This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scots Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
First sentence calls it "Wikipaedia" (two letters ae) but the logo shows it to be "Wikipædia" (diphthong æ). I don't know how to fix this because it is template-generated. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please explain this to me Audrey2424 ( talk) 11:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As an admin on Sco.wiki, I'm not sure if I have a Conflict of Interest here? I know we wouldn't say that an enwiki admin has a COI for English Wikipedia, so... idk. Either way, here are some refs that can be used to improve the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
There's an interesting post on reddit about Scots Wikipedia, saying that it's deeply flawed and largely edited by someone who doesn't actually know Scots: [5]. Brad ( talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The forum link is now archived. Link is
Newystats ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-08#
Newystats ( talk) 00:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that a paragraph on the whole not-actually-written-in-Scots thing has been added, removed, and then added again here. I agree with Puzzledvegetable that when a Reddit post and a Gizmodo article about that Reddit post are the only sources, it's WP:TOOSOON to mention it on Wikipedia, but I would like to hear others' thoughts before I perform the third reversion. Shouldn't we wait to see if this becomes WP:NOTABLE before including it? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that because of the massive PITA this whole deal is going to cause for Scots Wikipedia with practically every article meeding to be checked to make sure it's really in Scots we should include at least some mention of it. Given that, a small paragraph noting this feels appropriate. AngryZinogre ( talk) 07:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that because of the massive PITA this whole deal is going to cause for Scots Wikipedia with practically every article meeding to be checked to make sure it's really in Scots we should include at least some mention of it.That's not how Wikipedia works. We are simply documenting what has been reported by reliable sources. We can not add something because of the assumption that it will become notable enough for inclusion in the future. Please note the relevant notability guideline which states rather unambiguously:
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists-- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 12:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The errors were originally found on 4chan. Predating the Reddit post by a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.62.43.46 ( talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian have picked up on it now. Opera hat ( talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bondegezou: - I prefer simply stating that the user produced extremely low-quality work and leaving it at that. Saying that they "don't speak Scots" is reductive and makes the user - a real person - come across as (even more?) insane, as if they were knowingly writing nonsense into this wiki. If we had to discuss it, it would be to say something like "the editor believed in good faith that they could write Scots and were producing useful material, but only due to extreme naivety / shelteredness / being a kid. In actual reality their Scots proficiency was nearly nonexistent." Open to suggestions - I'd rather leave it out, but if you feel the matter should be brought up, we should strive not to misrepresent this editor per WP:BLP. SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I see the Guardian article has been added to the article, but I thought I'd add for reference on this talk page that it is the 4th most-viewed article currently live there (behind Boris Johnson, Brexit, and the school grades scandal). If there was already a lot of attention, this could lead to much more mainstream coverage in the UK, so beware of incoming vandals.
Also, the Guardian article mentions that the Scots language body has contacted Wikimedia, which isn't in the article (yet), in case an interested user wanted to add it. Kingsif ( talk) 22:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The article has categories of "Science and technology in Scotland" and "2005 establishments in Scotland", yet the only mention of its foundation is that Wikimedia's headquarters are in Miami, Florida. Can we clarify this one way or the other? How did the project start? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(EDIT: Looks like we both posted new sections simultaneously - combining them — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC))
Taking a text in language A and translating each word into language B, one by one and maintaining the sequence, will never produce a text in language B, low-quality or otherwise. To say so flatters what was produced. Many of the choice of words apppear to have been spuriously Scottified, others chosen on the basis of maximal differentiation from the English word in the source text, even if they are archaic, obscure or a word closer to English is the more commonplace. His work was made up of a succession of Scots words, or something approximating them, but that does not make it Scots. He attempted to construct text in the language without being informed as to how to do so. The very next sentence elaborates as to the mechanics of how he is assumed to have gone about this, with an English/Scots dictionary so I'm not sure why anyone would think he used Italian(?!; I know it is intended of an example of something but it doesn't fly). Mutt Lunker ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Mutt Lunker: I'm open to options here on alternate phrasings, but think your original attempt was misleading. If we go solely by the original Reddit post - which was unnecessarily bombastic in parts IMO - even it acknowledges that the author thought that Scots Wikipedia was "legendarily bad" when looking at in years prior. Not that it was pure gibberish / spam like zsadfjhklsfkjhsdfkjhsdfhdsf , or straight-up Actually A Different Langauge like pasting in English directly. I don't think it's under dispute that AG's grasp of Scots was horrible, and that's in the article already with the quote from the linguistics professor. It was, however, Scots-y enough to not be immediately, obviously, "not Scots" in the sense of gibberish or a different language. If it were, then even non-Scots speaking admins (like MJL) and passerby would have noticed. Hence, I stand by "very low quality Scots" as an accurate description of the state of AG's articles. Do you have a better suggestion than the awkward-reading (to me at least) "uninformed attempt at the construction of Scots text"? To me, that sounds more like it's implying the pure gibberish option, like saying "the toddler made an uninformed attempt at writing the alphabet" (implied: but they failed to correctly write the alphabet). SnowFire ( talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
At no time have I in any way objected to someone disagreeing with me, so you can withdraw that slight. If, though, the nature of that disagreement is illogical, unwarranted and indeed, in some of its aspects, ludicrous, it is entirely appropriate for me to point this out. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(de-indent) I still don't understand what Mutt Lunker is looking for here, and am inclined to go back to the original phrasing of "very low-quality Scots." Or low-quality something. The fundamental scandal was low language quality. I'll quote from the original Reddit thread:
The problem is not "one contributor contributed a lot," which would be a mystifying complaint. The problem is that the language quality of the articles is crap, and this needs to be stated. Additionally, per the original Reddit poster himself, this problem goes deeper than originally implied by the Reddit thread - he looked at other articles untouched by AG and found they were equally bad, and MJL, the other admin, has stated that looking back at the original contributors to Scots Wikipedia, many of them were oddball enthusiasts as well, not native Scots speakers. SnowFire ( talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed this hatnote as I couldn't work out what it was trying to say. Is it trying to clarify that this article is about Scots Wikipedia and that there is no such thing as a Scottish English Wikipedia (and that the reader should just read the English Wikipedia instead)? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 10:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Scottish English Wikipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6#Scottish English Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't say whether the 20 000 bogus articles were deleted! -- Espoo ( talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing my factual edit re: the ongoing cultural genocide propagated by Wikimedia Foundation and that the Scots Wikipedia is not written in any known language. 2A00:23C4:F1D:4201:C100:1146:80EC:65CB ( talk) 17:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked for 7 days due to edit-warring. Their flame-baiting commentary is not helping. The WMF has recently worked with scholars in Scotland on the linguistic accuracy, some sourcing (or at least evidence) is needed for the IP's position. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
What do editors think of adding a "See also" or "Further reading" to the wikimedia discussion? Newystats ( talk) 02:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
First I fixed the citation, which was attributed to the wrong existing source. Then in a second edit, I removed the sentence completely:
The incident was described as "a huge failure on Wikimedia's part", with specific criticisms placed on Wikipedia's "labyrinthine back-end system" and a lack of coordination across smaller wiki projects.
Here's the actual source (mangled language and cliched conclusion in bold):
Another issue is that there seems to stem from Wikipedia's labyrinthine back-end system. Admins, MJL said, mostly make sure no vandalism occurs on a given page and their main focus is to navigate the back-end. They aren't necessarily monitoring pages for accuracy.
Editors on smaller projects, like the Scots wiki, don't necessarily coordinate new articles that get written, either. They often work individually, unaware of what another editor may be doing. This is a huge failure on Wikimedia's part. Between the opacity of the Wikimedia back end and the reliance on unpaid community volunteers, something like this was bound to happen.
Victoria Song is an established technology journalist, but I don't think the above is her finest hour. She seems to have invented "labyrinthine back-end system" with little support from her own sources. IMO, a good editor at Gizmodo (hopefully not an oxymoron) should have removed this paragraph from Song's composition as unsupported OR.
Clearly the actual problem is that the site had too few administrators (presently just five) and not all of these were native Scots. Any kind of a serious new pages patrol should have flagged these contributions as problematic. This process is hardly "labyrinthine" or obscure.
Finally, it's not like Gizmodo (launched as part of Gawker Media) has never run shallowly sourced clickbait. — MaxEnt 22:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The redirect Scotched English has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Scotched English until a consensus is reached. CiphriusKane ( talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scots Wikipedia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
First sentence calls it "Wikipaedia" (two letters ae) but the logo shows it to be "Wikipædia" (diphthong æ). I don't know how to fix this because it is template-generated. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please explain this to me Audrey2424 ( talk) 11:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
As an admin on Sco.wiki, I'm not sure if I have a Conflict of Interest here? I know we wouldn't say that an enwiki admin has a COI for English Wikipedia, so... idk. Either way, here are some refs that can be used to improve the article: [1] [2] [3] [4] – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
There's an interesting post on reddit about Scots Wikipedia, saying that it's deeply flawed and largely edited by someone who doesn't actually know Scots: [5]. Brad ( talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The forum link is now archived. Link is
Newystats ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-08#
Newystats ( talk) 00:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that a paragraph on the whole not-actually-written-in-Scots thing has been added, removed, and then added again here. I agree with Puzzledvegetable that when a Reddit post and a Gizmodo article about that Reddit post are the only sources, it's WP:TOOSOON to mention it on Wikipedia, but I would like to hear others' thoughts before I perform the third reversion. Shouldn't we wait to see if this becomes WP:NOTABLE before including it? Justin Kunimune ( talk) 02:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that because of the massive PITA this whole deal is going to cause for Scots Wikipedia with practically every article meeding to be checked to make sure it's really in Scots we should include at least some mention of it. Given that, a small paragraph noting this feels appropriate. AngryZinogre ( talk) 07:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd argue that because of the massive PITA this whole deal is going to cause for Scots Wikipedia with practically every article meeding to be checked to make sure it's really in Scots we should include at least some mention of it.That's not how Wikipedia works. We are simply documenting what has been reported by reliable sources. We can not add something because of the assumption that it will become notable enough for inclusion in the future. Please note the relevant notability guideline which states rather unambiguously:
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little attention from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type is commonly notable or merely because it exists-- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already? 12:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The errors were originally found on 4chan. Predating the Reddit post by a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.62.43.46 ( talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian have picked up on it now. Opera hat ( talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Bondegezou: - I prefer simply stating that the user produced extremely low-quality work and leaving it at that. Saying that they "don't speak Scots" is reductive and makes the user - a real person - come across as (even more?) insane, as if they were knowingly writing nonsense into this wiki. If we had to discuss it, it would be to say something like "the editor believed in good faith that they could write Scots and were producing useful material, but only due to extreme naivety / shelteredness / being a kid. In actual reality their Scots proficiency was nearly nonexistent." Open to suggestions - I'd rather leave it out, but if you feel the matter should be brought up, we should strive not to misrepresent this editor per WP:BLP. SnowFire ( talk) 15:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I see the Guardian article has been added to the article, but I thought I'd add for reference on this talk page that it is the 4th most-viewed article currently live there (behind Boris Johnson, Brexit, and the school grades scandal). If there was already a lot of attention, this could lead to much more mainstream coverage in the UK, so beware of incoming vandals.
Also, the Guardian article mentions that the Scots language body has contacted Wikimedia, which isn't in the article (yet), in case an interested user wanted to add it. Kingsif ( talk) 22:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The article has categories of "Science and technology in Scotland" and "2005 establishments in Scotland", yet the only mention of its foundation is that Wikimedia's headquarters are in Miami, Florida. Can we clarify this one way or the other? How did the project start? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 15:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
(EDIT: Looks like we both posted new sections simultaneously - combining them — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC))
Taking a text in language A and translating each word into language B, one by one and maintaining the sequence, will never produce a text in language B, low-quality or otherwise. To say so flatters what was produced. Many of the choice of words apppear to have been spuriously Scottified, others chosen on the basis of maximal differentiation from the English word in the source text, even if they are archaic, obscure or a word closer to English is the more commonplace. His work was made up of a succession of Scots words, or something approximating them, but that does not make it Scots. He attempted to construct text in the language without being informed as to how to do so. The very next sentence elaborates as to the mechanics of how he is assumed to have gone about this, with an English/Scots dictionary so I'm not sure why anyone would think he used Italian(?!; I know it is intended of an example of something but it doesn't fly). Mutt Lunker ( talk) 17:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Mutt Lunker: I'm open to options here on alternate phrasings, but think your original attempt was misleading. If we go solely by the original Reddit post - which was unnecessarily bombastic in parts IMO - even it acknowledges that the author thought that Scots Wikipedia was "legendarily bad" when looking at in years prior. Not that it was pure gibberish / spam like zsadfjhklsfkjhsdfkjhsdfhdsf , or straight-up Actually A Different Langauge like pasting in English directly. I don't think it's under dispute that AG's grasp of Scots was horrible, and that's in the article already with the quote from the linguistics professor. It was, however, Scots-y enough to not be immediately, obviously, "not Scots" in the sense of gibberish or a different language. If it were, then even non-Scots speaking admins (like MJL) and passerby would have noticed. Hence, I stand by "very low quality Scots" as an accurate description of the state of AG's articles. Do you have a better suggestion than the awkward-reading (to me at least) "uninformed attempt at the construction of Scots text"? To me, that sounds more like it's implying the pure gibberish option, like saying "the toddler made an uninformed attempt at writing the alphabet" (implied: but they failed to correctly write the alphabet). SnowFire ( talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
At no time have I in any way objected to someone disagreeing with me, so you can withdraw that slight. If, though, the nature of that disagreement is illogical, unwarranted and indeed, in some of its aspects, ludicrous, it is entirely appropriate for me to point this out. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(de-indent) I still don't understand what Mutt Lunker is looking for here, and am inclined to go back to the original phrasing of "very low-quality Scots." Or low-quality something. The fundamental scandal was low language quality. I'll quote from the original Reddit thread:
The problem is not "one contributor contributed a lot," which would be a mystifying complaint. The problem is that the language quality of the articles is crap, and this needs to be stated. Additionally, per the original Reddit poster himself, this problem goes deeper than originally implied by the Reddit thread - he looked at other articles untouched by AG and found they were equally bad, and MJL, the other admin, has stated that looking back at the original contributors to Scots Wikipedia, many of them were oddball enthusiasts as well, not native Scots speakers. SnowFire ( talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed this hatnote as I couldn't work out what it was trying to say. Is it trying to clarify that this article is about Scots Wikipedia and that there is no such thing as a Scottish English Wikipedia (and that the reader should just read the English Wikipedia instead)? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 10:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Scottish English Wikipedia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 6#Scottish English Wikipedia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't say whether the 20 000 bogus articles were deleted! -- Espoo ( talk) 14:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Someone keeps removing my factual edit re: the ongoing cultural genocide propagated by Wikimedia Foundation and that the Scots Wikipedia is not written in any known language. 2A00:23C4:F1D:4201:C100:1146:80EC:65CB ( talk) 17:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked for 7 days due to edit-warring. Their flame-baiting commentary is not helping. The WMF has recently worked with scholars in Scotland on the linguistic accuracy, some sourcing (or at least evidence) is needed for the IP's position. 力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
What do editors think of adding a "See also" or "Further reading" to the wikimedia discussion? Newystats ( talk) 02:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
First I fixed the citation, which was attributed to the wrong existing source. Then in a second edit, I removed the sentence completely:
The incident was described as "a huge failure on Wikimedia's part", with specific criticisms placed on Wikipedia's "labyrinthine back-end system" and a lack of coordination across smaller wiki projects.
Here's the actual source (mangled language and cliched conclusion in bold):
Another issue is that there seems to stem from Wikipedia's labyrinthine back-end system. Admins, MJL said, mostly make sure no vandalism occurs on a given page and their main focus is to navigate the back-end. They aren't necessarily monitoring pages for accuracy.
Editors on smaller projects, like the Scots wiki, don't necessarily coordinate new articles that get written, either. They often work individually, unaware of what another editor may be doing. This is a huge failure on Wikimedia's part. Between the opacity of the Wikimedia back end and the reliance on unpaid community volunteers, something like this was bound to happen.
Victoria Song is an established technology journalist, but I don't think the above is her finest hour. She seems to have invented "labyrinthine back-end system" with little support from her own sources. IMO, a good editor at Gizmodo (hopefully not an oxymoron) should have removed this paragraph from Song's composition as unsupported OR.
Clearly the actual problem is that the site had too few administrators (presently just five) and not all of these were native Scots. Any kind of a serious new pages patrol should have flagged these contributions as problematic. This process is hardly "labyrinthine" or obscure.
Finally, it's not like Gizmodo (launched as part of Gawker Media) has never run shallowly sourced clickbait. — MaxEnt 22:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The redirect Scotched English has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Scotched English until a consensus is reached. CiphriusKane ( talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)