::::Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to any further guidance or suggestions you might have.
::::Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to any further guidance or suggestions you might have.
::::Best regards, [[User:TraceySear840|TraceySear840]] ([[User talk:TraceySear840|talk]]) 20:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Best regards, [[User:TraceySear840|TraceySear840]] ([[User talk:TraceySear840|talk]]) 20:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{replyto|TraceySear840}} These [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|walls of text]] are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:copperplate gothic;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span></span> 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Committed identity: 53034b2749273e66509e3f88fd103b4882f16345902df017ef05f53fcdaa37eb69268ba4777ee04b32c2a6d6fc308063da7f51adb04a5addd52649c095c47659 is grammatical article for the hash function SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
SMcCandlish's On the Radar
On the Radar: An Occasional Newsletter on Wikipedia's Challenges
According to WashPo, WMF has tapped a South African nonprofit executive and lawyer to be its new executive director. While I've been saying for a decade that WMF has to stop hiring software- and online-services-industry people to run an NGO, and hire NGO people, this one – Maryana Iskander – is rather cagey and bureaucratic, or comes off that way in the interview.
First up is a belief that the WMF Universal Code of Conduct (drafted in supposed consulation with all WMF editorial communities but largely ignoring all their feedback) is the key to diversifying Wikipedia's editorial pool. (And as always in mainstream media, "Wikipedia" means en.wikipedia.org.) The entire UCC is basically a restatement of some key WP (and Commons, and Wiktionary) policies plus some WMF "vision" hand-waving. It's questionably reasonable to expect a largely redundant document, which was created for projects that lack sufficient policy development, and which has and will continue to have little impact on en.Wikipedia, to cause a sea change in who volunteers to edit here. That takes real-world outreach on a major scale. One would think a nonprofit CEO would already get that.
Next up, Iskander makes rather unclear reference to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This content-liability shield has been much in the US news lately, as a target of the Republican Party in its feud with "big tech", especially social media sites deplatforming far-right writers for anti-democracy propaganda and misinformation about the public health crisis. Iskander is correct that WMF isn't in a danger position in this, but the article strongly implies that Iskander and WMF are keenly interested and involved. Even when prompted, Iskander does not meaningfully elaborate, and just offers an education-is-important dodge. So, we need more actual information on what WMF is doing with regard to efforts to revise section 230.
Moving on, Iskander says something alarming: "Wikipedia has seen a huge amount of increased traffic around covid-19, [so has] worked on a very productive partnership with the World Health Organization to provide additional credibility to that work." That's hard to distinguish from a statement that WHO has editorial plants who WP:OWN the relevant articles. But it's cause for concern whatever the truth is. WMF should not be "partnering" with any external body to influence the encyclopedia's content (especially not one that has taken as many credibility hits as the WHO).
There's something potentially interesting in here, though devils could reside in the details: "a lot of the basic access issues might technically look different [between SA and US], but how people understand what information is available to them – how they access it – those issues exist everywhere". What is this going to mean on a practical level? Is MOS:ACCESS going to be better-enforced? Is Simple English Wikipedia going to be reintegrated into the main site as alternative articles? Is the mobile version of the site going to stop dropping features? Is WP:GLAM going to turn into a bigger effort? There are a hundred ways (sensible and otherwise) this statement could be made to affect policy, funding, and the end "product" (though one suspects nothing important will change for the better unless the internal culture of WMF's organizational leadership also changes in a major way, such as by diversifying the board of directors, toward more academics and nonprofit people instead of tech-industry rich people).
In short, I have hopes that Iskander's NGO background will make for a better exec. dir. fit than that last two we've had, but right out of the gate she's saying strange, too-vague, and even troubling things. And nothing in the interview actually suggests anything like a fix for WP's editorial diversity problem, which the headline suggested was going to be the focus. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It is possible to detect eerie echoes of the confessional state of yore", and today's far left is recycling techniques from fun times like the Inquisition." I've been saying this for years, and the article is a good summary of how "left-wing" and "leftist" do not always align with "liberal". It's an observation too few mainstream writers have been willing to make, but the truth of it explains a great deal of disruptive PoV-pushing on Wikipedia. Illiberal left-wing activism is often harder to detect, and harder for the average editor to publicly resist, than far-right extremism, which we tend to recognize then delete on sight. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An Information Research survey shows that people's editing motivation is often "their desire to change the views of society", and also that they view Wikipedia as a "social media site". This isn't news to us, and the material doesn't have a huge statistical sample, but I would bet real money that it will be re-confirmed by later studies. This has systemic bias, neutrality, and conflict of interest implications (also not news). What we don't really think much about it is what this means for Wikipedia long-term, as everyone with an agenda becomes more aware that they can try to sneakily leverage Wikipedia articles to boost their side of any story, especially after the Trump 2016 US presidential campaign proved that powerful results can pulled off by organized manipulation of "social media" sites (whether WP really is one or not is irrelevant if the public thinks it is). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only the top-ten proposals will get any resources devoted to them, no matter how many there are, or how urgent or important they are.
It's a straight-vote, canvassing-allowed, no-rationale-needed, short-term "popularity contest" – normal Wikimedian consensus-building is thwarted.
This setup encourages people to vote for the 10 things they want most, then vote against every other proposal even if they agree with it. Proposals cannot build support over time.
There's no "leveling of the playing field" between categories. Important proposals of narrower interest (e.g. to admins, or to technical people) never pass, only the lowest-common-denominator ones do – and the most-canvassed ones.
Too few Wikimedians even know the survey exists or when it is open, which greatly compounds the skew caused by focused canvassing – the intentional spikes actually determine the outcome.
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
Chris troutman uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Hello, I'm PamD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. She's right; that's bullying. Please retract your "Please do leave", which is no way to talk to another editor.PamD17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I did strike that comment at your request. It's worth pointing out that you seek to defend someone who recently defamed you. That editor is arguably not here to write an encyclopedia if it's all POV-pushing and passive-aggressive threats against detractors. Neither of these is the collaboration upon which you say Wikipedia is built. I often do the community a favor and deliver rebukes, knowing full-well most of you will deplore me just the same. Chris Troutman (talk)18:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She does seem very ready to take offence where none was intended, but when she's away from the Clanchy et al row she seems to be contributing usefully, even if she's a bit slow to remember to put her references after her punctuation! I think she can be a useful editor, and she's genuinely excited by contributing. Just as long as she keeps away from the Clanchy stuff (which is how I first came across her, adding bare URL refs to Monisha Rajesh which was on my watchlist as I'd created the article.) PamD18:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding GA instructions revert
Hello,
In your revert,[1] this was the edit summary, "No, articles still have to meet policies. The linked discussion wasn't a community RfC nor did it come up with that result. Your editing is sloppy, if not dishonest."
Why do you say that the linked discussion did [not] "come up with that result".
@Rjjiii: In the discussion you linked, Prhartcom pushes to explicitly say that policies and guidelines have to be met, as a compromise to specifying that subjects have to be notable. The "change to the instructions" you linked above is the change Prhartcom made accordingly. Your edit, however removed the Prhartcom's addition "Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability" which you replaced with "If an article does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy, instead of reviewing you may nominate the article for deletion or propose merging." I imagine you meant to just remove notability from the list and add your idea that the GA nominator instead send to AfD. The 2014 discussion did not develop consensus for you to remove content nor did the consensus agree that the nominator should send to AfD, hence my edit summary. In fact, no one who wants to nominate an article for GA would send to AfD per WP:ATD. New editors need not make changes to Wikipedia-space instructions, so please leave this to other editors. Chris Troutman (talk)00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I imagine you meant to just remove notability from the list" Do you think that my edit removed WP:V, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR from the process? Also, what level of discussion would you like to see before a change to the instructions? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about this change on the talk page a week before making it, in case others had objections or insights.[4] The most recent proposals to add notability to the criteria were not supported.[5][6] The discussion I linked in that first post and the edit summary is what resulted in the addition of notability to the instructions.[7] I hope this makes things more clear, but in the future, if I am doing something that seems confusing or mistaken, you are welcome to ask for clarification, Rjjiii (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: Thank you for pointing out your proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30#Proposal:_clarify_instructions, as that's the best practice. I'm sorry no one seemingly chimed in. While I watch that talk page I don't scour every edit and that's one I missed. I was unaware of what you posted on the talk page when I reverted you, as your talk post was archived automatically a week later. I get your point. I think I'd prefer to leave the preparation instructions as they are, as removing them might lead to more quickfails. Yes, a review is going to examine each of these things including notability. It's not too much to ask that the nominator to ensure these things are already met. Regarding the 2014 conversation, the discussion of only ten editors seems to prefer that non-notable topics are simply quickfailed instead of being reviewed and failing for notability. This was underlined by Tezero who provided the example of Wisp which was a GA and had been an FA candidate until anyone bothered to question the notability of a character in a video game franchise. This is why these instructions are meant to be proscriptive, as opposed to being descriptive as you suggest. Any nominator is apt to be fan of the subject and will unconsciously ignore notability unless we make a point of it. As for me, I automatically reject changes to policies, guidelines, or instructions when I haven't seen a fulsome conversation (ideally an Rfc) on the topic. Thank you for clarifying your points and I hope my reply per WP:BRD resolves this issue. Now that I've interacted with you I won't treat you as a stranger in the future. Chris Troutman (talk)19:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and thanks for the explanation. Since you view it as a change rather than a clarification to the reviewing instructions, I will attempt to generate a broader conversation sometime down the line, and won't remove or modify that part of the instructions unless there is more clear consensus to do so. Rjjiii (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review of the Portal Fernández Concha article. I appreciate your feedback on source reliability and notability concerns. However, I believe there's a need to clarify a few points:
The reference for recent crime coverage is not from Facebook but from T13, a reputable Chilean news outlet. This report sheds light on the current social and urban issues surrounding the Portal, underscoring its continuing relevance and notability. Here's the correct link: T13 Report on Portal Fernández Concha.
The YouTube documentary you referred to is produced by CHV, another major TV channel. Such documentaries offer credible, valuable content and contribute significantly to the Portal's cultural and societal impact.
Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Portal lacks notability. Portal Fernández Concha is an integral part of Santiago's cultural and historical landscape. Its architectural evolution, changing roles over the centuries, and recent crime coverage highlight its importance in Chilean urban history and society. These aspects, documented by credible sources, establish its notability within Chilean heritage and urban studies.
I will review and revise the draft to align with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and notability. Your guidance is invaluable in this process, and I look forward to your advice on further improving the article.
Based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and considering the case for the notability of Portal Fernández Concha, notability is justified as follows:
Significant Coverage: Portal Fernández Concha has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This coverage is not trivial and addresses the subject directly and in detail, fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage under the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV). Sources include historical archives, academic studies on Chilean architecture, and reputable news outlets reporting on the Portal's cultural and societal impacts.
Reliable Sources: The information about Portal Fernández Concha comes from reliable sources with editorial integrity, allowing for verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. These include peer-reviewed journals on architecture and history, books published on the cultural heritage of Santiago, and articles from established news organizations.
Independent Coverage: Coverage of Portal Fernández Concha comes from sources independent of the subject, ensuring objectivity and compliance with Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent of the topic (WP:INDY). This independence assures that the coverage is not influenced by self-promotion or conflict of interest.
Notability is Not Temporary: The Portal's historical significance and its role in Santiago's urban fabric are enduring, meeting the criterion that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Its historical, architectural, and cultural relevance has been sustained over a significant period, establishing its lasting notability.
Presumption of Notability: Given the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, Portal Fernández Concha is presumed to merit its own article (WP:PRESUMED). This presumption is based on the depth of coverage and the quality of sources, even if some aspects of the Portal might require further sourcing or expansion.
Subject-Specific Guidelines: While general notability guidelines are paramount, subject-specific guidelines for buildings and structures also support the notability of Portal Fernández Concha. These guidelines consider the architectural significance, historical value, and cultural impact of structures, all of which are well-documented for the Portal.
Notability Requires Verifiable Evidence: The evidence of notability for Portal Fernández Concha is verifiable and documented in accessible sources (WP:NRV). This verifiability is critical in establishing the Portal's eligibility for a Wikipedia article.
I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the draft for the Portal Fernández Concha article and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's content standards. However, I believe there's a misunderstanding regarding the nature and reliability of the sources used, particularly concerning the guidelines on self-published sources (SPS).
Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources rightly advises caution, given the potential for bias, lack of editorial oversight, and the inherent unreliability associated with personal blogs, social media postings, and similar platforms. However, the contention that the sources cited in the Portal Fernández Concha draft fall squarely under this policy may require reconsideration.
The cited sources from T13 and CHV, while shared on platforms like YouTube, originate from established media outlets with recognized editorial standards and journalistic integrity. These are not akin to content from personal blogs or social media postings, which are typically user-generated without editorial control. The distinction lies in the content producer's credibility, not the medium through which the content is disseminated.
Moreover, the general skepticism towards sources like the tourism site may also benefit from a nuanced analysis. While promotional in nature, information from official tourism websites can be considered reliable for factual data such as historical details, architectural facts, or geographical information, provided they are used judiciously and corroborated with other independent sources.
In light of Wikipedia's guidelines, the argument here is not for an uncritical acceptance of all sources but for a more differentiated approach that considers the nature of the content and the reputation of the content producers. Dismissing sources solely based on the platform (like YouTube) without considering the content's origin and quality may inadvertently exclude valuable information that meets Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability standards.
The aim is to build an article with a foundation of credible, verifiable information that enriches Wikipedia as a resource. I believe that with a careful, nuanced examination of sources, we can achieve this goal for the article on Portal Fernández Concha, ensuring it reflects the notability and significance of the subject in accordance with Wikipedia's standards.
Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to any further guidance or suggestions you might have.
@TraceySear840: These walls of text are unwelcome and unconvincing. I assume you're abusing AI to write what you cannot, yourself, manage. That's a shame because ability to write directly implicates literacy and is indicative of cognitive ability. Don't be surprised if the editing community turns against you in rapid fashion as we'd more likely just block you to silence you. Do not post here ever again. Chris Troutman (talk)20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.svg)
Hello, I'm PamD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. She's right; that's bullying. Please retract your "Please do leave", which is no way to talk to another editor. PamD 17:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)