Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-02-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Space selfie (411 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

I like what you're doing with the typography and placement of nominators' names. :-) Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: WikiVIP; Art Feminism; Medical articles; PR manipulation; Azerbaijani Wikipedia (2,201 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

The discussion about "Fuck" appearing on the main page or not doesn't link to the discussion. GamerPro64 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. This was due to the delayed publication date of this Signpost issue. Andreas JN 466 05:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for the delayed publication. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed coverage of the Art & Feminism edit-a-thon! I helped facilitate the Amsterdam one and we are going to do a followup in March on the request of the attendees, so the "results" I think are so far just the "results of the day" and don't reflect all results. Another note about the logo - after discussion of the difficulties writing about modern art on Wikipedia in general, one of our attendees mentioned that the "CC-by" logo looked too masculine and we should change that. I'd like to see a dark pink version in a skirt that we can use as an international logo, but I'm not clever with editing svg files. Jane (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really meaty this week. One could spend hours here. Tony (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Tony1. The longest ITM we've had since I have contributed. The stars aligned - there was a lot of coverage, an extended deadline, and some available contributors. The yield? A solid recap of WP ITM. Go Phightins! 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups (5,119 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

The pushback on the mailing list was heavy, but I imagine there is a silent group of less chapter-focused editors who aren't too bothered by this (if they paid much attention to this type of stuff; many are busy editing articles). Some of the comments on the mailing list don't seem quite right - for example, it's not clear to me that user groups cannot have incorporation and bylaws, but rather that they are not required to. II | (t - c) 16:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting too much on the specifics, it looks like the WMF Board is getting a good handle on controlling the movement's finances, which is something it has to do. Willy nilly growth, especially of fixed costs, is a sure fire way to get into financial trouble. We have to make sure that spending money actually accomplishes something for the movement. I think we have enough fundraising ability that we can afford to make a few mistakes, but that is not a good argument for us to go and actually make the mistakes. Reasoning like "The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why ..." they don't allocate money, has got it exactly reversed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.......and there are no doubt other editors such as myself that thinks its about damned time that WMF starts to take limiting access to its massive money teat seriously. The funded user groups are, one and all, disgustingly inefficient. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's going a bit far, if they can spend the money efficiently there should be no problem funding them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no problem funding them, and they have no problem spending money. As for "efficiently" — show it to me, that will be the first. Carrite (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...after considerable post-meeting consultation with the FDC and the Affiliations Committee (AffCom)". I wonder how a brief email saying "we have decided to do this" and a reply saying "we do not agree for these, these and these reasons", with the decision being still unchanged by the WMF-Board, becomes "considerable post-meeting consultation". --Maor X (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I don't understand is why it is considered impossible to be an effective non-profit organization without incorporating in Europe? There are tons of effective non-profits in the US that aren't incorporated. In fact, most non-profits here start off as being non-incorporated for a few years first before incorporating. There are even some U.S. non-profits that have been around for decades and still aren't incorporated. Is this claim really accurate or an exaggeration? Kaldari (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There might be no general answer to that, Europe is a big place. I can tell you about the situation in Hungary (I am no lawyer or accountant so I might be wrong, but I helped in the founding of WM-HU and looked into the situation a bit at the time): basically you are either incorporated or not an organization. A group of friends who call themselves a user group can go a long way, but it quickly becomes awkward when it comes to handling money. Grant money would have to be stored on someone's personal bank account; unlike a charity they would have to pay VAT on everything (27% currently I think); whoever owns the account would be personally responsible (e.g. any accounting problems would go on his record; if he has a private enterprise, that could loose tax benefits just because it is the same person); if something happens to him, the other user group members might not get to the money easily; if his private assets are seized (a divorce, his enterprise going to bust, whatever) the grant money could be seized as well. Not to mention if he actually had bad intentions, since he owns the account there would be basically no protection, as opposed to an incorporated charity. So as soon as money is involved, a non-incorporated user group is pretty much worthless (and if no money is involved, why bother with the bureaucratic overhead of AffCom recognition in the first place?).

That said, a user group could just incorporate when it is formed, and change its name and bylaws after two years when it seeks recognition as a chapter; that means some extra bureaucracy compared to the current process, but I don't see any serious drawbacks. --Tgr (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report: Left with no choice (498 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

The Math extension outage (which Tech News refers to as "wikis being broken" due to the simple language used for that multilingual newsletter) only lasted about 30 minutes. What lasted 2 days was Math rendering issues, not the actual outage. guillom 08:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Sports Day (1,881 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

Your piece about Sochi seemed harsh. As far as I can tell (NASA worldview), there was recent natural snowfall at Rosa Khutor Alpine Resort. Have you a source for your jibe that someone "spray(ed) palm-tree-lined streets with artificial snow"? Perhaps you are thinking of these snow machines 50 km from palm trees. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fair enough. Serendi ^pod ous 14:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the piece. (Humour doesn't work so well when it is untrue.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Woody get 9th with 200k less views than 10th? The-Pope (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Fossil from last week. Fixed. Serendi ^pod ous 16:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Game Time in Russia (3,094 bytes · 💬)[edit]

← Back to 2014-02-12

Discuss this story

I appreciate the interesting interview. However, the fact that such a major country's wikiproject is represented by only two editors is a prime example of how few editors we have.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel the same way. It is disheartening to see how few editors can find the time to contribute anything except endless discussions. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it the other way. People are busy actually editing instead of wasting time on signpost reports. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: If you feel reading the Signpost is a waste of time then what are you doing here? Just curious. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say reading them was. I meant answering questions for the reports. It is a waste of time. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: Thanks for clarifying. You are saying that reading the Signpost wikiproject reports is interesting/worthwhile, but that participating as an interviewee is not. Did I get it right this time? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I generally don't read it because I personally don't find it useful. I only came to this one because of something I saw posted somewhere about it. But some people do find it useful. I would guess that many more don't find it useful. And I would hypothesize that even less people find contributing to it a good use of time. I know when they did a project I edit heavily that most people in our project didn't take part because they thought it was a waste and unlikely to get people interested in a project they weren't already editing in. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad so late[edit]

Too bad this was not published when the games started. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timing wasn't all bad - I personally enjoyed the article all the more because the games had already prompted me to read the articles about Sochi, Adler, and so on. It was great to read something of how those articles developed, and how the coverage of the rest of Russia is developing. Also nice to hear a warm welcome to editors like me who will only visit and all too briefly edit a small part of English Wikipedia's portrayal of Russia.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]