Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

The news section of the village pump is used for news or updates that are expected to require public discussion, rather than, say, specific actions, or discussion on their own talk pages. Project-wide news should go Wikipedia:Announcements; all other news should go to Wikipedia:Goings-on.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.

« Archives, no archives yet (create)

News archive

Discussions older than 14 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These dicussions will be kept archived for 14 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 14 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

New Baseball Wikicity

baseball.wikicities.com

I'm a little biased, so I can't help but point any interested editors to this newer Wikicity for all things Baseball. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-16 16:18

Error in indexing the topic "Phychosis"

A description of the the spice "nutmeg" is listed in the "Topic" section of the articles on "Phychosis"

I'm sorry, what? We don't have an article Phychosis. Do you mean Psychosis? And what do you mean by "topic"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person was talking about the fact that Category:Psychosis includes the article Nutmeg. This is because the latter discusses "Nutmeg Psychosis". That content was merged in from Nutmeg psychosis. -R. S. Shaw 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of similar situations I had sometimes. Is there anything we can do about this? It really doesn't make sense to ordinary readers that Category:Psychosis includes the article Nutmeg, but OTOH it would be a pity to lose this connection altogether. Wouldn't it be better to keep that part as a separate article? (Another problem with the merge is that "nutmeg psychosis" is hard to find in the Nutmeg article, which is contraproductive for a redirect. Common Man 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "vandalized" by government staffers, unflattering info removed

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567 has an article about how several articles about politicians were edited by their staff members.

Not terribly surprising, unfortunately. Prime example: User talk:143.231.249.141. Has made some constuctive edits in the past but has also been engaged in blanking, political attacks, and information removal. Edit History. -Loren 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion regarding baseline style for section heading and external links list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#standard_and_consistent_internal_formatting is hosting a discussion regarding baseline style for section heading and external links list. with the goal of establishing a baseline to which artcles can be made consistent. The issue of the use of extra whitespace in the internal form of the content of an article is central to the discussion. - Bevo 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate request for music equitment trade removed.

NPR correspondent can't help but snicker at what we term an "edit war"

Audio of show

Lotsofissues 23:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it, but note that people often snicker at things they don't quite get the picture of (and are behind the times on). And often, they may know, but use the snickering as propaganda for an agenda. Edit war is a very rough euphemism for debate. He's likely one of those who snicker at that idea as well (and there are an alarming number around these days). --DanielCD 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down already, and listen to the story before you comment so unflatteringly. NPR congressional correspondent Andrea Seabrook says, at timecode 2:22:

Apparently there is a, quote, 'edit war', says Wikipedia, going on about Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia—some people are putting in good stuff, and some people are going back in and erasing the good stuff and putting in bad stuff.

Her "snickering" consists of a breathy intonation when she says "edit war". It seems pretty clear to me that she's just amused by the terminology. Terminology, which, please note, was coined humorously. There's no need to get offended by someone noting the humor implicit in the phrase . --TreyHarris 01:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question

I have posted this message on the talk pages of all the current bureacrats:

Quote:
I am seeking your guidance and advice on a particular issue. Mahuri page on wikipedia was initiated by me, and I have contributed to the page from time to time. As per policy of the wikipedia anyone can use the contents of wikipedia, but I understand that use of such contents should indicate the source, that is, the wikipedia. The contents of the page Mahuri have been used in the site mahurivaisya without giving any reference to wikipedia - though I am glad that they have used our contents. In this case, a problem may arise at a future date if that website takes a stand that the contents of page Mahuri on wikipedia have been copied from that site and thus violates copyrights. In an alternative scenario, a user here may tag our Mahuri page with copyright violation under the impression that our contents have been copied from that site, reference to which was given by me long back as an external link when that site was not active and having only a welcome page. Although I am not aware of any such issue, which wikipedians may have encountered in the past, I believe that such a situation may have arisen earlier too. I seek your advice and guidance to deal with this issue, which you are requested to please post here. I also utilize this opportunity to say Hello to you. Thanks.

I would request for comments and suggestions to deal with the problem. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhadani (talk • contribs) on 02.03.2006

The site has since removed the contents. --Bhadani 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New topical Current Events page -- video games

Please have a look at Current computer and video games events. It's been going for about a week now (See January entries), and could use more contributors & feedback. Cheers, Jacoplane 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public service messages

I'd like to point out that it is my belief there are many people wanting to use Wikipedia as a kind of "Public Service Message Board". Well, that's not useful here and can potentially be downright damaging (libelous, etc.). Categories are meant to help people find material, not to label material. This is an attempt to raise consciousness of something I haven't seen brought up much (though comments/debate may exist in some corner of Wikipedia I haven't seen).

Is it Wikipedia's job to "Inform the Public" about people who "might be dangerous"? Comments welcome. --DanielCD 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: External link sections asre also frequently becoming gummed up with material, but that's another issue. I do want to mention it here though as these issues are somewhat similar. --DanielCD 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples? You may want to check out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Kaldari 17:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders is where my concerns were focused, but I got a response there that seems to sum things up. I may have been wrong in bringing up the issue at just this time. --DanielCD 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the moral stupidity of assigning highly prejudicial labels to 18/17 year old couples, we should not be discussing topics that aren't notable. Most sex offenders are not notable. We're not a bulletin board for warnings, we're an encyclopedia, and all our content should be as relevant in 50 years as it is now. That said, if a notable person has an article and they are a convicted sex offender, there's no reason not to mention this in neutral terms. If it's unimportant to why they're notable, just minimize it (i.e., one sentence) rather than delete it. Deco 20:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the Dominican President?

According to this, Leonel Fernández, the President of the Dominican Republic, used Wikipedia as an example of the dominance of the English language in a speech to university graduates. - Banyan Tree 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a perfect solution. Let's make WIkipedias in other languages! We could have a French Wikipedia, a German WIkipedia...etc. --DanielCD 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, why didn't They think of that before? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he acknowledged the other language versions in the speech, but said (correctly) that the English version dwarfs most of them. Superm401 - Talk 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently we should all stop posing on the English version until all of the others catch up? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite. *Who* is remotely suggesting that? Pcb21 Pete 10:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The President of the Dominican Republic? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No the President of the Dominican Republic suggested it would a good idea for more of his countryfolk to learn English. He made no suggestions to Wikipedians. Pcb21 Pete 16:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (your talent for seeing "anti-Americanism" everywhere needs to stop :)[reply]

Changes in fair use

Interesting document about potential changes in fair use law in the US: Judiciary Committee letter on House Resolution 683 (pdf file). To quote:

Our specific concerns are that H.R. 683 would [...] eliminate the protection in current law for non-commercial use of a mark (section 43(c)(4)(B) of the Lanham Act).

This is probably something we should follow closely. — Catherine\^talk 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently only applies to trademark fair use, but it still deserves attention. Superm401 - Talk 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot exploit any provision enabling noncommercial use, because we have commercial content reusers. Deco 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be up to the reusers to verify they aren't violating copyright? ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.wikipedia.org page not displaying properly?

I've recently been adding some links here in the English Wikipedia to www.wikipedia.org, the multilingual portal for Wikipedia. But when I visited that webpage recently, I discovered that it wasn't displaying properly. The lists of other languages below the main icon and languages don't seem to be displaying properly. Unless it is just a problem my end (I was using the Firefox browser to view it), is it possibly to notify whoever maintains that webpage? Carcharoth 09:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be OK now. Maybe it was just a glitch. Wonder what caused it? Carcharoth 10:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The glitch is back again! Is anyone else getting problems with that page? You might have to visit it several times over the course of a day to see the glitch (unless it is a problem at my end). Where would be the best place to ask questions about problems with the www.wikipedia.org page displaying correctly? Carcharoth 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time it happens, take a screenshot and post that so others can see what's happening. This isn't the correct place to discuss it though, I suggest the Help Desk is a more appropriate place.-gadfium 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was sure this was the wrong place, but I had a suspicion that the technical forums might be focused on stuff on the editable part of Wikipedia. I suppose I could also contact the people who maintain that webpage. The only thing that looks vaguely like contact information is the wikimedia button at the bottom, linking to the WikiMedia Foundation. Carcharoth 08:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to copy this to the technical page of the Village Pump. The the Help Desk looks more like where to ask questions about how to use Wikipedia, rather than raise technical issues. Carcharoth 09:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post front page: Meehan story

link Frontpage treatment by a national paper -- this story is going to spiral out of control now!!!11one Lotsofissues 12:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I read the article. I think it is safe to say that people will conclude: "Don't trust Wikipedia for information about politicians". The trouble is that some organisations really do have money and time to throw at 'slanting' pages, putting a 'spin' on things. As Wikipedia grows, this will become more of a problem, indeed it looks like it already is a problem. Will the number of volunteers working to maintain a neutral point of view ever be enough to overcome this problem? Carcharoth 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's very neutral. Critics will take it as bolstering their case, but otherwise the picture it presents is largely about Wikipedia working, even in the face of partisanship on the part of political staffers.--Nectar 22:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is only ONE solution--gather around to hear it!

A wikipedia article:

Top: Box 1, the first 100 words of the stable verified version. Middle/Bottom: Box 2 with the live version.

Good information and open editing all on the same page. Nothing compromised! We have it both: trust and freedom.

Lotsofissues 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DENMARK The story is spreading. 600 word article on Meehan appears in Danish Politiken:

GERMANY 500 word article Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Poland 300 word Gazeta Wyborcza

Lotsofissues 23:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this article shows wikipedia dealing with a difficult issue in a careful and responsible manner. It makes us look good. However, I wish they'd made it clearer that Capitol Hill was blocked from editting, but not reading the site -- calling it a 'blackout' implies we denied all access to me. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carcharoth above. I had the exact same impression on the Center for Consumer Freedom article, where I eventually surrendered to the pressure of editors who I now believe were paid by them. Common Man 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free internet under threat

Please take a look at The End of the Internet? in The Nation. This would mean the end of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia. Common Man 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an End of the Internet. It's right here. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 22:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the title is a bit over the top. But this is a serious threat to the free internet as we know it, including Wikipedia. Ridiculing this without reading the article is childish. Is there a better place to discuss this here on Wikipedia? We need to take this serious. Common Man 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article. Seriously, I don't think the phone companies have any chance of success; they would only cause the United States to become more quickly irrelevant. ‣ᓛᖁ

ᑐ 08:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian makes open call for satirical jokes on Wikipedia's politicians' (lack of) integrity

"Next week:

Wikipedia has banned members of the US congress from editing or writing on the online encyclopedia after a war of words erupted. Send us the top 10 signs an encyclopedia was written by a politician." — The Australian, February 7, 2006

Maybe the soon-to-be published feature commentary will include caricatures!

Lotsofissues 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the section title to match what The Australian appears to be asking :). Pcb21 Pete 08:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New weekly collaboration

The Core topics collaboration of the week has started. We'll work on essential articles intended for a release version of Wikipedia. You're invited. Maurreen 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia vs. Politians

The Meehan story is just the tip of the iceberg. Now that every political operative in the country knows about Wikipedia, it's open season on political articles. I've already started noticing suspicious edits to Tennessee candidate articles since the Meehan story. The most blatant example being someone completely rewriting the article on Phil Bredesen to make it sound like a promotional brochure. And of course the editor was an anonymous IP address with no previous edits. What can we do about this? If it's already this bad now, what can we expect once election season approaches?! Something needs to be done to address this before it gets out of control. Kaldari 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A vandal is still a vandal, whether they're inserting images of feces or promoting their favourite political candidate. All we can do is fight them as we always have, with rollbacks, blocks, and the occasional protection. I seriously doubt any political candidate is literally going to pay people to corrupt Wikipedia - their followers are just a little overzealous. Deco 20:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of preparing for election seasons, it might help to have a little template identifying biographies of political candidates with current campaigns. You wouldn't want it to be overbearing, but just enough to alert the reader to the unique strengths and vulnerabilities of Wikipedia in covering topics with a lot of non-objective interest. --Dystopos 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Running candidate}}, though it requires that there be an article for the election. - Banyan Tree 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this type of vandalism is much more difficult to identify and deal with. Unless someone wants to volunteer to watch all of the politician articles in Tennessee, I'm tempted to semi-protect all of them once election season rolls around. Of course this is in complete violation of the semi-protection policy, but I'm not sure which is worse, having semi-protected articles or having articles written by politicians. For national politicians, it isn't such a big deal because they are heavily watched, but for local politicians in many cases there are only 1 or 0 people watching them. Should I just throw up my hands and give them over to the political operatives? No one else seems to be watching any of the ones in Tennessee and I don't intend to try to police all of them myself. Maybe we can set up some kind of group watchlist that political articles can be nominated to. Kaldari 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a regional noticeboard, try posting there; if you can all pick a dozen each, with the major ones for preference, you should be okay. I certainly watchlisted all the candidates in my constituency, and a couple of others, last time around... Shimgray | talk | 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that don't attract any attention tend not to attract much vandalism. Likewise articles that do attract attention seem to get it from vandals, editors, and readers - some of whom will at least look for a way to point out obvious errors. The tools to fight vandals are getting better faster than the average vandal is becoming sophisticated. I'd just try to keep an eye on things as much as possible and if the going gets tough, yell for help. --Dystopos 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to collect a list or category of such pages so that they can be watched separately for recent changes. We can certainly deal with this sort of POV pushing, especially if editors are aggressive about removing additions that are not sourced. If the candidate (or his opponent) bothers to return with sources, the sourced information is probably our gain anyway. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jew

Sorry if this has already been noted, but we have replaced JewWatch as the no. 1 hit for Jew on Google. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. This reminds me why I love Wikipedia. Martin 23:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have oscillated back and forth as number one for a while now. We used to be number one, but JewWatch gained ground. This is just Wiki taking back the number one position. Broken Segue 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random news clips

Sorry if people have already pointed this out, but I read these two interesting articles:

J Allard: "We're going to take on the Wikipedia model" - not about encarta
Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia, which claims we responded quicker to problems with Annan's article than Seigenthaler. I think it's malarky.

Broken Segue 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malarky indeed. Unjustified edits make the press, but they overlook our wheel war on pedophilia? It seems they've lost their nose for blood. Deco 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Here's an interesting tidbit about Wikipedia in Discover magazine, in the March 2006 issue:

"Science entries in Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, are nearly as error-free as those in Encyclopaedia Britannica, according to a team of expert reviewers.

Bibliomaniac15 03:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Times and Washington Post publish followups on Congressional edits

I won't bore you with links, but this is just to remind everyone that this story won't die. Lotsofissues 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN spokesman doesn't know WTF to make of reporter's Wikipedia question

A exchange from today:

QUESTION: Sorry, I have one. It's a slightly curious question. There was a report that a Wikipedia entry on Kofi Annan had recently been edited to take out reference to his father being a Freemason. I was just wondering if there was, had been sort of a representation from Mr. Annan or his office to Wikipedia to change his biography?

STEPHANE DUJARRIC: Not that I'm aware of. But isn't Wikipedia one of these websites that anyone can go in and edit?

QUESTION: Well that's what's interesting about it because the rules are changing. People are getting more power to change, to demand changes to what's on Wikipedia. That's why it's interesting.

STEPHANE DUJARRIC: It is interesting. Yes sir? [solicits question from another reporter]

Lotsofissues 06:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]