Welcome to roadip.com on January 8 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WP:POST/N/S
WP:POST/TIPS
WP:TIPLINE

Welcome to The Wikipedia Signpost's Tip Line. There are two ways to leave tips:

  1. Add a tip on this page
  2. Anonymously e-mail us at WikipediaSignpost@Gmail.com (for convenience, you may use this link)

Not every mention of Wikipedia in the media will make it into Signpost. Consider editing Wikipedia:Press coverage or Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source so we have a comprehensive record.

Please do not post newsletters to this page; news from WikiProjects is always appreciated, but templated messages are much more likely to be ignored. Ral315 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
Front Page
Archives
Newsroom
Next Issue
Suggestions
Comments
Single-Page
Tools

+/-
Delivery
About

Contents

[edit] Calendar of upcoming events

I intend this to be a sort of calendar of upcoming events, on and off Wikipedia (particularly non-obvious events, that might be easily missed) -- things that readers might be interested in. Anyone can add events here.

  •  ???

[edit] Requests for WikiProject features

If you'd like your WikiProject featured in an upcoming WikiProject report, feel free to list it here. Note that these requests are entirely advisory, and may or may not be used in future reports. Please do not "support" or "oppose" individual requests, and keep requests short and concise. Ral315 (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:DINO, with over 90 members, the Dinosaur WikiProject is really dedicated to dinosaur coverage. See achievements for more information. Bibliomaniac15 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Oregon is a lively and productive project that currently supports over 5000 articles, and has a dedicated core group of editors who work toward getting articles to GA and FA. Currently we are working on a response to the Oregon Historical Society's announcement that they are starting a collaborative encyclopedia project that will somehow be better than Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts nearly died and came back to life. Originally begun in early 2007, by the start of December it had dwindled to just two active members. For a view of how much it's revived, here's its March newsletter (featured pictures, good articles, DYKs, and a featured portal drive). Durova 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized might be a nice success-story to include in some edition of the Signpost. Various gnomes have hacked away at this backlog ever since bots like Alaibot started populating it a year and a half ago. Of course, this is a never-ending task but it's an important one and the backlog typically hovers around 2000 articles (compared to 10 times that a year ago). Pichpich (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Spotlight. We have just restarted and our first article was elevated to a GA by our effort. We have already created new templates and even a barnstar. The one thing we are missing is people. The last article (Kristallnacht) was a 3-person job, and we could do with a little feature just to let people know we're back Dendodge 17:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Environment. It has quite a bit of members and quality of articles (5 FA, 20 GA, 3 GAN). It has a task force that has attracted an English course in University of Kansas to improve environment-related sections in Wikipedia articles. OhanaUnited 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiProject U.S. Roads. There have been a recent surge of good articles, making a total of 12 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 2 featured topics, 9 A-Class articles, and 117 Good articles. There are five main users that should be interviewed, and they are Rschen7754, Scott5114, O, Kéiryn, and NE2. --CG 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Comedy - It contains over 50 featured works, over 200 GAs, and has just under 50 members. ISD (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics from the flagged revisions straw poll

These statistics, from the flagged revisions straw poll, may be interesting. – Thomas H. Larsen 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am quite eager to see those statistics, Mr Larsen, but the link seems to be wrong; there is no such section on the page, which has weeks to be edited. Somewhere else, perhaps? Waltham, The Duke of 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Never mind; I've just seen in the Bulletin board that the statistics are in the talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Corrected. – Thomas H. Larsen 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOAR NUUS

  • Judge uses Wiki in case. Apparently a Connecticut judge used Wikipedia to cite the number of gay congressmen in their opinion of legalizing same-sex marriage.

bibliomaniac15 23:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Current members of the United States Congress -Ravedave (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh and someone actualy like the way we are written:
http://www.splicetoday.com/consume/wikipedia-the-21st-century-s-freudian-mother
Geni 16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vandalism embarrasses mainstream journal

This article by Cade Metz in The Register details how a nonsense vandal edit in Wikipedia was repeated in the Daily Mirror. After someone tried to remove the misinformation from the Wikipedia article, someone readded it, citing the same Daily Mirror article as a source. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add some personal opinion, if we had flagged revisions this might not would have happened. Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This was covered somewhere else already, I think it was AN. Woody (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and how is the Daily Mirror a mainstream journal? It is a trashy tabloid. When I think of journal I think Economist or New Scientist, not the Mirror! Woody (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Mirror has a circulation of 1.4 million per issue [1]. So, how many people read and digested a false bit of information because we can't control vandalism effectively, or haven't implemented something like flagged revisions which would make controlling it easier? Of course, the Mirror's reporter shouldn't have been so lazy, but perhaps he took our claim of being an "encyclopedia" at face value? Cla68 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The valid point that 1.4 million readers were misled because of Wikipedia's flaw is not diminished by accurately noting what sort of publication the Daily Mirror is. --JayHenry (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed – this is simply an embarassment for our community, for the Daily Mirror, and for humanity in general. Surely we can do better than this – at least, surely we can stop vandalism from appearing publicly? – Thomas H. Larsen 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth"

Interesting article on Wikipedian epistemology here from Technology Review.

[edit] ArticleAlertbot

Alertbot is a new subscription-based bot that automatically notifies WikiProject when their articles enter certain workflows such as WP:PROD/WP:AfD, WP:FAC/WP:GAC/WP:FLC, and others. See User:ArticleAlertbot/Subscription for how to subscribe. The bot updates a notification pages on a daily basis. The bot was proposed by Headbomb (aka me), coded by B. Wolterding and is run by Legoktm. Due to the usefullness of the bot, and the fact that it is subscription based, I think that this should get a greater exposition than simply being on the approved bot list.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate raging about fair use collage

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_October_23#Image:Companions.jpg. The debate has involved 22 editors, with an even split of opinions. 9 of the 22 are administrators, also with an essentially even split, have contributed. The decision in this case has ramifications for fair use montages as navigational aids across discographies, videographies, lists of books, list of characters and list of episodes. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vs. Joe the Plumber: Wikipedia users debate Wurzelbacher’s newsworthiness and notability

Neat article. Cirt (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study on Wikipedians

A study of Wikipedia has found that participants score lower on traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness [2]. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this study at all and we should bury it out of spite. -- Suntag ☼ 17:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"It’s not clear exactly how the researchers did their recruiting, which may have resulted in a less-than-random sample." No, duh. "The study also found that women Wikipedia members scored significantly lower on the extroversion scale than non-members, suggesting women Wikipedia members are more introverted than others." Obviously, I didn't participate :-) Actually, I get recruited often for these things, and never participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saatchi Gallery

A discussion on AN/I seems to have found its way into The Observer, 26 October 2008 - scroll to "Tales of mystery at the gallery".[3] Ty 04:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical guidelines for researching Wikipedia

An idea recently proposed on Wiki-research-l listerv has evolved into a proposed policy: Wikipedia:Ethically researching Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book review suggestion

The Future of the Internet, and How to Stop It by Joanathan Zittrain. Yale University Press, 2008. Online
I have not read the book, but I read an interesting book review of it (in American Scientist). It discusses the rise and fall of "generative systems," which are defined as systems with a "capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences." There are, naturally, many examples from Wikipedia. --Zvika (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh Wikipedia milestone

Welsh Wikipedia has reached 20,000 articles. If I've counted back correctly, the milestone article is Seiclo yng Ngemau Olympaidd yr Haf 1980.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC Supreme Court determines hyperlink not defamation

See summary or full text of court decision. The case, in which Wikimedia Foundation was a party, decides that in British Columbia publishing hyperlink to defamatory text is not defamation. --KenWalker | Talk 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large file uploads coming

See this Raul654 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Study finds drug articles often omit important info

Reuters reports on a study published in the upcoming issue of The Annals of Pharmacology, "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia". The Reuters story reports, unsurprisingly, that articles on drugs are often incomplete in terms of side effects and drug interactions, so that relying solely on Wikipedia for drug info is a bad idea. It also says "The researchers did find that after 90 days, the Wikipedia entries showed a "marked improvement" in scope." It's unclear what that means, whether the flaws in these articles were pointed out, or whether they just looked at the articles a second time 90 days later to see if they had changed.. For some reason, my library doesn't have a subscription to the online version of this journal, and it seems that although is online, it is still not officially released and may be inaccessible until December. I'd like to write a story based on the original study; if someone can hook me up, please let me know.--ragesoss (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll send you a copy of the full text. See discussion of this at WT:PHARM and WT:MED: the study compares Wikipedia to a standard drug reference (we are most certainly not a drug reference, but a general-purpose encyclopedia) and finds the major "flaw" in Wikipedia coverage to be the lack of dosage information—never mind that the Manual of Style strongly discourages its inclusion. Some other results should be a cause of legitimate concern.
We're currently discussing the possibility of a letter to the editor of Ann Pharmacother, by the way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just got a copy from the lead author. I'll have a look at what's going on at the discussions you point to.--ragesoss (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Subscription is not necessary in this case. See http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/aph.1L474v1.pdf In fact, this link is on that page you pointed out, labeled "FREE" in red. Mosca (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedians in the UK form new organisation

It'd be great to include something along these lines either in News and Notes, or possibly a separate story.

Following the disbanding of Wikimedia UK reported in September, Wikimedians in the country have set up a new organisation, Wiki UK Ltd. The Chapters Committee has passed a resolution to support it becoming a chapter of Wikimedia, on which the board of the Wikimedia Foundation will decide in January 2009.

The new organisation has set up a newsletter to keep everyone informed, and is now inviting membership applications. Warofdreams talk 10:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slashdot covers initiative to improve compsci articles

Slashdot reports on an initiative by Scott Aaronson to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theoretical computer science. -- The Anome (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch wikipedia news

Heavy week on the dutch side of wikipedia news:

  • 500.000 articles for the dutch version of Wikipedia
  • Dutch business-person Bob Sijthoff is sue-ing the dutch wikimedia foundation chapter, and the dutch wikimedia association. He is demanding that the article about his person is removed, because it contains words that are "incorrect and insulting". He also demands that the identity of the author nl:User:Jakob H is revealed, so that he may sue this person. original publication [4][5][6][7] His article has seen heavy copyediting since he sued. This is the first such case in the Netherlands and the judge will rule on December 10.
    • Sijthoff lost, because he failed to show that the dutch organizations had any authority or legal responsibility over the content. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This publisher of the Dutch encyclopedia Winkler Prins, has announced that it will not release a new (10th edition) paper version of the encyclopedia in the future. The popularity of online resources such as the Internet and esp. Wikipedia is said to have influenced this decision. The CD-rom version will disappear as well and the publisher will focus its efforts on a subscription based edition on the Internet, which they hope to deliver sometime next year. They will continue to print their yearly encyclopedia appendices for the 7th, 8th and 9th edition versions. [8][9][10]

--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-wikipedia news

Some stuff not directly related to wikipedia, but possibly very interesting to wikipedians:
  • Europeana [11] is to be a new EU-wide search platform to a collection of European digital libraries with digitized paintings, books, films and archives. The web site was publicly launched on 20 November 2008 and immediately taken offline due to server overload; it's scheduled for reopening by mid-December 2008.[12]
  • The Dutch National Archive reports on their first experiences with sharing parts of their archive trough Flickr Commons, in an experiment, much resembling that of the American Library of Congress [13]

--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Valued pictures

The Wikipedia Valued pictures department has just started. I think that this warrants publishing (if we can call it that) in this next issue of the Signpost. It's interesting news, and the project will benefit from the coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elucidate (talk • contribs)

[edit] "pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia"

From CAMERA website ...

"A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."

- OlEnglish (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading the article on CAMERA I realized this must be old news already. Interesting read though. OlEnglish (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video tutorials : Wikimedia support, and Graphic labs historical leader critics

Hello, I'm the founder of the Graphic labs, which have now improve or create about 5.500 images in 3 years, with 0 US$. (In the commercial world, each of this improvement are frequently sell 30US$, and each creation about 200 US$ (if it was a for profit team, we would have seen about 250.000 US$ O.O) I explained on the Graphic lab page my critics toward the Wikimedia media policy.

I'm interested to write more, to answer to more questions. May one of your team member learn a little about these issues, contact me, and ask me some questions to go further, and then help me to copy-edit the article (I'm not a native speaker for English).

Regards, Yug (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few stories

  • Short mention in the Wall Street Journal here
  • WSJ Livemint blogger, [14] outward apearance of our donation drive opinion (might not apply)
  • Slashdot [15] Arkansas government editors allowed to keep IPs unknown

[edit] Wikiproject:Awards

A look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes. More interesting than a run-of-the-mil wikiproject because it fills such a wide gap in the coverage of WP articles. The other awards project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals) fails to cover any award that isn't a national one, including such, uhh, minor awards as the Nobel Prize. We're a small project admittedly, but the interesting part doesn't come from the numbers. I can pull some people together for a interview-type thing no problem. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded

From this article on newscientist.com:

Amichai-Hamburger speculates that rather than contributing altruistically, Wikipedians take part because they struggle to express themselves in real-world social situations. "They are compensating," he suggests. "It is their way to have a voice in this world."
This is consistent with previous research on online communication, says Scott Caplan of the University of Delaware in Newark, who suspects that heavy users of sites such as Digg and Twitter may have similar characteristics. "People who prefer online social behaviour tend to have higher levels of social anxiety and lower social skills," he says.
A recent study of YouTube users also suggested that contributors - people that upload videos - have egocentric rather than altruistic motives. Users whose postings received more hits were more likely to continue uploading videos.

- Face 12:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already reported on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-03/In the news OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn, sorry. - Face 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This is true! Look: I tried recently to drum up interest in creating an overview of last year's featured articles and the grumpies got all upset and thought I was wasting someone else's time. Very close-minded. They only wanted to do deterministic studies that could be computed by algorithms. Oh well, c'est la vie. Regards, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Might be useful for signpost

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Owens included mention of the Edward Owens hoax in the Chronicle for Higher Education, and while I didn't track down that link myself, I'm sure you'll agree that if true such mention fits in with "in the news" sorts of blurbs. You know best, but only have so many eyes. Best wishes in 2009 and love your work! BusterD (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Google cached the link. Actual Chronicle page is blank. We've seen these before. BusterD (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One for In The News...

http://www.cracked.com/article_16939_5-celebrity-wikipedia-entries-they-clearly-wrote-themselves.html

cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs