Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72

mot du règne[edit]

main: wikt:Project:Tea room/2022/September#mot du règne, also: User talk:Drmies#Writers' tip

There is a word that has been around for about 2 centuries (1808 in an issue of The Satirist, or Monthly Meteor is the earliest occurrence in running prose that I have found, with a cursory search) that (a) Wiktionary might end up being the first to recognize, (b) seems somewhat useful for writers to know the 19th to 21st century common spelling of at this time. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The neologism in question seems to be Carolian. That is not recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary which just has Carolean, following Jacobean. As the prime minister is using "Carolean" then that seems well-established. Note that there is no simple pattern for this as the previous age was usually "Elizabethan" though the OED has some archaic examples of "Elizabethean" and "Elizabethian". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian mysteries that aren't real mysteries[edit]

Etc. The point I'm suggesting is that Wikipedia articles in Australia have a tendency to create the air of mystery where none exists, or there is very little evidence to say it exists.

Is there anyway to combat this, or am I on my own? Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jack Upland: feel free to remove this information if the information that "X is only speculation" or "X remains a mystery" is not sourced, or if the information is unsourced in the summary and not present and reliable sourced in the article. I myself have removed it from Donald Mackay (anti-drugs campaigner). Veverve (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Harold Holt is still missing (see Disappearance of Harold Holt), as are Juanita Nielsen and Donald Mackay. They're likely dead, but no body has yet turned up. I don't see anything about Sydney and Voyager that seems mysterious.--Auric talk 20:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No more citations to bible verses linking to particular translations (especially if it's KJV or NKJV)[edit]

This is new and absurd. Needs to be fixed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvlawyering (talkcontribs) 03:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what specific example(s) you're thinking of. Personally I like using [1] (Masoretic Text) for some reason, per King James Only movement there are people who like those translations.
In general, I think a more modern bible translation is more helpful for the general reader, but I don't think KJV is glaringly awful by default. Do we have an essay or something on this somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All citations may link to the source the editor used. Is there any reason why particular translations should be summarily disallowed? 64.18.11.67 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem may be, that you sometimes see in the pedia inline links (eg {{url}} or [ www.bibleKVJ ], etc) instead of a proper reference. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As citation any bible-text is generally unfit per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. I was more thinking of customary intext WP:EL, my mistake perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intext EL? Is not the rule "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article." Or are you referring to something else? I sometimes see, things like, "Genesis 4:14" in article running prose but it is also sometimes externally linked in blue, and that seems like a bad practice. On the other hand, if it is important to mention "Genesis 4:14" in an article, it may also be important to know what it says, and some reference(s) to what it says may be needed (not to mention a quote, which per V, always need a reference). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alanscottwalker Yeah, that's what I meant, like at Jesus#Naming_convention,_various_names. These are also sometimes made with interwiki links to wikisource like John 21:25 which doesn't look like EL:s but are. Similar links to the Quran also exists.
Yep, that's the guideline, but these still exists here and there. The argument, I guess, would be that this isn't "normally". Or "that's just a guideline." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a specific issue in mind or are you just looking for controversy? —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kusma: you’re an admin and yet don’t follow AGF? Doug Weller talk 20:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller, AGF is why I haven't blocked the OP, who has made a few similar posts... —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I misunderstood who you were responding to. Doug Weller talk 20:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism of Wikipedia by YouTuber J. J. McCullough[edit]

Why I hate Wikipedia (and you should too!) -- Denelson83 04:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Haven't seen the video, but the comments are quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And we should care about what this sardonic ignoramus says why? Random example: McCullough says [2] that a "CBS story estimated that a third of everything written on Wikipedia was written by just one guy" (specifically User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao). But that's not what the CBS story [3] says; what it says is that SAdN has edited about a third of our articles. Good thing McCullough doesn't do any WP editing, since he apparently cannot read a source and put what it says into his own words without getting the facts mixed up (in this case possibly intentionally, since he throws a misleading pull-quote onto the screen to back up the misinformation he spouts verbally). Any more of your smarmy mustachioed dumbfuckery we can clear up for you, Mr. Smartass? EEng 09:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That mustache almost looks fake.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quiff certainly does. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I actually agree with J.J. that the Internet was in many ways a better place in 2003 than it is now. I'd just blame Google and Facebook for the transformation instead of Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the un-subscription. I knew this dude was a complete ignoramus, the fact that he really doesn't know what he's talking about shows me that anyone can pull up any plucky puckery they want, talk about it in front of a camera with some wacky vfx to keep the audience's attention, and get a ton of views from it just shows me the absolute state of modern society. Also per the opinion of everyone else in the thread. Explodicator7331 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course he knows what he's talking about. Otherwise they wouldn't let him be on YouTube. Jeesh. EEng 02:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He admits having avoided the site for years, so no surprise that there are some errors in what he says. Are we a bunch of middle aged white male Americans? My view from London is that we have a white male skew, not sure about the middle aged bit. As for the idea that the guy who has contributed 0.5% of all the edits on this site has contributed a third of the content.... People with a basic knowledge of the site know that the people with high edit counts have disproportionately large proportions of minor edits. As for talking about a dwindling editor community, it is now 2022, the apparent decline of editing between 2007 and 2014 is very stale news, and much of it was really the move of a lot of vandalfighting to the edit filters. ϢereSpielChequers 14:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are all sorts of valid complaints about Wikipedia in its current state. For example, articles on current events tend to be highly unencyclopedic in their writing, essentially consisting of glorified timelines and flag salads. We don't do a good job of adhering to WP:NOTNEWS very well. Or the fact that in 2022, we still cannot produce a competent mobile editing platform. Those are all legitimate concerns, for example. But to me, this dude's approach just looks like shock jockery. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If memory serves, the last time I saw demographics information, most editors (>50%) at the English Wikipedia were younger adults (age 18 to 40), with the rest divided between teenagers, middle-aged adults, and older adults. I also remember seeing once that, in the space of 10 years, the typical age of an experienced editor went up something like 6 or 8 years. So we are older than we used to be, but I don't think that middle aged adults are the most common group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
21 minutes of utter BS. It indeed looks like a joke from a wannabe stand-up comedian who has chosen 'theme Wikipedia' for this week's performance. I got as far as the first 4 minutes and switched off. The guy obviously has a problem. Is that video made in his office or in the bedroom of one of his very young children? If he was once an admin one can really wonder who is behind some of our admin user names. Let's be fair, though in 2003 Wikiopedia was still in it's infancy - but some of those users still are. That said, who really cares about the demographic, WhatamIdoing? For one thing there's no accurate way of establishing it. What matters is that serious articles, serious edits, and serious site governance are done by serious people. Of course there are a quite a few users who joined as middle-aged adults and are now 'older adults' who are still active and have a lot to offer from their professional and/or academic knowledge and experience and even some septuagenarians who sill have their marbles. At least Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has a specific goal rather than being just another chat room, social media site, or MMORPG, or some other weird form of entertainment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Demographics affect what gets written. Age itself might not matter quite as obviously, but consider this: Erectile dysfunction was created in May 2001. Infant and Childbirth were created about 15 months later. Back labor (a complication affecting about a third of vaginal births) was created 13 years later. Would this have been different if we had more women editors? I think so.
Our articles about regional subjects depends upon people from that region helping out. For example, how much of Category:Vietnamese cuisine is just stubs, and how much of it could be so much more, but probably won't be, unless someone with a connection to Vietnamese culture decides to work on them?
I'm not sure that middle-aged folks have special things to contribute, but young people probably do (e.g., newer forms of pop culture, an interest in schools), and older people probably do. Our end-of-life articles are not showpieces. Scholars write excellent books on things like retirement, nursing homes and hospice, but who's going to work on those articles? It's probably not going to be the editors who are still young enough to believe they're invincible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously have a personal slant in your interpretation of Wikipedia demographgics. I do hope that it was not aimed at us septuagenarian professional and academics who create articles often based on our subject matter. We are not paid for our work either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't dispute that demographic skews matter. I've even credited him with being correct in the white male parts of his critique. But he gets an awful lot wrong, enough wrong on the bits I know that don't feel it worth my time to take him seriously or try to learn from him. ϢereSpielChequers 05:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EEng's first comment convinced me that it wasn't even worth clicking on, and since I have no direct knowledge of what he said, I have not commented on anything that the YouTuber said. I have only provided information, in response to what was said by editors on this page, about the demographics information we have (check out WP:Wikipedians if it's a subject that interests you), and my opinion of their implications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks WhatamI, I remember those surveys and may have taken part in one. I think the WMF one was in part a response to a suggestion of mine in the 2009 strategy wiki. It is a shame that it wasn't made an annual or at least biannual event. Much of the alarm of the death spiral era would have been avoided if we had a better understanding of community demographics. Some of the tension between the WMF and the volunteer community would have been averted if more staffers had a mental image of a typical wikipedian as a retiree rather than a 14 year old. If I'm correct, our recruits in the last decade have included a significant proportion of silver surfers. It is now normal for retirees in the developed world to have online access, so as our founding generation of young editors find themselves busy with careers and young families we have replaced a proportion of them with retirees, and I suspect a new survey would not just show a much higher average age, but if the greying of the pedia is correct, an average age that has risen by more than 11 years in the last 11 years. But the Youtuber who described us as having a middle aged skew despite our last survey showing an average age of 26? I suspect if the average age now turned out to be 40 he might think that indicated a middle aged skew even if the true curve showed peaks in the 20s and 60s and an underrepresentation of middle aged people. ϢereSpielChequers 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The guy makes some good points but I am continually distracted by his pronunciation of "aboot". Is that a Vancouver thing?
But note that Wikipedia's own assessment of itself is not so different. It's a standard tenet here that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" and every page carries a disclaimer that "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity".
Numerically, less than 1% of our pages are rated as good or better and so over 99% are officially not good. And a recent scandal indicates that it's possible to get hundreds of flawed articles rated as good just by being persistent and so that rating of the few good articles lacks validity too.
But the thing is that there's no easy alternative. Sturgeon's Law that "ninety-percent of everything is crud" applies and so there's a torrent of bad stuff out there – news media, streaming services, mass market publishing, you-name-it.
Wikipedia's big advantage is not its high quality but its accessibility and openness. If you want to know something then it's usually easy to find. If it doesn't seem right then you can seek confirmation or tag it or fix it yourself. Other sources are just take-it-or-leave-it with little option to engage with the topic.
But YouTube is an exception as it's easy to post comments and there's a community of content-creators who now engage with each other. J.J.McCullough has 841K subscribers and so is doing quite well. But Mr. Beat is up-and-coming with 606K and he has posted a riposte – "A Teacher Defends Wikipedia"...
Andrew🐉(talk) 22:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree that GA ratings lack validity. I would say that you need to understand what GA means: it is an article that, in the opinion of exactly one (1) editor, met a short list of criteria. In practice, some editors fail articles that do meet the listed criteria, and other editors list articles that fail to meet the listed criteria, but if you understand it as "one individual's view", as contrasted with "a consensus among experienced editors", then you are unlikely to misunderstand the rating too badly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy, I'm surprised you don't know aboot 'aboot'. It's totally characteristic of Canadian English and even parts of New England. As a European, and if you speak French, good luck if you're ever in Quebec... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was easy to find our article on the subject – Canadian raising. But that is graded C class and starts "Canadian raising is an allophonic rule of phonology in many varieties of North American English that changes the pronunciation of diphthongs with open-vowel starting points." This badly fails MOS:JARGON and there's a lively talk page which complains that the article is "incomprehensible" or "utterly incomprehensible". Such articles badly need an actual editor who takes the raw text and makes it readable but there don't seem to be many users who operate at that level.
J.J. covers the issue himself in All aboot Canadian accents. This doesn't baffle with incomprehensible jargon but illustrates its points quite well with video clips. It therefore seems better for a general audience and it has 1.7 million views which is more than the Wikipedia equivalent which has had 1.5 million.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Highly suspicious about the feedback a guy complaining about the research on Wikipedia gives when a sentence before he says he listens to podcasts as research for his videos. Haven't listened past 2-3 minutes in but doubts about his research methods and his multiple failed attempts at getting an auto-BLP article accepted leaves me thinking he won't point out issues we aren't aware of already. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 11:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, yeah, he's the guy who drew a "stereotypical villain" and everyone - including the blurb writers for two of its three appearances on the main page said it looked just like Snidely Whiplash. I mean, it's probably just about legally distinct, but not when... well:

He also did File:Mad scientist.svg which had three more POTD appearances. He was doing GREAT at using Wikipedia to promote himself in its early days. Should've hurried up. And if you want proof it's him, all those POTD blurbs literally identify him by full name. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hi everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2022 Board of Trustees election process. Your participation helps seat the trustees the community seeks on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

These are the preliminary results of the 2022 Board of Trustees election:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Board will complete their review of the most voted candidates, including conducting background checks. The Board plans to appoint new trustees at their meeting in December.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

MNadzikiewicz (WMF) (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Commons Files becoming Public Domain[edit]

This may be a strange question to ask but what is the protocol for Wikimedia Commons files that are currently under a CC License becoming Public Domain? In the US, copyrighted material enters Public Domain 70 years after the creators death or past a certain date. Hopefully this won't need to be addressed for a long time and Wikimedia will still be around then but will the licenses be changed on those files when that happens? Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question but thanks anyways. Have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, all that would need to be, once validated that the creator's death + 70 has passed, is to change the template to PD, though I would suspect that would include adding additional info that confirms the passing of copyright. This is how material that has fallen into the PD is typically handled when uploaded to Commons after becoming PD. Masem (t) 23:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]