Almost million page views for Barack Obama on the 20th

On a related topic, the Grok stats say Barack received 913.2k views on 20 Jan (UTC). Stats for other related articles, in thousands:

9.3 Presidential transition of Barack Obama
166.6 Michelle Obama
10.5 Political positions of Barack Obama
68.7 Family of Barack Obama
19.9 Presidency of Barack Obama
157.2 Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration
7.1 Early life and career of Barack Obama
7.5 Dreams from My Father
4.1 The Audacity of Hope

(Incidentally, only 559 people cared about Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama.) -- Zanimum (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's also a spate of featured content nominations related to Obama right now: four pictures (one, at most, likely to pass) and two sounds (both likely to pass). And we had Obama content in multiple sections of the Main Page, and I'm sure some of the second tier Obama-related articles got significant hit counts as well. This one tells the story of the lead-up pretty well.--ragesoss (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One in Four Wikipedia articles is an orphan

Based on the criteria from WikiProject Orphanage, 29.7% of qualifying articles (mainspace articles minus redirects minus disambigs) are orphans - that is, we have 756,557 articles with less than three incoming article links. Of these, only 5.1% currently bear the {{orphan}} template. I've created some scripts on the toolserver that analyze the database and produce a list of all orphans on a daily basis. In the course of my development I came across these staggering numbers. If there's any interest in making a story about this, I can provide lots of facts and figures - and of course the list. I'll be handing the data over to the Orphanage in a few days; I was hoping an article about the multitude of orphans would drum up interest. --JaGatalk 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Encouraging links to articles is good as a general proposition. I'd think the true orphans, with zero article links, would merit a higher level of concern, though, enough to classify them separately. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I like the shock value of the 1 in 4 number, and they are all orphans (and could all get tagged as such), but for the record, there are 225,657 articles with zero links per the criteria. --JaGatalk 00:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I understood that it was an attention-getting strategy, but the true orphans are a particular concern in the other direction as well, possibly being trash that should be deleted rather than linked to. That being said, Raul654 also has a good point below about creating links where articles are needed. --Michael Snow (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for the love of god, can the signpost please please please help debunk this myth that people have gotten in their heads that red links should be avoided. It makes it *extremely* difficult to find articles to write if nobody is linking to ones we should have. Raul654 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Raul, We tried but it didn't take. Maybe I buried the lede with that one. But yeah, JaGa, it sounds like an interesting basis for a story. Per Michael Snow, I think the key number is the true orphans with zero incoming links. If you have the numbers broken down by number of links (including for articles well beyond orphan range, so we could plot the distribution of incoming links to articles) that would be ideal.--ragesoss (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the beyond-orphan numbers right now, but I can compile them within a day. I'll drop a line here when I get a list together. --JaGatalk 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including WP:REDLINK, i missed that in the story, good story btwMion (talk)
It's worth trying again, and being a bit more up-front about it this time. Raul654 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I emailed Diomidis Spinellis to ask if he could do an update on the average number of redlinks per article. If so, that would be a great opportunity to revisit the redlinks issue.--ragesoss (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, there aren't any dumps newer than March 31, 2008, less than three months after the last one Spinellis analyzed, and even that one apparently has issues.--ragesoss (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recently created List of authors from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Personally I think it offers many good ideas for new article on scientists (and I've already made a couple), but it took less than a day for someone to suggest that all of the redlinks be removed. Dragons flight (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, so few people are creating red links today that people have had to resort to importing large dumps of red links, IE Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. I'll note that my experience with Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers has been somewhat disheartening - basically nobody works on these things. Raul654 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've compiled the data, but I'm not sure how to present it, so here it is raw:

Stepping back and looking at all this, I see what I'm driving at is pretty complicated, and would be tough to present properly. I was going to not bother posting the links here, but I said I would, so here they are. As far as I'm concerned, if this isn't really what Signpost is looking for, that's OK with me. --JaGatalk 07:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's really cool. Thanks! I think this will be a good basis for a story for next week.--ragesoss (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Britannica 2.0, with contributions from the masses

  • might deserve a longer story

Watch out Wikipedia, here comes Britannica 2.0.--ragesoss (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahem.[1][2] DurovaCharge! 00:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Selected readers will also be invited to contribute" from Britannica reaches out to the web --Mion (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica "A “Suggest Edit” button allows a user to edit any section of an article and submit the changes to Britannica’s editors. Edits submitted by readers are suggestions to our editors that must be reviewed and approved by them before they’re posted. We’re eager for editorial suggestions from our readers, and we’ll review and act on them as quickly as we can, but no one can actually change a Britannica article except our editors".[3]
Wikipedia "A “Edit” button allows a user to edit any section of an article and submit the changes to Wikipedia’s editors. Edits submitted by readers are suggestions to our editors that must be reviewed and approved by them before they’re posted. We’re eager for editorial suggestions from our readers, and we’ll review and act on them as quickly as we can, but no one can actually change a Wikipedia article except our editors". Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Proposed_trials#Trial_3:_Subsection_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons .Mion (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citizendium "marred by infighting"

John Gill, Wikipedia founder's scholarly web venture plays host to a war of words, Times Higher Education. According to a former head of the philosophy content at Citizendium, "the experts it used were even less likely to reach consensus than the amateurs who contribute articles to Wikipedia." But according to Larry Sanger, "our disputes tend to be far more tractable, far less acrimonious and not at all Kafka-esque in the way one so often finds in such disputes in Wikipedia."--ragesoss (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing Update discussions advancing

For people not following Foundation-l, the Wikimedia-wide vote regarding the adopting of GFDL / CC-BY-SA dual licensing has been tentatively scheduled for February 9th to March 9th.

Dragons flight (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those tenative dates aren't really going to happen. Dragons flight (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Columbia Journalism Review article about Wikinews and David Shankbone

I wouldn't normally push something that was focused on myself, but the Columbia Journalism Review is the most prestigious journal of American journalism, and that they wrote a two page article about Wikinews material, much of which is used on Wikipedia articles, I think bears a Signpost mention. It is some of the highest acknowledgment of a sister project's attempts, and for those who thinks "News belongs on Wikinews, not on Wikipedia" this is a good way to trumpet that work over there gets recognition. They also mention the Wikipedia photography. --David Shankbone 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia: The Missing Manual" now on Wikipedia

See Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Also see [4]. Mike Peel (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be interesting to monitor how the book is being improved by wiki-editing. :-) --seav (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mozilla gives WMF $100,000 for audio and video support

Mozilla and the Wikimedia Foundation are working together to improve support for Ogg Theora and Vorbis media formats. This will hopefully lead to better support of these formats, so that proprietary technologies like Adobe Flash are not necessary for streaming media. (They aren't strictly necessary now, but tend to be the default for web developers and content providers outside the free culture movement.) According to Erik Moeller, "The $100,000 grant will be used to support the work of long-time contributors to the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codebase and related tools, such as libraries for network seeking. The improvements will be made over a 6 month period." Built-in support for Ogg media will be in Firefox beginning with version 3.1.

--ragesoss (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Art photo scavenger hunt at 15 museums and institutions

It would be great to give Signpost readers a preview of this global event (so they can get ready to participate), which will run throughout February 2009. BTW, the first public event day is February 1 at London's V&A Museum.--Pharos (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to suggest exactly that :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celebrity references Wikipedia

Jessica Alba recently used Wikipedia as her source for a statement about the neutrality of Sweden [5]. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Wales is "character approved"

The USA Network honored Jimmy Wales as "Character Approved", which is a new program to recognize those who have "positively influencing American culture". Others honored include Charles Best, David Chang, Jennifer Siegal, Lupe Fiasco, Patrick Robinson, and Shepard Fairey. Along with the award, the USA Network is donating $10,000 to the recipient's charity of choice (The Wikimedia Foundation).

--Aude (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wounded Knee

Durova found that a picture taken at the time of the massacre of Wounded Knee was more relevant then would be appreciated from the meta data of the Library of Congress. After restoring the image, the picture showed corpses hidden under a blanket. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To follow up on Gerard's comment, here's the original, the restored featured picture, and an excerpt from the library staff's reply. They're updating their records to reflect the discovery.
From the Library of Congress staff:
Upon viewing the high-res TIFF file we made of the file, the human remains are quite visible, indeed. Thank you very much for contacting us regarding this image, and for your interest in our collections. You can imagine that among a collection of 14 million items here, there are a lot of secrets waiting to be uncovered!

This doesn't happen every day. DurovaCharge! 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damn, that's pretty awesome. bibliomaniac15 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 1-15 2009

Admin posts deleted 'answer key' to personality test

A story in the Wall Street Journal, "Test for Dwindling Retail Jobs Spawns a Culture of Cheating" by Vanessa O'Connell, describes the use of standard personality tests in the hiring process of many retailers. One part of the story is about an administrator who used his access to deleted revisions to obtain a key of suggested answers for a Unicru test after being turned down for jobs that used the test; he then posted that key on Facebook.--ragesoss (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VisualWikipedia

VisualWikipedia.com is a new Wikipedia value-added site, which presents articles along with a visual representation of what links to and from a given article and YouTube videos related to the article. Seems like it violates the WMF "Wikipedia" trademark, though.--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Register reports on wiki conflict, retirement of long-time editor

Lord of the universe quits wikipedia - from The Register. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons?

Could the post do a segment on the Wikimedia Commons? I think that greater knowledge of Commons - what it's for and what goes on there - would help Wikipedians and enhance the overall goals of the WMF. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a fine idea. Are you volunteering to write it?--ragesoss (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could do I guess. I do have journalistic ambitions. Is there any particular type of story the post needs, or do I get free reign? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More or less free reign. The Signpost runs a series of Dispatches, some of which are basically explanations of what goes on in one particular area of Wikipedia; something like that could be one way to go. Another option could be to summarize recent developments and ongoing news on Commons (which could, for example, incorporate Raul's suggestion below). If you have an idea for something else entirely, it might be a good idea to pitch it here before putting in too much work; we try to maintain a neutral journalistic tone, and have had to decline some proposed stories in the past that deviated too much from that.--ragesoss (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has there been anything on the bundesarchiv (I think that's how you spell it) donation yet? I'm sure i could press-gang someone into writing a paragraph on that (seeing as how that's one thing I know nothing about). -mattbuck (Talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We covered the basics in News and notes, but if there are significant developments in how those images are being handled on-wiki, it might be worth return to in more detail.--ragesoss (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If someone's interested in a small, easy story, I have one for you. Jim Summaria, a professional photographer, recently donated (via the OTRS photo submissions system) a whole bunch of high quality 1970s-era pictures of A-list celebs (mostly musicians). Here they are:

I think that would make a good story. Raul654 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is really good news. We need more success stories like that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Voting for commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2008 will begin shortly. (But I think you already saw it). --Elitre (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random articles

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2009/01/wikipedia-editors-threatened-over-muhammad-article.html

Rather out of no where, but just in case its of minimal interest. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits from Dutch bureaucrats at the Justice department

Dutch bureaucrats working at the Justice department have made controversial changes to the Dutch article on Mohammed. Edits include "In werkelijkheid was Mohammed een oorlogshitser die er niet voor terugdeinsde onschuldige mensen te (laten) doden om zo hun bezit in te kunnen pikken". (In reality, Mohammed was a warmonger who didn't object to kill innocent people, or have them killed, to steal their possessions) and "Islam is de meest moorddadige ideologie aller tijden" (Islam is the most murderous ideology of all times).

I should be able to fish out the diffs where it happened from nl.wiki if people are interested. It has been featured on most major Dutch national newspapers and other news outlets. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds interesting to me. By "bureaucrat" I presume you mean a government worker rather than the WP meaning, right? Can you also find a link to some online newspaper coverage of this? (preferably in English, but Dutch will also do). This could make an item for Wikipedia in the News, I think. --Zvika (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the facts are not intresting, just a POV edit. What is sort of interesting is that is about an edit that has taken place on 18 janurary 2008! diff and for some reason this non-news is reported as news one year later in several newspapers. But one newspaper, the "Volkskrant" has done some real journalitic work and the has the discoverd that the "bureaucrats" were blocked from wikipedia at their work for 2 months for punishment. A block that was lifted soon because they needed wikipedia to do their work. Found this info in the Dutch Village pump w:nl:Wikipedia:De_kroeg#De_Pers_en_De_Telegraaf_komen_met_oud_nieuws --Walter (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PediaPress

PediaPress actually went live on Wikipedia before this edition went out, the script has been fully functional since October 27, 2008, it was deleted on December 28 and restored by Jimbo on January 10. On January 9 User:Pediapress "was indef blocked, and userpage deleted, on an accusation of "spamming"." That followed with a discussion at AN. The account is operated by User:He!ko and the extension is usable through a JS detailed at the User: page. §hepTalk 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the press release from the Foundation: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikis_Go_Printable Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yahoo! search adds section links for Wikipedia hits

Yahoo! has started linking directly to sections within Wikipedia articles from search results. See coverage at TechCrunch or see for yourself.--ragesoss (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 16-31 2009

CBC: Errors are human, says Wikipedia founder

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/15/jimmy-wales.html http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2009/01/wikipedia_replacement_for_the_1.html http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/qpodcast_20090115_10927.mp3

Based off a radio interview Jimmy Wales did with CBC Radio One's Q. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Masalbugduv

There's a story in the Guardian about a conquential minor hoax the person behind User:Masalbugduv was probably responsible for.[6] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Ref in Frontline

The latest issue (Jan 31 2009) of Frontline magazine (www.frontline.in) on page 34, uses wikipedias definition of Enemy alien, as "A citizen of a country which is in a state of conflict with the country in which he or she is located." The article, titled Due Process is about the right of due legal process that Ajmal Amir Kasab, the Mumbai terror accused in entitled to. Sniperz11@CS 06:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Googlepedia

Google now has an add-on called Googlepedia, available through download.com. Whenever you do a Google searh, on the right hand side it shows you the best matching Wikipedia article to your search terms. It's not perfect, but it is rather nifty.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration enforcement RfC

The Arbitration Committee has opened a Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions. This is a fulfillment of the Committee's statement that such a request for comment would be opened, issed in the Eastern European disputes case. Vassyana (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Obama/WP news

Wikinews:Picture of the Year 2008

I don't know if this is in the scope of the signpost, but for sister project news. Round 1 of the second annual Wikinews:Picture of the Year 2008 has started. There are 60 images, you can vote for as many images as you want. This round is used to narrow down the selection to about 10-15 finalists. The goal is to select a news worthy picture that is also of good quality (we use anything thats appeared in the news in pictures section of wikinews, so some images are of poorer quality than others.) All of wikimedia is invited to vote (assuming you have greater then 50 edits, aren't blocked and have had an account for at least two weeks. If you aren't a wikinews you are asked to merge your accounts before voting). See Wikinews:Picture of the Year 2008 Bawolff (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a plan to cover this after the voting is complete, once round two starts, or not at all? §hepTalk 12:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make sure it gets in News and notes for the next issue.--ragesoss (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagged Revisions covered in New York Times blog

Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries, Noam Cohen, Bits Blog, New York Times, January 23, 2009, 5:46 pm.--ragesoss (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC article regarding Flagged Revisions controversy

Editorial row engulfs Wikipedia Willking1979 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beat me to it :P. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also a Have Your Say on it. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Times of London on Flagged Revisions

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales calls for pre-approval of changes Willking1979 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP admin quoted in Australian press

Orderinchaos was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding flagged revisions. It's one of the country's leading newspapers.[7] DurovaCharge! 06:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Vital Articles

Could something about WikiProject Vital Articles be mentioned, or does that not really fit the Signpost? I just recently started it, and was wondering how if/how it should be announced. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't normally announce new WikiProjects in the Signpost; instead we cover well-developed ones in the WikiProject Report. Similar and related WikiProjects are probably the best places to canvass for recruits, and of course the Community Portal where I see it's already listed. Good luck!--ragesoss (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 1-15 2009

ITN

Did some quick searches and found these. The bottom two are about flagged revisions, so if there's any additional information that could be incorporated from them, that might be good. I don't know if the other two merit mention, but here they are anyway.

Hermione1980 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice. The Wikianswers didn't get covered this week, so it can go In the news next time. The editorial about Flagged Revs might be worth mentioning next time as well.--ragesoss (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good, accurate, insightful article in The Independent about Wikipedia's current situation [8]. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More stuff:

Hermione1980 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erroneous reporting on David Ignatius in Turkish newspapers

On 30 January 2009, the day after Erdoğan's outburst at the World Economic Forum in Davos where David Ignatius was moderator (see Recep Tayyip Erdoğan#Israel and the Palestinians), several Turkish newspapers, including the major newspapers Radikal and Hürriyet, reported that Ignatius is a "Jewish-American" journalist. This (almost certainly incorrect) information was apparently based on unsourced information at the time in the Wikipedia article. Source: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10911933.asp?scr=1. Hevesli (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this blog for more information. Hevesli (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.0 assessment team rfc

A new RFC opened this week on the talk page at the 1.0 Assessment team concerning A-class and its implementation across Wikipedia. At the moment, the discussion is in its preliminary phase, but whats been typed and saved so far has been both animated and interesting. Full details at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we broke Amarok (software)

Missed it at the time but aprently we managed to break Amarok.Geni 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Study measures the significance of recentism and user biases on topic coverage

A newly published study, performed on Wikipedia circa November 2006, correlates the word count of Wikipedia coverage in several areas with factors such as recentness (for our year articles, Academy-Award winning films, Time people of the year, Artists with #1 songs), population (for country articles, revenue (for companies), and coverage in Britannica (for selected random entries found there). See Royal and Kapila, "What's on Wikipedia, and What's Not?", Social Science Computer Review, February 2009. Positive correlations were found for everything but Time people of the year, which seemed to follow a pretty random distribution in terms of coverage vs. year. The conclusion drawn by the authors is that "Wikipedia is more a socially produced document than a value-free information source", and demonstrates bias towards more coverage of recent events, big countries, big companies, and the coverage agenda of Britannica. Supposedly "this study uncovered important biases in information being presented on Wikipedia", although I'm not sure we would want an "unbiased" Wikipedia in this sense where every topic had the same level of coverage independent of the significance or relevance of the topic.--ragesoss (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That link doesn't work for me. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use this link. Raul654 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any reporters in here?

Okay, I know there are. I am preparing a major new analysis related to Wikipedia. The last time I did something like this it got covered not only on Wikipedia but also in several actual newspapers (go figure). I'd like to consider giving the Signpost a head start if there is someone here interested in working on the story quietly while I finish writing up the project. My target date is the end of February. Dragons flight (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be wonderful. I always like covering your work, since it usually offers plenty of interesting new data on how the project and the community are evolving.--ragesoss (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAN backlog elimination drive

Could something be briefly mentioned about the new drive? Maybe it could drum up some more interest than there was in the last one. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagged Revisions on German Wikipedia: update

German Wikipedia has essentially completed its first pass on flagging every article (99.98%, with just about 150 unreviewed articles, presumably very new ones). Since reaching completion of flagging (nearly) all existing articles, the backlog of out-of-date reviews has shrunk considerably, from about 14,000 last week to about 8,000 now. The oldest out-of-date revision is now only about 14 days old (down from 17-21 days), and may be decreasing further. Keep an eye on de-wiki's progress here.--ragesoss (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now there are only 6 unreviewed articles, and the backlog of out-of-date reviews is down to 5800 and 10.4 days.--ragesoss (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ABC News

ABC News's Michael S. Malone has written an opinion column about the evolution and accuracy of his article. §hepTalk 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already mentioned above under "ITN" --seav (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inauguration day hit count

Barack Obama had over 900,000 hits on inauguration day. However, there are over 100 redirects whos hits are not counted. Would anyone be interested in helping me create an article on the number of hits page views that he actually had.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who cares? I don't see any reason to write a blurb every time some article becomes popular. Also 900k isn't even all that much. Sarah Palin hit 2.4M the day she was picked for McCain's VP (including one hour where she had more traffic than the Main Page). Dragons flight (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just find the topic of redirect hits interesting. Hillary Clinton often gets more page views than Hillary Rodham Clinton for days or even entire months, for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do redirect hits not also count on the page they redirect to? I find that surprising and counterintuitive. the wub "?!" 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The stats are based on capturing page requests like "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton". It has no way of knowing that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton" gives the same content. Dragons flight (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New news

Hermione1980 01:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More news - Tories admit to Wiki-alteration (BBC) - UK Conservative Party staff changing Titian's Wikipedia article to appear as if they were right in a debate in the Commons. the wub "?!" 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

zOMG politicians (goes with the wub's link):

:-) Hermione1980 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia made the front page of yesterday's Guardian: Titian, the Tory and Wikipedia: a modern morality tale. Seth Finkelstein has also written an interesting article about WikiAnswers and Wikia's use of the Wikipedia "halo effect". What's in a name? Everything, when you're talking wiki value. Rje (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milestone announcements

Could do with some sitewide publicity:

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

- Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meetups

A MediaWiki meetup is planned for April 3.-5. in Berlin. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Developer_meet-up_2009 phoebe / (talk to me) 04:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC News story 2/11/09

Might be worthy of a mention: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm  – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the section above titled "New news" §hepTalk 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slashdot

Report here. Bladeofgrass (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 16-28 2009

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez issues turn into good press for Wikipedia

I recently blogged about the bizarre shenanigans going on with Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez denying her history and making things up on her biography. The blog post has led to some very good press for us about our diligence, policies and guidelines. --David Shankbone 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia"

checkY story in 2/23 issue -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Larry Sanger has a recently published article in the journal Episteme, "The Fate of Expertise after Wikipedia". As Sanger reports on the Citizendium blog, it is a work of academic philosophy discussing the limits of article quality on Wikipedia, in terms of social epistemology. There is a vigorous discussion of the piece (or at least, the abstract) on Slashdot.--ragesoss (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the whole issue of Episteme is devoted to Wikipedia and related topics.--ragesoss (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judd Bagley and Wikipedia

Judd Bagley, a banned editor, has put together a compelling presentation detailing his experience combatting efforts by others to use the Internet to manipulate opinions about Naked short selling. A significant portion of the presentation describes his experiences with Wikipedia's administration. The presentation is here and the Wikipedia portion begins at slide 52, which can be accessed easily using the sliding toolbar on the left. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usability.wikimedia.org

checkY in 2/23 N&N -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Created earlier this month, usability.wikimedia.org. Maybe a quick section in News and Notes, has a prototype area that I haven't checked out yet, but sounds interesting. §hepTalk 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Future Tense (Public radio) segment about the doom of Wikipedia (Eric Goldman again)

I found this sensationalist and highly problematic, but thousands (if not millions) heard this one-sided discussion by Eric Goldman on their commute this morning. Law professor argues Wikipedia is bound to fail, February 17, 2009. I wrote back a pretty strong comment in disagreement. --Bobak (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited headline to correct inaccuracy. :-) Mike R (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IWF letter from government

A few months ago during the Internet Watch Foundation fuss, I wrote to my MP], Dr Liam Fox. I got a reply from Alan Campbell, the minister in charge of something, and thought you might like to see it. It's posted on my blog. The actual letter sent back is: page 1 page 2. Thought it might interest you guys. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Key phrase: "The Home Office cannot comment on specific cases and does not perform a governance or regulatory role relating to the IWF." That is, the letter said at length what can be summarised as "no comment". Campbell incorrectly states that "the content blocked by the IWF is illegal in traditional offline retailers", given that the album and cover art are readily available at music retailers. Moreover, he doesn't discuss the subjective interpretations applied by those who categorise images for the IWF with respect to the pertinent legislation, such as Protection of Children Act 1978 or the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that he cited. The criteria used may appear on the IWF website, but it's application to specific images was the source of the original controversy. It's nonetheless interesting that you received a response. Mindmatrix 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like (and probably is) a form reply. Raul654 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barack Obama problems

A request: could someone familiar with the flagged revisions discussions and Wikipedia policies in general pop over here and explain how we deal with vandalism and BLPs? Thanks, Hermione1980 04:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Wales talks to BBC Radio

Audio available here:[9]. – ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upgrade breaks Twinkle and Friendly

The latest Wikipedia software upgrade has rendered popular javascript tools Twinkle and Friendly temporarily useless, as well as temporarily breaking a number of templates - resulting in ages displaying with several decimal points in infoboxes etc. The age template issue is now resolved, but at present there's no fix for Twinkle and Friendly. More details here. waggers (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Might be good to include this link which covers all the changes that were rolled out by the devs. §hepTalk 22:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP=Good press?

Archived memo here. §hepTalk 23:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be mentioned above already under the section "Alisa..." --seav (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. I must have great eyesight. Sorry, §hepTalk 05:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews picture of the year

checkY in 2/23 N&N -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not know if this is within your scope or not, but if it is - Wikinews is holding its second (and probably final) round of voting for the wikinews picture of the year. Round 2 has 11 images, and any Wikimedian from any project (including wikipedia) with over 50 edits is invited to vote. See n:wikinews:Picture of the Year 2008 for more information. Thanks, Bawolff (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We'll mention this in News and notes, at the least; I meant to note the first round, but it slipped by.--ragesoss (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile browsing

checkY in 2/23 BRION -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[10] §hepTalk 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, redirect categories now work! §hepTalk 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the above is for the Technology report... take this downtime too if you want it. Also in the Server admin log. PretzelsTalk! 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia citations in patents on the rise

checkY in 2/23 ITN -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to The Patent Librarian's Notebook, a blog by librarian Michael White, citations to Wikipedia have been on the rise in U.S. patents. Wikipedia citations by patent examiners were banned in 2006, but references to Wikipedia by both applicants and examiners have nevertheless been on the rise. 477 patents issued in 2008 mentioned Wikipedia, compared to less than 300 in 2007 and just over 100 in 2006.--ragesoss (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The numbers he used can be found here. §hepTalk 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Ship exclusive FT clears nom this week

With the passing of FT nom the Iowa-class battleships become the first ships exclusive FT on Wikipedia. This is also the first Featured Topic for the SHIPS project. Although the first Featured topic this is not the first topic nom, a handful of ships specific GTs exist. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to the topic for convenience: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Iowa class battleships -MBK004 05:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps one of you can write a Dispatch (please weign in at WT:FCDW if you're interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2009: Call for Participation

checkY in 2/23 N&N --phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Call for Participation for Wikimania 2009 has been released. Cbrown1023 talk 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF generation enabled for testing

checkY story in 3/2 issue -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brion reports that PDF files of articles can now be generated for English Wikipedia articles (in addition to the smaller wikis that were enabled last week). On article pages, there is a "PDF version" link in the toolbox. Problems should be reported to the PediaPress bug tracker.--ragesoss (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not showing up in classic skin, but it is showing up in monobook. Raul654 (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tim Starling said it's a mediawiki issue, not an en configuration issue, and told me to file a bug report. I have done so. Raul654 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this story here on the Wikimedia blog. And the feedback for the tool is here. feydey (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 1-15

Skittles launches marketing campaign that includes its Wikipedia page

checkY in 3/2 "in the news" -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC) See http://www.productplacement.biz/200902282995/News/Internet/skittles-product-placement-on-wikipedia.html and http://www.skittles.com. Quite interesting that they're relying on Wikipedia as the de-facto "official" source of info for its products; what happens if someone reorganizes the page? BuddingJournalist 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that article earlier. It's totally wrong - the Skittles article is basically the same now as it was 6 weeks ago. Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was confused, too, when I found this story. But BuddingJournalist's pointer to the skittles website is I think what this is about. Although I can't see anything there now except Twitter, I think they've been incorporating the Wikipedia article into Skittles.com.--ragesoss (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check the product pages on their site. They're using forwarded Wikipedia pages for description of their products. 189.105.41.65 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Their site doesn't work right with Firefox, for me at least.--ragesoss (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take you're not seeing the flash navigation box then? Try this direct link [11]. PS: I just noticed that they in fact only forward to different sections of the same page: Skittles (confectionery) which happens to include a list of all products. 189.105.41.65 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. It works in Internet Explorer for me.--ragesoss (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF version of Signpost

I'm really big fan of this weekly baby. The volume of the news is getting grow, sometimes I feel to read a well-formated pdf version during my lunch. You wrote about the pdf book tool is enabled, why don't you write down the single page for pdf? I want to download the pdf version already converted. --Cheol (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click this link to get a PDF of this week's signpost. Raul654 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really want to make a pdf book of all the signposts that have been published, now -- maybe I'll do that! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. But it's not so good. What's "__NOTOC____NOEDITSECTION__"?. We have them every section. --Cheol (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
they are codes to remove the table of contents and edit links, which makes the stories display in their templates properly. That might be a bug to fix in the pdf formatting... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reported these issues. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 06:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This issue should be solved the next time the software is updated. So starting next week or so, PDF versions will become much nicer. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tested this again, and the PDFs are looking significantly improved. With some /Print templates and some print specific formatting, I think we can create a pretty nice version of the the signpost in PDF. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC World Service interviews Jimbo

A repeat of everything we know, but publicity is publicity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/business/2009/03/090304_wikipedia_funding.shtml --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons: Four million files and rising

checkY in 3/9 N&N -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*From Commons:Press releases/4M

The four millionth file.

Wikimedia Commons, the multilingual free-content media repository managed by the Wikimedia Foundation, reached the milestone of four million uploaded files on March 4, 2009, less than eight months after it reached three million. This makes Wikimedia Commons, which was launched in September 2004, the fastest growing Wikimedia project. Since March 2007, Wikimedia Commons has routinely had over 100,000 files uploaded every single month. It is now not uncommon for tens of thousands of files to be uploaded in a single day. Wikimedia Commons now has an incredible 573,042 registered users, who have helped reach the figure of four million files.

The four millionth file is a photograph of a cloudy mountain scene at sunset, near Masca in the Canary Islands. It was taken and uploaded by a Wikimedia Commons user Kallerna, who graciously released the work into the public domain.

§hepTalk 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look inside Wikimedia

checkY in 3/9 N&N -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Blog §hepTalk 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

_Guardian_ column on Inclusionism, Deletionism, Wikia COI

People might enjoy my recent Guardian column "Inclusion or deletion? In the end, it's actually about money". Please note that the "money" part is meant to be a multilayered observation, connecting the two concepts explored - an examination of the costs that every article creates, and then going from there to the pressures of commercialization. Not something silly, like a potential strawman of deletionism being a plot to enrich Wikia's digital-sharecropping gains. I'm very careful not to say the link is dispositive, but rather that there are significant tensions and incentives. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC story about Wikipedia and UK politicians

checkY ITN March 9 -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC has a report on the interactions between UK politicians and their Wikipedia articles: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7921985.stm -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update from Wikipedia Chemistry/Chemicals

checkY N&N, March 9 -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The basic structure of Chemistry Manual of Style WP:CHEMMOS has been ratified. The Manual of Style gives the Wikiprojects a roadmap: What constitutes an article? What areas should be discussed? What areas should be omitted? etc. Having ratified the MOS, efforts will now be directed toward assessment and improvement of articles within the projects' scope. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Article_assessment. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rf"D"

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jasonr_(reconfirmation) and its talk page, RFA's talk page, and the crat noticeboard. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More news

checkY ITN, March 9.--ragesoss (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution survey results

The attribution survey, mentioned in March 2's Post, has its results available here with other notes. §hepTalk 04:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media attention

Another good old accusation of bias: Obama's Wikipedia Page Distances President From Wright and Ayers from Fox News, which is definitely a major news outlet. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Already in this weeks'. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethnio recruit ad

I just figured out exactly what this was. Wikipedia has up an advertisement for Wikipedians near San Francisco (Screenshot). It works via this, there is extended information on a mailing list here. The notice is set to be disabled 12 March, so maybe this shouldn't be covered? Or be popped into this week's n&n before publication. Thoughts? §hepTalk 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in N&N already under the heading "usability testing", but without details as I hadn't seen it yet. Feel free to augment the coverage. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AHA! That's what I get for skimming the usability section. I'll add a little bit. §hepTalk 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to previous issue

Hi guys, I would find a direct link to the previous issue terribly useful. --Elitre (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't exactly what this page is for, but does this suffice? Else you can always use this oldid. §hepTalk 21:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, that was not very clear :) I just wanted to suggest that a link to the previous issue should be added to the heading or somewhere else in that page, or at least that I would find it useful. --Elitre (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, because the Signpost front page is generated dynamically, there no easy way to provide a simple link to the previous issue. But if someone more code-savvy than me can make it work, it can be added tot he front page.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paper

Summarization using Wikipedia. Uses a lucene database of all wikipedia articles to create a summary of a text. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

skittles learns social engineering isn't that easy

checkY ITN 3/16 --TheDJ (talkcontribs)

Interesting piece on how skittles had to change their webpage after they implemented the new "social tools" overlay. Wikipedia is now their homepage for they overlay, and it makes you wonder what will happen when the article becomes unprotected again. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Students improve ecology related articles

checkY ITN 3/16

http://journalwatch.conservationmagazine.org/2009/03/09/open-source-ecology/

WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein and Obama

checkY ITN 3/16

Quite the controversy about [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 this article] by Aaron Klein. This story has made US headlines, and FoxNEWS is running around with it like a happy kitten that caught it's first mouse. But as first reported by ConWebWatch and later huffington post and wired, the story goes deeper with User:Jerusalem21. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So apparently Aaron Klein tried to smear Obama in his Wikipedia article and then when his edits were reverted, he wrote an "exposé" about how biased Wikipedia is. Yawn! Then FoxNews picks up the story while everyone else wonders why anyone takes Aaron Klein seriously. Yawn! Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks Motivitation Survey

checkY N&N 3/16

Wikibooks is publicly displaying a link to a Wikibooks Motivation Survey being done by the University of South Australia. It is advertised via their Sitenotice and reads:

You are invited to participate in a research study that aims to explore the shared motivations among Wikibookians to write to Wikibooks.
To take the survey, use motivations as your username and wikiproject as your password.

Also, Test Wikipedia has some neat features on the Main Page and Sandbox, some sort of ratings system and review system (flagged revs I think), and they're asking for users to test their Aubuse Filter as well. They also have a CentralNotice running there about Wikimania presentation submissions, technical details here. §hepTalk 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appears to be running here now. §hepTalk 03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP copy & paste in UK government's anti-net neutrality amendment to EU telecom bill

checkY ITN 3/16

News in the "copy & paste from WP in unexpected places" department:

In the ongoing political struggle over the European Union's Telecoms package (a planned regulatory framework for the telecommunications industry in the EU), an amendment proposed by the UK government which is heavily criticized by advocates of network neutrality copied almost verbatim from the article Bandwidth management.

If this amendment is successful, the definition of bandwidth management written by Cmw1 in April 2006 - which Horten, a communications and media research Ph.D. student and former journalist with a long history of covering these topics, says struck her by its "naive wording" - would form part of what she describes as "the most important piece of legislation concerning the Internet, currently going through the European legislature. It will determine, among other things, the way that the Internet will operate in the foreseable future".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia for writing assignments

checkY ITN 3/16

  • I emailed Vanderbilt University Press to request a review copy, so that I or someone else can review it for the Signpost. If anyone is particularly eager to review this book, preferably someone with experience with using Wikipedia in educational settings, please let me know (although there's no guarantee that they will give us a copy).--ragesoss (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vanderbilt University Press is going to send us a copy of the book. It will be sent out on Monday, so if someone is eager to review it for the Signpost, please contact me with your mailing address and qualifications ASAP. Otherwise, I will have it sent to myself and I will review it.--ragesoss (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Great!. There are three people, all well-qualified to review the book, who have expressed interest. If we're lucky, they may be willing to send out multiple copies so that we could have multiple perspectives on the book. I'll post updates here when I know more.--ragesoss (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello other people who use Wikipedia to teach writing! Can we all chat sometime? Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One possibility would be to arrange a time to record a podcast (or just have an unrecorded discussion) on Skype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragesoss (talkcontribs) 20:01, March 14, 2009

Podcast

Those interested in being part of a podcast discussion should weigh in at Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Wikipedia assignments on the when and the what to talk about.--ragesoss (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All notable films now have Wikipedia articles

checkY N&N 3/16

On March 12, WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles completed the notable films list. This list, created by Reflex Reaction in 2005, originally included 1,914 movies compiled from various third-party lists which did not have articles on Wikipedia. The final movie removed from the list was Death of a Salesman (1951 film) which was created by Scapler. Kaldari (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, this is an exaggeration, surely. I guess the best we can say is that we've covered what other limited-length mainstream encyclopedias and reference works have covered in aggregate. But our ambitions are much broader :) For a small sample of what remains, look at the redlinks on List of film serials (and those are mostly English-language films).--Pharos (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. I imagine there are hundreds of films that we still lack depending on your definition of "notable" :) Kaldari (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps writing this article will spur some people to start a new list and organize more editors to help out with the project! Awadewit (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikitruth Through Wikiorder paper

checkY ITN 3/16

(I have no connection to this, just thought it was interesting) Wikitruth Through Wikiorder - "Focusing on Wikipedia, we argue that the site's dispute resolution process is an important force in promoting the public good it produces, i.e., freely-accessible encyclopedia articles. We describe the development and shape of Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution system. Further, we present a statistical analysis based on coding of over 250 arbitration opinions from Wikipedia's arbitration system. The data shows that Wiki-dispute resolution ignores the content of user disputes, instead focusing on user conduct. Based on fairly formalized arbitration findings, we find a high correlation between the conduct found and the remedies ordered. In effect, the system functions not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but to weed out problematic users while weeding potentially productive users back in to participate." - see also the blog post's hilarious flowchart -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons / Carlos Latuff furore

checkY N&N 3/16 There has been a lot of fuss in the past month or two on Wikimedia Commons relating to images by Brazilian artist Carlos Latuff. Latuff has allowed his cartoons to be published free of copyright, and so they are eligible for inclusion on Commons. However, many of the cartoons are related to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, generally taking the side of the Palestinians. These have triggered numerous deletion requests, on the grounds that the images promote hatred, violence and anti-semitic sentiment. This week, commons:File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg (see article) was deleted after a heated debate. It was subsequently undeleted, and promptly deleted again in a small wheel war, and there is an ongoing undeletion request.

As well as deletion requests, there has been edit warring over whether the images should be in categories about Middle East politics, and several users, including one who has contributed many featured pictures, have been blocked temporarily due to their behaviour. The cartoons have also prompted a rash of "If this is acceptable, then this should be too" user-created cartoons, which were deleted as being out of scope as user-created artwork with no educational value.


Relevant links:

-mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing

checkY N&N 3/16

The licensing update is starting to move. A committee is being formed (including myself) to help manage the process. The draft timeline has the vote starting at the beginning of April. Dragons flight (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editnotices disabled

Might want to make a brief note of this (though I haven't finished reading everything yet, so it may be moot?). §hepTalk 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are only disabled in places where subpages are not enabled. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I understand. What is/was a per-article edit notice? How, and how widely, was this featured used?--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Editnotices (which is now out-of-date, and so partially wrong). In short an edit notice is a chunk of text that can be placed above the edit box. See [12] for an example. Last fall the devs created the feature to have page specific edit notices (as opposed to global or per-namespace edit notices). Wikipedia created ~130 such things. Last week Domas disabled some of them (including all the ones in article space) out of a general concern about clogging up the Mediawiki: message cache. We are in the process of providing an alternative implementation that avoids that problem. As of this moment the article space messages have been restored. Dragons flight (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moar nooz pls

checkY ITN, March 9 and March 16

Hermione1980 22:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 16-29 2009

Call for reviewers: The Wikipedia Revolution, by Andrew Lih

I'm looking for three editors to review The Wikipedia Revolution, Andrew Lih's new book, for the Signpost. If you're interested, please contact me with your mailing address and a very brief explanation of the main things you do on Wikipedia. I expect a fair number of editors will want to do this, so I'd like to get some diversity in terms of Wikipedia perspectives (e.g., one reviewer with extensive article-writing experience, another heavily involved in the administrative or policy-making side, etc.). Prior contributions to the Signpost are also a plus.--ragesoss (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've emailed you about this. My perspective would be as an article writer (more then 50% of my contribs are in mainspace), but I'm also an admin. For a complete list of my contributions and such, see my user page. Steven Walling (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd love to. :) DurovaCharge! 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My copy shipped yesterday. I'll let you know when I'm finished it. Raul654 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons accepts TIFF files

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/Technology report
File:Aries and Musca Borealis2.tif: the first TIFF file at Wikimedia Commons. (.jpg copy for thumbnailing)

Wikimedia Commons has begun accepting TIFF files. This makes Commons a much friendlier environment for image restoration. Until now, most restoration work needed to be uploaded in JPEG format, which degrades with attempts at additional editing. Now Commons is becoming more friendly to wiki-based editing by expanding the options to upload uncompressed files. The first TIFF file uploaded to Commons is the constellations Aries and Musca Borealis, restored from a hand tinted 1825 depiction. This is a major step forward for collaboration in restorations of historic images. More information is available at my blog.[13] DurovaCharge! 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it's probably the wrong place to ask, but how does this effect EN users? Do we have to convert them to some other format to use them locally? Skomorokh 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For now the thumbnailing is limited; we're hoping to get better service there. This is going to have a big impact on English Wikipedia's featured pictures because now it becomes much more possible to collaborate on image editing within a wiki environment. In other words, our best illustrations are going to get better as TIFF format comes into use at Commons and people collaborate to improve uncompressed material. It will be some months before the impact makes itself felt. DurovaCharge! 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IWF staff threatened after virgin killer debacle

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/In_the_news

http://www.computershopper.co.uk/news/249605/iwf-staff-threatened-after-wikipedia-debacle.html --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poll in progress for "Flagged protection and patrolled revisions"

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/News and notes

After the inconclusive earlier poll for a trial of flagged revisions, a new poll has started for a refined trial proposal that attempts to address common concerns voiced by those who opposed the earlier proposal. See Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll.--ragesoss (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia drawn into Australian Internet blacklist debate

In an attempt to check the authority's boundaries, activists are linking to these blacklisted sites from legitimate pages in Australia and overseas by big and reputable organisations.
They have linked directly to the anti-abortion page from ACMA's own Wikipedia entry under the "Internet Censorship and Criticism" section.

Related story: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/The key to Wikipedia

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list even includes three pages on Wikipedia itself. --- RockMFR 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews reports on Australian blocks of parts of Wikileaks and Wikipedia

Portions of Wikileaks, Wikipedia blocked in Australia, 20 March 2009 --ragesoss (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Proposal to introduce non-commercial licensed photos fails

Follow-up to Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-16/Discussion_report: The described Proposal to introduce non-commercial licensed photos on Wikipedia has since been declared closed by one of its initiators, citing comments by Mike Godwin to the effect that these licenses would not be legally compatible with the free licenses that Wikipedia is using presently. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AbuseFilter extension enabled

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/Abuse_Filter

User:Werdna has announced that he enabled the Extension:AbuseFilter on the English Wikipedia. This extension allows all edits to be tested against regular expressions. There's already a whole bunch of people working on creating new filters and monitoring the hits. (see Wikipedia:Abuse filter) - Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and now disabled because of server load. MBisanz talk 19:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selectively re-enabled. §hepTalk 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Revolution Wall Street Journal review

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/In_the_news, review pending

Released in today's Wall Street Journal. It's more of a summary than a review, and it can be found here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Widespread copyright problems

Hey all. Recently investigation has uncovered some users who contributed thousands of articles before it was uncovered that all or most of their contributions were copyright violations. The community and particularly User:Moonriddengirl have invested enormous effort in cleaning up these problematic contributions. Here are some sources:

As a consequence of this Moonriddengirl has been working on a new WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. I think it would be great to get the word out about this kind of copyright violation disaster (many still don't know this kind of thing occurs) and the new project. Thanks for any help, and if you choose to interview anyone, make it Moonriddengirl as she's worked more on all this than everyone. :-) Dcoetzee 06:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related story: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-05/DDR copyright.
It would be useful if a Signpost article about this could elaborate a bit on how much of this was blatant (verbatim, unsourced) copying and how much was more a case of close paraphrasing.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jbmurray and I are currently working on a Signpost dispatch about plagiarism. Perhaps these could be tied together somehow? Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add a short note in this week's N&N about this, and then if you want to flesh this out in your longer story, that would be super. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Net Media: Beyond Wikipedia

The library ezine Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large has an article that critically explores the near-monopoly status of Wikipedia as a casual online general reference: Net Media: Beyond Wikipedia (beginning on page 23). Beginning from the question "Why do we love monopolies so?", Cites & Insights author Walt Crawford comments on Knol, Citizendium and Wikia as potential alternative models of online reference content creation.--ragesoss (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other news

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-23/In the news

--ragesoss (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia in the library

WikiProject Military history Coordinator Election

The results of this twice-annual election have previously had a mention in the Signpost. The current election ends at 23:59 UTC on 28 March. This can wait until the issue after the conclusion of the election.

Thanks -MBK004 06:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a unique moment, we also added one extra coordinator due to voting particulars. In addition, we had two referendum votes, one for cooption and the other for the introduction of C-class, which passed and failed, respectively. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

google summer of code

It might be nice to interview Brion or someone else involved with GSOC to find out what projects are in the works for this year, what's been accomplished in the past, what they hope to get out of it, etc. Might need to wait til the summer when the students actually show up. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible "Religion project" interviews

I note that you said you'd interviewed all the Abrahamic Religion projects. Unfortunately, I think you missed one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith. Granted, it's a small group, but it's had a solid portal for longer than a lot of others.

Also, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the ArbCom is currently reviewing, again, the content and conduct relating to another religion, Scientology. There are probably several editors in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, like maybe myself, Cirt, ChrisO, Justanother, Spidern, and maybe others who would be willing to talk with you if you so saw fit. In fact, one of the proposals in the current ArbCom is trying to run something in the Signpost to draw more attention to the articles. Let me and maybe some of the others know if you'd like to run a piece on the group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The missing manual

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/News and notes

Wikipedia: The missing manual is a new and interesting piece of wikipedia. We who have intrest in this manual would like you to report this in your next edition. As well, wwe'd like to report on our desire for editors to assist with improval and upkeep.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was mentioned in the Signpost back in January - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/News and notes. Nanonic (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Program Officer

When the new program officer is hired, we should try to do an interview with them as this is a community-facing position. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

more news

- BanyanTree 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article about students writing for Wikipedia as class assignments

"Wikipedia: A scientific and educational opportunity" - interview with University of Florida professor (with link to published paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution)

Part of the paper was quoted in wikien-l:

"As part of a graduate seminar on plant–animal interactions, we set out to assess the quality and content of Wikipedia entries with an ecological focus. To do so, we critiqued entries on five major categories of plant–animal interactions: frugivory, herbivory, pollination, granivory and seed dispersal. We found that the entries were generally limited in both breadth and depth, included only cursory lists of citations and occasionally devoted attention to topics that were at best marginally relevant (one memorable example was the discussion of ‘fruitarians’ – people who consciously adopt a strictly frugivorous diet – in the entry on frugivory)."

"We found the process straightforward and efficient, particularly once we learned the protocol for proposing and implementing changes. Editing was also simplified by adhering to Wikipedia’s clearly established framework for page organization, reference management and the inclusion of tables and pictures...We were occasionally frustrated by interactions with an intransigent author who rapidly and repeatedly reverted our revisions – something that might be common when editing entries on controversial topics. However, we nonetheless found the experience to be rewarding, similar in scope and time commitment to writing a more traditional term paper (Figure 1) and extremely valuable as an exercise in critical thinking and communication skills."

"Although we recognize that the time, professional incentives and public recognition for doing so are limited, we believe that improvements to this now ubiquitous reference source are particularly important given the increasingly public debates on ecological and evolutionary topics. The revision of Wikipedia entries can easily be incorporated into undergraduate and graduate courses, the service activities of student organizations, laboratory meetings, extension programs and the annual meetings of professional societies."

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikirank

Some new data visualisation gimmick. Wired had a story about it. Skomorokh 19:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More news for March 30 edition

Hermione1980 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia: Exploring Fact City

NY Times article that looks at Wikipedia and how it compares to large cities. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potemkinpedia, a blog response by Nicholas Carr.--ragesoss (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP/Flagged Revs/ Jimbo!

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Update on BLP / Flagged Protection / Flagged Revs might be worth a mention? §hepTalk 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing update progress notice

See message at the village pump. The global vote on the WMF licensing update proposal will be starting several days from now. Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More on Wikipedia and teaching

--ragesoss (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagged revs poll

This poll is set to end on April 1. A summary of the results should probably be included in April 6's Signpost. Hermione1980 01:30, 30 March 2009

Wikimania 2010/Bids/Public meeting log

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Public_meeting_log

The city hoasting Wikimania 2010 will be chosen soon. 87.207.83.232 (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoft kills Encarta

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-30/News and notes

See announcement here and Wired story here. Although the MS announcement didn't mention Wikipedia, everyone else on the internet did. Raul654 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question for us is, can we convince them now to donate the copyright to free content? It would be a graceful end for Encarta, for its content to be incorporated into the new age of free encyclopedias, and a good image gesture for Microsoft.--Pharos (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some discussions going on between Encarta staff and Comcom people on that point. Raul654 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a NYTimes article about this if you are interested. Thingg 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And WSJ. Thingg 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short comment from Wales at the end of this piece. PretzelsTalk! 18:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German Government Makes Another Huge Image Donation to Wikipedia

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-30/News and notes

Wikimedia Deutschland has worked out an arrangement with Saxon State and University Library. They're going to donate 250,000 images to Commons under a CC-BY-SA license. See here (More details forthcoming tomorrow, March 31). Raul654 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What wonderful news! I think we English-speaking folk need to start playing catch-up with soliciting media donations. :-) Dcoetzee 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fuzheado on PRI's The World

Andrew Lih discusses his new book in a 3:45 piece on The World and replaces the ant hive metaphor with a piranha feeding frenzy metaphor. He takes over The World's Technology Blog (237) and World in Words (47). - BanyanTree 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikia Search is over

Jimbo's wiki-based search site is to close because of limited uptake and profitability. CNET News Wales' blog PretzelsTalk! 18:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 1-15 2009

russian wikipedia predicting?

this edit to the russian wikipedia happened about 10 minutes before the news broke that the person in question had been attacked. See here.Geni 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

where britannica rules, wikipedia has conquered

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/05/digital-media-referenceandlanguages --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRaMA: Proposed display of date on Merger and Split tags

A tip for DRaMA/Centralized discussions:

Proposed display of date on Merger and Split tags
A discussion about enabling the display of the "date" parameter in all the merge/split templates, such as "Proposed since April 2009". Three propositions: (A1) To maintain the current status of not displaying tagging data on the ground that it would make the tag's sentence too long, (A2) To enable display of tagging date on the ground that it is standard and prevents tags lingering for months without actual discussion, (B) Independantly, to have a bot automatically remove merge/split tags after N months. / The change was briefly enabled on 10 templates then mass-reverted and the discussion started.

(This is an attempt at a sample NPOV prose that you can copyedit at will, of course.  The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

"The making of a wiki page" - blog post

May be of interest, about a Wikipedia page: The making of a wiki page, April 5th, 2009. --Chriswaterguy talk 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for may issue: it.wiki festival of digital freedoms

http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Wikimedia_news/numero_24/en#What_will_happen_next_month

Court: Congress can't put public domain back into copyright

Ars Technica reports that a U.S. federal court issued a ruling on the copyright case Golan v. Gonzales, finding that it violates the First Amendment for a law to move works back under copyright after they have passed into the public domain. While copyright activists such as Lawrence Lessig and Anthony Falzone hail this as an important victory, further appeals are expected.--ragesoss (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WSJ: Wikipedia's Old Fashioned Revolution

A Wall Street Journal in the April 6, 2009 edition entitled Wikipedia's Old Fashioned Revolution. Article mentions Lih's book, Encarta, and how administrators monitor the site as well as how they are elected. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:FILMS Coordinator election

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/News_and_notes

Since the Military History coordinator election was mentioned in last week's edition, I'll also point out WP:FILMS' recent election completed on March 29, with 7 elected coordinators. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retiring Users

I don't know if this would be possible or plausible, but it would be nice if there was a mention of well-known users who retired in the week before the Signpost came out. If that's too much, then just admins would be fine. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It did that for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-21/Top admin leaves, only to have the admin in question wander back fairly quickly. Given that a significant number of the editors who declare their departure end up editing again within three months, I would oppose this proposal. - BanyanTree 22:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've thought about this before but it's simply too difficult to do it well. Some people announce retirement and then return, others stop participating gradually without any fanfare (and may still be lurking and not considered themselves retired even when they haven't edited in many months).--ragesoss (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which admin are we talking about here? Sorry for being slow lately and didn't catch any wind of this news until now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BanyanTree was referring to Ta bu shi da yu in 2005. I don't know if there was any particular retirement that inspired this thread, but the attrition rate among once-active editors is high enough that there are always a few who recently left the project.--ragesoss (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am talking about the recent departure of an admin, not the one that departed in 2005..... OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why we would want to encourage editors to formally announce their retirement? Plus once they have been semi-officially recognized as being retired, that would be at least a minor disincentive for them to return. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History Engine, "a Wikipedia for undergraduate scholars"

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that "U. of Richmond Creates a Wikipedia for Undergraduate Scholars". The website, called History Engine, is a forum for collecting, tagging, and curating short topical essays on history. Described as "Wikipedia for students", "[e]xcept better", History Engine is an attempt to solve the problem that "the volume of historical scholarship get[s] in the way of our ability to make sense of history". It provides a venue for participating college history classes to publish assigned essays. According to the History Engine website, the project "subjects its contents to a careful academic screening process on the part of library staff, archivists, professors, and teaching assistants", essentially establishing an undergraduate analog to traditionally published historical scholarship.--ragesoss (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's an excerpt from the instructions to students:
"But the goal of the [student] assignment is also different: an episode should be built around a story, not an argument. The focus of your episode should be one primary source (or a couple of documents about the same family, issue, town, etc.). Your job will be to tell the story of this source and explain its significance to American life."
I looked at a half-dozen articles/assignments/episodes, which were one to four paragraphs in length. Here is one of the longer ones, for those interested. (It's one which doesn't seem to follow the instructions about focusing on a single source, perhaps reflecting the difficulty of getting academics in different colleges in universities to do things exactly the same.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locr travel photobooks

This is really interesting. Locr lets you build photobooks online, adding maps and other geo related information to them, including relevant excerpts from Wikipedia articles. http://www.gpsbusinessnews.com/Locr-intros-location-enabled-travel-photo-book_a1453.html There is a youtube video there that illustrates the process. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia UK formed

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/News_and_notes

Wikimedia UK - the local Wikimedia chapter covering the United Kingdom - has been reformed and is holding its first AGM on 26th April. Elections for the first permanent Board of Trustees are currently underway. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft arbitration policy

The Arbitration Committee has prepared a provisional draft of an updated arbitration policy for initial community review. All editors are invited to examine the text and to provide any comments or suggestions they may have via one of the two methods specified on the draft page.

[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 11:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia-generation not ready for university"

(translated from Dutch by MacGyverMagic) Spits News, April 8, 2009:

The "Wikipedia-youth" is not ready for a university education. First-year students are immature, rely too much on internet sources like the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and they expect success without making too much of an effort. That is the outcome of a Canadian poll of 2000 professors.

Over 55 percent of them believe students are less well-prepared than three years ago. " They see something on the internet and copy it," says professor Brian Brown in the Canadian newspaper Ottawa Citizen. According to him solid research is hard to find among students. Brown is the chairman of the confederation of universities in the Canadian province of Ontario.

Earned

The current youth culture of self confidence, which makes the youths believe they can handle everything, means they no longer know the word 'failure'. They think that because their curiculum is paid for, they 'earn' good grades.

I think a response to this bollocks would be in place. Especially since it's based on the personal opinions of the professors rather than solid research of facts which they seem to find so important. The irony! Let's start with the choice of students. Obviously first-years are a bad choice because they haven't been thought how to handle sources that's something those professors should be instilling themselves. As for the second paragraph of the article: the feeling they can handle everything is commonly found in young adults and a medical fact of the brain. I doubt anyone in their right mind would agree with the second sentence... - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's the entry in the Ottawa Citizen itself: [14] - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD discussions extended to 7 days

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/News_and_notes

You might want to have something in the Signpost about the change; see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days, which passed today. –Drilnoth (TC) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Scale-free topology of the interlanguage links in Wikipedia"

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/News_and_notes

Physics-based paper on arXiv investigating the "Scale-free topology of the interlanguage links in Wikipedia" by Łukasz Bolikowski: [15]. Mike Peel (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing update vote begins

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/License_vote

The licensing update vote has begun. Because of issues with how central notices function, not everyone is yet seeing the announcement but the vote is live and can be accessed via Special:SecurePoll/vote/1. Dragons flight (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation joins protest against Obama's RIAA appointments

Featured. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/News_and_notes

The Wikimedia Foundation, together with 18 other public interest groups, library associations, and trade associations representing the technology, consumer electronics, and telecommunications industries (among them the Internet Archive, Public Knowledge, the American Library Association and Educause) has signed an open letter to U.S. president Barack Obama expressing concern that

several of your appointees to positions that oversee the formulation and implementation of IP [ intellectual property ] policy have, immediately prior to their appointments, represented the concentrated copyright industries

(Wired indicates that two of these are the former Recording Industry Association of America attorneys Donald Verrilli Jr. and Tom Perrilli who were appointed to two of the highest ranking positions in the US Department of Justice (Associate Deputy Attorney General and Associate Attorney General), which subsequently already sided with the RIAA in an important lawsuit [16].) The letter asks Obama

to consider that individuals who support overly broad IP protection might favor established distribution models at the expense of technological innovators, creative artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and an increasingly participatory public. Overzealous expansion and enforcement of copyright, for example, can quash innovative information technologies, the development and marketing of new and useful devices, and the creation of new works, as well as prohibit the public from accessing and using its cultural heritage.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)