Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2025-02-27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2025-02-27. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors (4,580 bytes · 💬)

  • Signed it in Arabic just because of this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Mon dieu... this is literally the Heritage Foundation doxing operation thing all over again. Organizations that engage in these types of activities should not be trusted. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 13:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    • The Heritage Foundation operation is likely to be still going on. They haven't acknowledged anything about it, despite the strong evidence and wide coverage. They haven't apologized. They haven't responded to at least 3 news organizations' request for comment. Be careful out there! I want to personally thank everybody who has signed the open letter. It takes some courage to do it, especially in Arabic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your signatures. It probably has little impact to the people we are talking to, but cross-wiki solidarity is comforting to me and may be more needed than ever in the coming months or years. (That is also the reason why I signed en:Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation a few months ago.) From fr-wp, warm regards, — Jules* talk 20:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • An udpate: Le Point has published 9 articles about Wikipedia in the last 11 days (!), all very hostiles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). This is unprecedented in the history of fr-wp. As I tried to show on our Village Pump (in French), they are pushing a narrative saying that Wikipedia is a serious danger for democracy (!), and that it should be regulated by a centralized authority. — Jules* talk 13:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Censorship as a protection of democracy, that will work well... I assume FR wiki has similar systemic bias issue as the EN wiki (editor demographics doesn't match the overall demographics of France/Francosphere), which may lead to NPOV issues. Le Point should incite its readers to learn wiki rules and edit there, but frontal assault on the FR wiki is probably easier for them (and sells much better than boring tutorials). Pavlor (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Essay: The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source (1,997 bytes · 💬)

Thanks for writing this. I don't think it will become standard practice for editors across the wiki but if it did it would be a great improvement. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an amazing essay, thank you. I can do stuff! (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, as someone who has edited mostly obscure bios, many times the sources focus on the more "juicy" topics, while important biographical info (DOB, spouses, children, early career) are deemphasized. Obviously an encyclopedia must contain these facts about "notable" personalities, even when the hard data points are not themselves "notable". Esoteric madman 14:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already crippled by idealism, so why not take it to the extreme? In Your sentence - "because these practices are essential to make an article truly verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral" - there is a very short way between Idealism, "the essential to make" and Essentialism.

What it convey is a belief in method - a given Asceticism - leading to the promised land of the "truly verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral". An Apologetical approach to this may strenghten those already beliving. And no others. Andrez1 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

In the media: The end of the world (2,367 bytes · 💬)

  • Free-to-read article about WikiTok from the Post refered to in this piece: https://wapo.st/3Xk5fy8 - enjoy! Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    I'm getting a must-subscribe to read. Presumably just one article per subscription. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    Huh - WaPo usually gives me 10 articles to share a month for free with non-subscribers. It usually works when sharing articles with my family; I wonder why it doesn't seem to work here? Just in case, trying again: https://wapo.st/3Xk5fy8 Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    There's a limit to the number of non-subscribers who can click the link and receive the benefit. It's easy enough to find the article archived on sites like archive.org and archive.today. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • It's funny how people with an axe to grind will say that Wikipedia is biased against them, and yet still rely on it for information. This can be seen most easily on YouTube, where Wikipedia articles are used as sources with a screenshot (and often no attribution) all the time. Of course there are biases on Wikipedia, but generally far more nuanced than the detractors would understand. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC).

News and notes: Administrator elections up for reapproval and 1bil GET snagged on Commons (2,628 bytes · 💬)

  • "1bil GET snagged on Commons" in the headline does not seem to have an associated story. I assume some obscure jargon is being used. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    @DuncanHill: I guess it probably should have run further up, seeing as it was the lead image of the article. Amended suchly. jp×g🗯️ 11:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    It's some kind of 4chan reference, according to the link. Secretlondon (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Future updates to the story, if any, will be summarised on this talk and the next issue of The Signpost. Soni (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Le Point just keeps getting further and further into tabloid territory, calling anyone who still works there a "journalist" is proving generous at this point. It is apparently not satisfied with being just an opinionated rag anymore, now it has to devolve fully into weaponizing itself against weaker targets that threaten the establishment it has to defend, while framing this fight within the culture war narratives it has fully embraced. The French media landscape is just depressing, every major publication has just become a billionaire's toy not even pretending to show editorial independence anymore. I would not be surprised if Wikipedia became a standard target there as well in the years to come. I do not now if fr.wiki has the resources to resist a coordinated assault, and it might easily spill over here. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ ⸱ 💬 ⸱ 📋 12:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Obituary: Ümüt Çınar (Kmoksy) and Vinícius Medina Kern (Vmkern) (261 bytes · 💬)

Am I allowed to link to VmKern's page? Or are published article not supposed to be edited? Thanks! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 19:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing (918 bytes · 💬)

  • @Sennecaster: Thank you for agreeing to submit this piece! I also have to apologize for my inaccurate copy-editing: if JPxG himself hadn't intervened, I wouldn't even have realized that you're a "she", not a "he"... That's why you always need a double check. : D --Oltrepier (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Ooh hey, a mention! I had zero doubt you'd make an excellent admin, and I feel validated in seeing how you've been since you received the tools. I'm happy to say that I feel like I know you a bit more than "in passing" now, and I'm happy you valued my opinion enough to ask me for feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read (1,219 bytes · 💬)

  • To be honest, the articles about coverage of Russo-Ukrainian War and open access science might be worth a mention in the next ITM column! Oltrepier (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The link recommendation tool from "Orphan Articles: The Dark Matter of Wikipedia" is really nice! I'll definitely be making use of that in the future. But I think it's unfortunate that the authors described orphan articles as "de facto invisible", in light of the fact (from above) that >77% of readers come directly from a search engine, which presumably doesn't care much about orphanhood. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    Their "quasi-experiment" alleges that adding a new inbound link increases traffic, and I rather suspect that this to some degree is because search engines indeed check for links from other pages. Does anybody know enough to confirm or refute my suspicion? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World (2,087 bytes · 💬)

  • I am concerned about the labelling "Armed escort carries a wounded person from Sara to the Senegalese border, 1974." The four men with the stretcher do not seem to be armed, although there may be a strap for some kind of weapon visible between man number 2 and man number 3, while the visible man following may well be, as may unseen (or partially seen) comrades. Normally we would use the words "armed escort" as an escort of the wounded and the stretcher bearers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC).
    @Rich Farmbrough: I think the third man from the left (the one with the green cap) might carry a strap... Oltrepier (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, that is the (possible) strap I am referring to. It's another jump to infer that this is a weapon strap, as many things are needed on such a trek. Of course the photographer would most likely have known at the time who was carrying what. I've looked for associated photographs that might provide context, but without success. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC).
  • @Vysotsky: Thank you so much for agreeing to submit this, by the way! I swear you've always got the most left-field and interesting stories... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @Vysotsky: this kind of material is brilliant, chapeau! ...and to all the colleagues and institutions involved! One very small quibble: "the last anti-colonial revolution in Africa" ... not really, one could add Eritrea and Namibia (successful) or Western Sahara (still unsuccessful). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year (3,245 bytes · 💬)

  • Can we cite ourselves? Because I just did. kencf0618 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I love tying in the server backup to Listen Wikipedia. Great way to bring "life" to what can be a "dry" topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
  • "fly north in the spring and south in the fall" - isn't this a bit Northist? What does the other hemisphere say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbarson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
    Of course it’s ‘Northist’. And this isn’t just any old article; it’s an article that contains material like this (emphasis added):
    Picking something memorable that does not particularly change across cultures, countries, hemispheres, jurisdictions, et cetera, ….
    I guess this form of discrimination remains stubbornly persistent. It seems that it remains easy to unintentionally marginalize the southern hemisphere, even when specifically trying to avoid doing that. Brianjd (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Brianjd: Discrimination is something that, you know, discriminates—something that divides people or things into categories, implicitly negatively. Someone using a saying that is not true in some places is, however you feel about it, not discrimination. Please remember that Signpost articles are written by real people, and that Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies in Signpost comments as much as anywhere else on-wiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Something like "fly north in the fall and south in the spring", I would suppose. jp×g🗯️ 03:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
It should be like the original but with north/south swapped, so more like ‘fly south in the spring and north in the fall’. But ‘fly south in the spring and north in the fall’ would be even better. As far as I’m concerned, the birds in the other hemisphere can ‘fly north in the spring and south in the fall’. Brianjd (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description? (6,418 bytes · 💬)

Urban Versis 32 and anyone interested in this WikiProject, I think there should be a mandatory requirement for new pages and AfC noms to have a short description and an incoming link from another article. Otherwise, editors will be working on the SHORTDESC and ORPHAN problems in perpetuity, because new articles would continually have to be brought in line with the standards. This would be something similar to how user-generated sources cannot be added to any page. I was thinking of writing something in The Signpost about this, but I was not sure where to start. Thank you for this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Nothing is mandatory to contribute. If there's anything that is explicitly okay for editors to skip at AFC, it's boilerplate stuff gnomes without familiarity with the topic can do, like short descriptions and categories and navigation templates. If there was a drive to toughen requirements at AFC, priorities 1 through 1000 should be around sourcing, which is far more time-consuming for random Wikipedians to review. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Also note that in the AFCH reviewing tool used by AfC reviewers, during the accept process, editors can add a short description to the draft if it doesn't already have one. (I always add a short desc to submissions I'm accepting if it doesn't have one.) Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 02:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

From my perspective, a significant issue here is that the short description does not appear in the default web-based view. I'm in Safari now, and clicking through articles shows no indication that this is present or missing. The only way to know this is to click Edit and examine the source. I am not sure I am using the default view, but it seems a more obvious visual indication would help matters. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

True, most web-based versions of Wikipedia do not utilize this feature, something I thing should be adjusted. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 02:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?. No, because not every article requires one, per WP:SDNONE where it says, If the primary purposes of a short description are entirely met by the title wording, that is a good indication that "none" would be appropriate.. Mentioning that fact would have been a service to the community. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I have added some quick notes to the article covering this. Thanks for the advice and sorry I forgot to add this sooner! Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 02:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Short Description is indeed a good thing but as a frequent coach at edit-athons, I think we should not add it to the requirements for a new article. New editors have enough trouble with more vital ideas like what's a Reliable Source and why an article should have links to and from other articles. Most editors, old or new, have never had an experienced editor looking over their shoulder and coaching them as I do, and the lack of Short Description should merely doom the new article to be labeled as at best a Start-class or even a Stub. And yes, in perpetuity we'll be working on dead-ends, orphans, and other commonplace shortcomings, and deciding whether a new Stub article is worth the cost of upgrade. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Writing short descriptions sounds like something which LLMs should be good at assisting with. feminist🩸 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be really good at assisting with that. They would just need to be tagged that a LLM generated the short description from the article. Jake01756 (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Better still, writing short descriptions sounds to me like a great entry level task for new editors, especially new editors who have not yet got their head round referencing. I've added short descriptions as an exercise at Template:Welcome training. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • To view the short descriptions next to each article name in a category, import User:SD0001/shortdescs-in-category.js into your common.js file. That script will display a "Show SDs" button next to the article list. I think this tool has more uses than just article SD maintenance, There are areas of knowledge where article titles often tell nothing about its content. In the sciences and mathematics, article titles often reflect the names of the discoverer of the article's content, e.g. Ohm's law, or Gauss's lemma (polynomials). The SD can give useful information to the reader looking at a category listing full of names like that.--agr (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-02-27/Traffic report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2025-02-27&oldid=1277899797"