September

• http://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/science-brings-mind-reading-tech-a-step-closer/ - Researchers from Princeton University "used 3,500 Wikipedia articles about objects — like an airplane, heroin, birds and manual transmission – which were inputted in a software that returned 40 topics to which these things could relate — i.e. aviation, drugs, animals or machinery" . (Perhaps better source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/texts-brain-researchers-use-brain-scans-translate-thoughts-words )

• Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonmendelson/2011/08/31/wikipedia-sucks-but-not-for-the-reasons-anyone-ever-talks-about/ ) - "Wikipedia sucks because it’s not comprehensive enough."

• How the Left Conquered Wikipedia, Part II: Coddling Progressives - FrontPage Magazine continues to point out the liberal bias we have here.

• Marc Maron Fact-Checks His Wikipedia Entry On WBEZ (VIDEO) - part of a continuing series, I believe

• http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/somerville/2011/08/29/whitey-bulger-arrest-boosted-interest-in-somerville-mass/ - It's news, at least locally, when the Wikipedia article about Somerville, Massachusetts gets a big spike in page views.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"FrontPage Magazine continues to point out the liberal bias we have here". You seem to have adopted FrontPage's POV in your description. I can't wait until someone explains that what we really have is an educated white American male bias, which is liberal in certain contexts (for example: science and religion), but conservative in other contexts (for example: race and gender issues). Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A belated apology for not putting "liberal bias" in quotation marks. I personally think we have a "reality bias" here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}. From a quick survey, transclusions of the userboxes at User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality#Issues_and_activism far outnumber the transclusions of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Conservatism. extransit (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the userboxes at User:ISD/Userboxes/Sexuality#Issues_and_activism are extremely conservative (for example, supporting traditional marriage) so that's not a useful comparison at all. Kaldari (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One does. The majority of the rest are some variety of 'this user is a feminist'. extransit (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or some variety of 'this user is a masculinist'. Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The most transcluded of which has less transclusions than the least transcluded of all the feminist ones. extransit (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the conservative userboxes with the liberal userboxes though? Or better yet, the quality of conservative and liberal articles in various areas? Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For one example of Wikipedia's conservative bias, take a look at pro-life vs. pro-choice articles. If you compare the following articles based on number of citations (which is usually a good indicator of article quality), it looks like pro-life editors are clearly dominating Wikipedia:

• Pro-life: 98
• Pro-choice: 15
• Susan B. Anthony List (pro-life): 127
• Emily's List (pro-choice): 7
• Feminists for Life: 76
• NARAL Pro-Choice America: 9

Anyway, that's just one example. What type of political bias Wikipedia has depends completely on what sort of topic you are looking at. Kaldari (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Its true that comparing userboxes is not the best metric, but I actually think it is better than randomly pairing off articles. Articles often become highly cited and developed often by the people fighting the POV pushers, for example creationism has 200 citations, yet Wikipedia hardly has a creationist bias. extransit (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Great effort that should be given wide attention. In addition, the radical proposal Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Sysop_on_request of which I am part, could be highlighted, as it emerges from Jimbo --Cerejota (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon the rudeness of this question but is there any reason for thinking that these developments are any more newsworthy than their dozens of failed predecessors? Skomorokh 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Through a suggestion as I was curious about the history of a project, the majority of archives of the village pumps pre October 2007 have become available. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_92#Pre_2007, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 18, Wikipedia:Village pump archive. They were previously only available from searching through page histories. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 22:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How about 'Image filter referendum, what are the results' for In The News? I am ready to make an article about it. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be News and Notes (internal news) rather than ITN (external news). I'll cover it, no worries. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A design group has decided to spend a little time rebranding Wikipedia. Fascinating concept, and although I'm not really fond of the minimalistic theme, it might be worth noting in the next Signpost. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, and to be covered in this week's edition. Cheers fetchcomms, Skomorokh 09:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it confusing to have two talk pages for the Signpost, one Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom which is the Newsroom talk page, and one here as the suggestions page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. I'd like to suggest that a merge be considered. Pine^talk 09:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Newsroom page is intended to be an internal discussion page for those actually writing the Signpost, while this page is intended as suggestions of the (raw) material that might go into that publication. Mixing the two would make it very difficult to track the progress of each weekly edition of the publication. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia founder wows Cambridge Network audience", http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=85087 Jimmy Wales spoke to a packed audience in Cambridge, England, on September 8. "A show of hands indicated that around 75% of the Cambridge audience had already contributed to Wikipedia." [I list this for the sake of completeness. We've run a lot of "Jimmy Wales speaks" items in the Signpost, but perhaps there is something newsworthy here - the above factoid?]

• "The Daring Librarian: Wikipedia is not wicked!", column in the Washington Post, September 7: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-daring-librarian-wikipedia-is-not-wicked/2011/09/06/gIQAYWSF8J_blog.html

• "Five clever ways to trick out Wikipedia" - enhancing the reading (mostly) and editing experience, a "How to" post on cnet.com: http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-20100773-285/five-clever-ways-to-trick-out-wikipedia/

• "Wikipedia Brown" - a new radio show from First Arkansas News: http://firstarkansasnews.net/2011/09/introducing-wikipedia-brown/ (the first episode, http://firstarkansasnews.net/wikibrown/Wikipedia%20Brown%20-%20Rue%20%20Britannica%20(Episode%201)%20.mp3 , is titled "Rue Britannica")

• At Vancouver's New Forms Festival, the weekend of September 9-11: (http://www.straight.com/article-450231/vancouver/check-new-forms-hotel )

"One of the pieces I think is going to be fun to see is the Wikipedia Art room, and that’s being done by Scott Kildall and Nathaniel Stern,” [director and curator Malcolm] Levy notes. “What they’re going to be doing is creating a Wikipedia hotel room; the entire room will be set up with décor based around the concept of Wikipedia art.”

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. Skomorokh 12:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A week into the month long WikiProject Images and Media Transfer to Commons Drive, the initial goal of just under 1,500 files transferred was completed. The backlog at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons started at 18,918 items. At the time of this writing, a new 1,500 item goal (which would bring the backlog down to 15,000 items) is in place. Users Common Good, Ebe123, Quadell, Michael Barera, SMasters,Sven Manguard, Drilnoth, Jay8g, Acather96, and Guerillero were on the leaderboard (in that order) when the initial goal was reached. Common Good has held a commanding lead throughout the majority of the drive.

Note: You may edit this in any way you please, or choose not to publish it.

Sven Manguard Wha? 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Covered at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-12/News and notes, thanks. Skomorokh 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Google "Anna Kournikova poker" and you will see a 13.7 million g-test result. This is for the nickname for the Ace-King starting hand being called the Anna Kournikova because "it looks great but never wins". An editor wants this content removed. We have hashed it out and at this point he is ignoring the g-test. I have proposed a RFC, which I hope we can begin before you go to press. If we do, I think we should get a mention because Kournikova continues to be one of the most widely googled subjects in the world (although she only gets a rather pedestrian 4k hit on WP since many searchers are looking for images).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How is this at all signpost material? What we have here are two things, a petty content dispute (not worth a mention in the Signpost), and an internet phenomenon that has nothing to do with Wikipedia (also not worth a mention in the Signpost). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, The Signpost's Discussion Report feature, which covered noteworthy RfCs, is dormant due to a lack of volunteers to write it. Skomorokh 12:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.pr.com/press-release/352263 - Wiki Golf is now at version 2.0. If the Signpost hasn't covered this, perhaps it's worth a mention, particularly since "10% of all profits are donated to Wikipedia".

• http://thesheaf.com/news/2011/09/10/brief-wikipedia-needs-your-edits/ : "Wikimedia Canada is offering $1,000 to post-secondary students willing to edit Wikipedia articles. The scholarship will be awarded for the greatest improvement to a disease-related article on the free online encyclopedia." Page to apply: http://wikimedia.ca/wiki/Scholarship_application

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated John, Skomorokh 12:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to include it in "In the news": Lexington: Classlessness in America (The Economist, 24 September 2001. Relevant bit: "Though it [the Socialist Labor Party of America] can trace its history as far back as 1876, when it was known as the Workingmen’s Party, no less an authority than Wikipedia pronounces it “moribund”." —Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 01:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:JaGa runs a disambiguation challenge contest every month and recently made available the underlying databases to other Toolserver users. This includes a pre-generated disambiguation link table and the contest results table. I've already integrated it into my tools and have generated some stats of the contestants (seen on my talk page). — Dispenser 03:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The ((REVISIONUSER)) magic word has for a long time returned the username of the user who is currently viewing the page. It is used in this way on various templates, edit notices, etc. However, it is supposed to return the username of the user who last edited the page. The devs have finally identified this issue and are planning on releasing the fix soon (see bugzilla:19006). It doesn't appear as if they plan on providing an additional variable which will allow us to get the name of the user viewing the page. Probably would be a good idea to get the word out so that people who rely on that functionality will be informed that their templates might be broken soon. —SW— ^soliloquize 23:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This is marginal and may not rate mention: [1] Should it wait until they actually run out of money or successfully get out of the hole? - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring theme. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a million and five places that would given them free hosting...--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure? Are you thinking in Wikia? ; ) Time to download this. emijrp (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be idiots. As long as there are people editing CZ, I will absolutely guarantee that it will stay online. While we need donations (as does Wikipedia), this is not an existential issue. Besides, it's now up to four months' funding (I need to update the donations page). --Larry Sanger (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

So the word "two" should change to "four", and you are having unspecified problems with updating a page on a website which you control - that makes us idiots how? Franamax (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I'm having trouble updating the page. I said that I need to update the page (I'm merely procrastinating). Making poor inferences might not make you an idiot, though, granted.

It's dumb, however, to draw conclusions from that page without interviewing anyone or doing further investigation. This is guesswork, not journalism. --Larry Sanger (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NY Times article on the content dispute in the September 11 Attacks article on mentioning conspiracy theories. Includes comments by Newyorkbrad. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And related content RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy for any one paid NYT contributor to nitpick. For comparison, wonder how much columnspace the gray lady used for conspiracy theories in Sunday's paper... BusterD (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-11/In the news suggesting sockpuppeting by Johann Hari, Hari has now admitted this and is apologising for this (and various other transgressions) - see here.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Accurate on Cancer Facts, But Hard to Read - http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-accurate-cancer-facts-hard-read-study-231410261.html

• http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/meme-weaver/8625/ - the first book about Wikipedia - big advance, completely written, never published.

• http://www.newswise.com/articles/technion-students-create-application-that-writes-books - "BookIt!" uses Wikipedia, after being given just a few key words from a user, to create a book, complete with title, table of contents, text, and pictures.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The cancer study has already been covered twice, in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-07/In the news and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-29/Recent research. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Bummer on the cancer study. I've got more suggestions below, to replace that one. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/47019 (requires free registration)
• http://physicsworld.com/blog/2011/09/become_a_wikipedian.html

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfC on the December 2011 ArbCom Elections may be worth a mention in the next issue. –MuZemike 03:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikimedia District of Columbia (DC) is officially a chapter now.

And related news:

• We are holding our Annual Membership Meeting on Saturday, October 1, with elections for all our board of directors seats.
• Chapter board candidate submissions are open until 11:59pm EDT on September 24 and we very much encourage people to consider being candidates. [2]
• People (from anywhere) are welcome to join our chapter online

Upcoming events and collaborations:

• We also have a meetup and scan-a-thon coming up on October 8, at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland, with National Archivist David Ferriero attending.
• We have launched a new GLAM collaboration with the District of Columbia Public Library and are running a popup Library Lab "hackspace for knowledge" at the library (and seeking volunteers).GLAM collaboration with the District of Columbia Public Library

Although I have a COI in writing any of this in the signpost, but could help draft something with a disclaimer if that helps?

Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do a draft and we can put a disclaimer in at the top or bottom after. --SMasters (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. We might submit something in a couple weeks... we'll have our annual report out by October 1 and said event on October 8 at NARA. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So the incubator is getting a "renovation" with strategy planning, the WikimediaIncubator extension and more. I think that an signpost editor may interview SPQRobin (talk · contribs). There's lots going on. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds very interesting. I can probably have a look at it for next week or two. --SMasters (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle is being implemented too. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I could do it as sister projects. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Moved from Newsroom The interview with SPQRobin (talk · contribs) about the Wikimedia Incubator that got answered by SMasters was still not made. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs 10:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to do this? I'm extremely busy at the moment and if you're free, you can go ahead and start this. Cheers. --SMasters (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I will find some time and I'll do it. But still, I'm horrible with creating articles, and I would consider myself involved as a bureaucrat, administrator, and Importer on the wiki. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs (For the Incubator) • 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC), 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are saying that you might have COI issues with this, then I can start the article. But I need a week or two as I'm extremely busy at the moment. Let me see what I can do. Cheers. --SMasters (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been a slow week for news stories about or involving Wikipedia. Here are three, not particularly memorable ones, but I cite them for the sake of completeness:

• "Marga Gomez lies about her age. She even falsified her date of birth on Wikipedia, she confesses in her latest solo show, 'Not Getting Any Younger.'" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/16/DDG41L47CP.DTL

• Much of the details in the Wikipedia article Hannah Cornett may be made up, deadspin.com reports, in "The Surfer Grifter: The Weird Tale Of Hannah Cornett And Her $20K Vegas Hotel Bill", http://deadspin.com/5839501/the-surfer-grifter-the-weird-tale-of-hannah-cornett-and-her-20k-vegas-hotel-bill

• Eli Pariser, the author of The Filter Bubble, says that the more queries one does using Google, the more Google personalizes the search results, and the more personalized the results, the lower Wikipedia ranks. http://www.businessinsider.com/keynote-conversation-with-eli-pariser-2011-9

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Going through some news articles about Wikipedia and found some interesting ones:

Wikipedia Accurate on Cancer Facts, But Hard to Read: Study

A little late, but nonetheless:

On Wikipedia, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’ -- Luke (Talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A few hours ago, the number of article disambiguation pages (that is: disambiguation pages in the article namespace) reached the 200,000 mark. It would be nice to make a note about it in the Signpost because it's a cool symbol of the amount of work that volunteers have invested in organizing existing content and making sure that readers find what they're really looking for. It's a sort of milestone for Wikignomes... I also think that very few people realize that about 1 in 17 articles is not an article! Pichpich (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthias Schildner over at Wikimedia Germany managed to convince the IDF to release all of their photographs under a CC-by-SA license. Wikimedia IL has it in their blog (http://blog.wikimedia.org.il/?p=255 - sorry, no english translation yet. I've asked for one.) The photographs are already being uploaded to Commons as I write this. Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, these are images from the Israel Defense Forces (see also Flickr photos linked to from the above-linked document). Commons category is Images taken by Israel Defense Force. Mindmatrix 17:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew-language media report on the issue: http://media.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=832429&sid=217 —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Results from the Huggle experiment. Let me know if you have any questions, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Full results at meta:Research:Warning Templates in Huggle. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we started a new round of A/B testing with permission of Addshore. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

... of mine Wikipedia:There is a deadline. I hope this shows the other side. emijrp (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.rotherham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=256322: In a programme, Torquay United F.C. printed negative information about professional footballer Tom Newey, information added to Newey's Wikipedia article by an I.P. user in April 2011, which was unsourced (a WP:BLP violation, of course) and false. The team subsequently issued an apology. The false information [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Newey&diff=451482300&oldid=434332698 was removed from the Wikipedia article on September 20.

• A columnist in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote about a modification to a Wikipedia article about a sports newscaster. The column is dated 9/18, as is the modification, which was removed on the 20th.

• http://www.cultofmac.com/115036/look-up-words-in-the-mac-os-x-dictionary-and-wikipedia-with-two-taps-os-x-tips/ - On the latest Mac OS, if you select (highlight) a word and then double tap the trackpad with three fingers, the initial wording from the Wikipedia article for that word will appear in a pop-up, along with a link to the article.

• http://oakpark.patch.com/articles/the-patch-interview-author-neal-stephenson-reamde-cryptonomicon-diamond-age-snow-crash-alternate-universe - Neal Stephenson is interviewed about his latest book, Reamde:

"One of your protagonists in Reamde battles fabrications, misinformation and jokes posted on his Wikipedia page. Is this something you’ve experienced?

Stephenson: I haven’t looked at my entry recently; it just seems narcissistic and usually leads to me getting aggravated. It’s just kind of a running joke in the book. What hopefully makes it funny is that everyone who’s used Wikipedia has found stuff they believe to be wrong."

• http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Luke_Evans_Gay_Straight_Bi-10785.aspx - News report about the battle at Wikipedia over what the article about Luke Evans will say about his sexuality.

• http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Polish_Wikipedia_is_10_Years_Old,id,461162.htm - "Creators, supporters and readers of the Polish edition of Wikipedia will meet on Saturday" to celebrate the Polish Wikipedia being 10 years old.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• The Web/CC version of Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia has been released at [3]. I believe someone reviewed it in the Signpost a few months ago so a brief mention of this new (free!) version may be a good, quick followup. ElKevbo (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The new journal Fungal Conservation has opened with an article about fungi on Wikipedia, offering suggestions on how readers can improve Wikipedia's coverage of fungi. The full issue can be viewed here, and the article, "Raising the profile of fungi on the Internet: editing Wikipedia", starts on page 54. While complimentary of our articles on fungi, ("In addition to general papers, there are already many specialist pages for the fungi and, having been written by mycologists, these tend to be of very high quality indeed.") the author, David Minter, is concerned about the lack of mention of fungi in numerous articles covering biodiversity. He offers advice to readers of how to fix this, detailing good editing practices such as the NPOV and avoiding edit wars. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible title "Fungi growing on Wikipedia"  :-) Smallbones (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of Wikimedia readers & editors don't know about the gadgets that they could use to have a more enjoyable Wikimedia experience. Could you have a tech feature every once in a while suggest to people, "log into (specific wiki) and go to your user preferences and look at the gadgets available, and try (gadget)"? Multimedia Beta and the citation expander might be good examples. Thanks. Sumanah (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Compare this little series we did a year ago:

• "Tools, part 1: References, external links, categories and size"
• "Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories"
• "Tools, part 3: Style tools and wikEd"

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The launch of QRpedia might be worth a mention, although I think signpost has covered it before. (for coverage see: Wikipedia Unveils Probably the Coolest QR Thingy Ever Made, QR Codes + Wikipedia). The backstory is at Introducing QRpedia.— Rod ^talk 08:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another good link: http://gizmodo.com/5845298/how-wikipedia-is-making-qr-codes-useful-again (Though it seems to think this is an official service of Wikipedia) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October

• Drive to enrich content in Greek Wikipedia - http://www.emg.rs/en/news/region/165144.html

• Newspaper report, September 29: "MP Bill Shorten's Wikipedia page vandalised to show picture of Jack Russell terrier" (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/mp-bill-shortens-wikipedia-page-was-vandalised-and-his-photo-edited-to-show-a-picture-of-a-jack-russell-terrier/story-fn7celvh-1226152022304 ). The vandalism, reported by the Herald Sun, began on September 23, and was repeated five more times over the next week as different editors reverted the change in images in the infobox.

• Wikipedia Co-Founder Jimmy Wales Describes The Site's Hold-Out On Social Media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/wikipedia-jimmy-wales_n_982243.html

• Wall Street Journal reviews the new Encyclopaedia Britannica IPad app: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576598870117070318.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, just a quick shout out that Friday will be the first session in a new collaboration between Wikimedia Indonesia and the Lontar Foundation. The collaboration will last for three months and is hoped to result in 300 new articles about Indonesian writers, their works, and related foundations and organizations. Info here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this item (currently on front page of Italian Wikipedia), there is a proposed law that would require "...all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image."--A bit iffy (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins at the Italian wikipedia have blanked the site in protest. They've issued a statement explaining their reasoning. Not sure if the Foundation has issued a statement about it yet, but they're talking. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen nothing that stops us from requiring people to make such requests in person to a dedicated member of the Foundation based in San Francisco. Otherwise, what would to stop anyone from claiming to be anyone? —WFC— 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not going to do any good, but having seen some panics go around before - all websites will need to have Braille versions for the blind, the UN wants to tax bits, annoying anonymous comments will be illegal, etc - I'm very, very skeptical of the above characterization. It's easy to take a little snippet out of context and start playing rile-'em-up. Can I urge some level-headed investigation of anything that sounds too far-out to be true? I mean, when Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger did his report to the FBI regarding Wikimedia sexual material and alleged legal violations, the general attitude was not that he must be correct, remember? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Seth, you have a point - in fact, even as I was adding this item I was thinking "no, they wouldn't actually go and do that, surely?"--A bit iffy (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia_Forum/Italian_Wikipedia#First_afterthoughts --Goldzahn (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How about something on the fact the whole newsletter is a few days late? This must the first time in a while. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 20:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Jorgenev/~research/Wikipedia subreddit user survey. utcursch | talk 06:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm saving this. I only wrote up that page because some redditors wanted quick turn around on their responses. I'm glad you found it though! :) JORGENEV 07:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs article was viewed 7.4 million times in a single day, 1.5 million more than Michael Jackson's death. Support a brief mention, only. HurricaneFan25 14:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if Commons "stuff" is welcome, but, the images are of course being used to improved Wikipedia coverage! Press release is here. Case study is here, which features links to the images. SarahStierch (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Commons is welcome because we are the end users of the images. This is good stuff, thank you. JORGENEV 09:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ada Lovelace Award is for those who make significant contributions to Wikipedia about women and technology. The image was donated to Wikimedia Commons by the Ada Initiative. SarahStierch (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Appeared in last week's edition, thanks Sarah. Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What about a new section in signpost that addresses the gendergap in some way, featuring content, activities, editors that help addressing this issue? Juttavd (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost has been covering these issues, I only can bring up off hand what I have written (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-15/Women and Wikipedia) but I think we have noted every important step thus far. That said, we are short staffed and any help covering progress or important developments in that area is always welcome. However I do not think that the creation of a new beat should be under taken for two reasons (aside from practicality which is also an issue, we are struggling somewhat with our current load, but that is always fixable). First is that it would be an unprecedentedly low resolution for the Signpost. I am not an expert in the area but from what I know, the the gendergap going-ons tend to small discussions here and there on pages that tend to be off the beaten track and it would seem to be uneven to dedicate coverage to such proceedings alongside arbitration and site-wide referendums when many sizable events in between would be neglected. Secondly, as I think we do a good job covering the major events, such a beat would seem to tend away from the informative nature of the signpost into advocative territory which I think the signpost should avoid (aside from editorials which anyone is welcome to submit). I am never opposed to more Wikipedia news, I subscribe to ever on project newsletter and I think what you are suggesting would be great as say the newsletter of either WP:CSB or WP:FEMINISM. JORGENEV 09:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, working together with Wikimedia Germany in a research project called RENDER in a use case about diversity in Wikipedia.

I am currently conducting a survey on revert behavior and I am in urgent need of more Wikipedians to contribute (as my survey ends in 13 days).

Is there any chance to include my request in the next Signpost? I searched the page but found no indicators of whether this is ok or not.

You guys would really help me if that would be possible.

here is the text I would suggest:

--Start text--

What is a revert? Participants needed for revert assessment is research project partnered by Wikimedia. The EU research project RENDER (together with Wikimedia Germany) is looking for people to help evaluate what edits in Wikipedia are actual reverts. The results of the short survey (15 min.) are used to model user revert behavior and eventually for improving Wikipedia's quality.

I.e. us guys from RENDER would like to know what the Wikipedia community sees as a "revert". You will be given several pairs of revision text Diffs of Wikipedia articles to assess if one edit is a revert of another.

What will the data be used for? The results help us to automatically identify reverts and build models of how editors interact. This knowledge will be used in RENDER to identify articles which are prone to show harmful editor behavior. Together with other techniques such as fact coverage detection, we hope to aid the editors of Wikipedia in finding low quality articles by developing respective tools for this task.

How to A short how-to is given in the survey. Start the Survey here (15 min.)

--End text--

Thanks and best regards,

--Fabian Flöck (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this would fit into the next research report, which will be on Oct 24 or 31. Is there any Open Access component to RENDER? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Fabian, please consider that this request hasn't been reviewed by the RCom yet so it's too premature to start recruiting participants. --DarTar (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that without Research Committee approval, it would be irresponsible of the Signpost to advertise this. Hopefully we will be in a position to cover it in the forthcoming research report. Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, I posted it before I was aware of the full review process of RCom and what it included. So we can consider this to be on hold until the approval is given. I will then update it. Thanks for your time. --Fabian Flöck (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=3000000. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added to "News and notes", thanks. Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jezebel has a piece entitled Men’s Rights Fight Breaks Out On Wikipedia covering the recent editing disputes on the men's rights article. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Gobonobo, I've added this to this week's edition of "In the news". Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article for David McKie, a Guardian journalist, was vandalised to indicate that he had died. McKie recounts other examples of premature obituaries in "When I died on Wikipedia". --88.111.33.27 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've added this to this week's edition of "In the news". Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• What's new. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, included. Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oct 24-30 is Open Access Week, and I would be interested in celebrating this in the Oct 24 Signpost. Apart from an article and/or interview on the topic, I could imagine to try to specifically add images and media from OA sources. On Oct 22-23, there is also the Open Science Summit, about which there could be an article. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a brief couple of sentences, maybe in the news & notes:

"OpenStreetMap.org, the not-for-profit wiki-style map collaboration, is running a special baseball project over the next few weeks (during the playoffs and the world series) Help adding baseball diamonds to the map! Find out more here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Big_baseball_project_2011 "

So obviously I'm suggesting this because I'm keen to promote this project. I appreciate signpost editors should immediately view such pimping promotion with suspicion. Quite right too. OpenStreetMap is not a part of the wikimedia foundation set of projects, but I hope wikipedians will regard it as something akin to a sister project because it is overseen by a not-for-profit foundation, with a mission to create a free (open licensed) map of the world. It's really a very similar good cause project to wikipedia. I'm running this baseball project as a bit of fun, and a short term mapping sprint just over the next few weeks. I'm trying to bump up that number shown in yellow, so a mention in today's signpost could be a great help.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh! this is like the tennis project a few months back :) It would be great to mention this in the signpost and if signpost editors would like more news from OSM, let Harry (or me) know. --Aude (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission Harry. Not being all that familiar with OpenStreetMap personally, I'm not sure how pertinent it is to the Signpost readership, but another more editor may wish to include this in "News and notes" this week. Skomorokh 17:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The tumblr [citation needed] is publishing a book with "The best of Wikipedia's worst writing". [4] Jon Harald Søby (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-editor/author of the book is the Comics Curmudgeon. Powers ^T 13:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a pretty big deal that one of the WP:FC projects has been tagged as inactive. It is probably worth a mention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Now in brief. ResMar 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Developed and executed by yours truly. (Not on behalf of WMF, only as a volunteer). View the survey here. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Now in brief. ResMar 01:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)