first time visitor. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Indisputable improvement ...

As well as an indisputable number of copyvios still being uploaded. We must add a "not sure" and/or "all rights reserved" option to the upload wizard. I simply do not understand how this idea has been rejected multiple times. When will the WMF request a copyvio study to augment this usability study? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedians celebrate anniversary with US National Archives in Washington, D.C. (1,128 bytes · 💬)

It was a lot of fun and a great event, even cooler to meet so many great people. Makes you really feel even more a part of a community, not just a "website." Thanks to all involved in planning it! Missvain (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The event was well planned and executed. It also included a tour of the Archives. A special thanks to all of the Archives employees who gave up their Saturday to host us. Racepacket (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I had removed detailed thanks as being a bit out of scope for the purpose of a Signpost story, but but perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation grant for this event should have been mentioned and linked. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)