This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
FYI, I've put the paintined turtle back to a single paragraph. That's the standard formatting I use for TFAs, because it makes it easier to distinguish the blurb from the footer. I like the idea, but I'm not wed to it. With that said, I haven't seen a good reason to change that for the painted turtle blurb. Raul654 ( talk) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who Mike Christie is. Is he another editor on here? You've thrown me for a loop, pard.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Happy belated Painted turtle Day! | |
Diannaa ( talk) 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, doll. You seem to be doing all kinds of great things on site. Keep up the victories! TCO ( reviews needed) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
About
this comment you have posted in reply to my comment
on Commons: It seems to me that you may not have enabled the script which would allow you to use the Wizard, since it is the script who changes the default value/behavior of the button
from [[File:Example.jpg]]
to that interface displayed in
the screenshot. If you followed
the instructions of the help page and it is not working as expected (e.g. the tooltip of the button should be "Add media wizard" instead of the default "Embedded file"), could you add a note to its talk page? Maybe there is some bug with the feature at the moment.
Helder
01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is working! WOW!
I added it, but not sure how to actually spit out the smilies. What buttons to push when editing. :) TCO ( reviews needed) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I got it now. Have to click Images. Think I tried that before. On/off made it work. TCO ( reviews needed) 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO, I don't know what's going on with you, but I am pretty disturbed that you would go to the talk page of a blocked user currently under Arbcom sanctions, make extensive comments there, accuse her of socking, file the closest thing to a groundless SPI I've seen in a good while, and then complain that Arbcom is being informed of the results of the check. All in all, you've created a great deal of drama and anguish for Mattisse, and have unfairly accused both her and other editors of socking. It's also pretty unfair of you to make snarky jokes about the archive leaks; I can quite assure you that nobody is happy about that situation, and your comments are just a little extra salt in the wounds of those whose names and personal information has been stolen and publicised, apparently for the lulz.
Your content work is very good, and I genuinely encourage you to continue with this. However, your interventions in various areas that are not directly related to content is proving to be less than helpful, and I'd suggest that you might want to rethink the way you are interacting in project space. Please give it some consideration. Risker ( talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I stated my suspicion and what it was based on very clearly. If it was groundless, then you should say so and don't pursue it. I told Mattisse what I was doing since I operate in the open. And I was ready to be proved wrong. And very happy she was innocent. Heck, maybe her reputation is undeserved and this proves it.
That 'boots account still makes me wonder, with a blank user page for 2 years and now putting the sock template on her own page. I'm not convinced that is not someone's sock.
Given I, Mattisse, and Wehwalt all took pause with the "take it to Arbcom", you might want to think how that looks.
I know I make a lot of sarcastic remarks all over the place. (And yes they are evil and wrong.) On something like this, I'm completely straight and honest and would look you in the eye to say so.
TCO ( reviews needed) 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You stated your point, Risker. Please stop trying to have the last word. If I feel I'm a bully, I'm capable of being shamed. I don't feel that...and feel you are trying to push me around actually.
I brought it, knowing that it could be turned down, Risker. And in the open. And knowing that it might be wrong. (Or even might not get acted on. And I'm glad the CU was done to clear her.)
I joke around like crazy on this site, but this had nothing to do with that. And I will eventually pay the price for it. And it is its own thing. But connecting the two is crap. You better believe I had a scrunch factor before filing that case. I would look you in the eye and say this was exactly as stated in the CU application.
I still don't like the Smarty account. If that is someone connected to Mattise, even a "victim"...
I'm not getting the whole Arbcom hushhush thing either, but it's not as important and I guess old ways...
TCO ( reviews needed) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. I never asked for the technical details, Risker. And if it is a tough technical operation, then fine. But that is still not a "need to go to Arbcom". The volunteers (I guess Hersford and you) looked at the logged IPs regardless of if it was made an Arbcom matter or not. I think we will have to agree to disagree.
2. Do you know if either account I named is a sock (of someone other than Mattisse)? I'm not "stuck on it". I'm just asking point blank. And I'm not asking you to speculate.
3. Another reason for doing the private request is lower hurdles to run the test and less embarassment for the person asking (and CUs) if it comes up dry. Personally, I would MUCH rather have any CUs done on me, come from public submissisions.
TCO ( reviews needed) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Karen...you know what I said behind your back...that you are a sweetheart. And I said Sandy makes the FA process work and deserves huge credit for it. She's not...a sweetie, but still worth ten of you or I or Raul or any of that...because of the performance delivered. I dug it when she busted our chops for the bomb reduction of uranium! Simple?
2. I Think you neeed to consider the "mean girls" in context and as a conditional. If Mattisse is misbehaving, then I don't support her. If she's being picked on, then I do and am not scared of the ultravets' old friends club. ;) And I pretty much think given all the past crimes (just like I'm an evil permabannee for slamming kids here) she needs to suck it up for a while...even endure some false suspicions. I don't see how you can read my remarks any other way. Including submitting a socking investigation on her (negative!)
3. The Arbcom thing is a side issue, but I still don't get the "yes I will do the check but take it to Arbcom". If it was a questionable request, then defer it, but the clerk endorsed and the CU looked at the IPs. the only thing that was done was some big flutter to take it to Arbcom. And both accused and accuser were taken aback by that. And we didn't bother on the last suspected sock that was brought forward falsely attributed to Mattisse (although interesting that it really was a sock of someone else).
TCO ( reviews needed) 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's over, I want to agree with Risker, and say that generally I find this, and your approach to Wikipedia and your so-called humor that takes up lots of bandwidth on many pages where people have work to do, to be unhelpful. I was quite surprised that any CUs even accepted that SPI, which was based on nothing credible that I could see, and your entries on Mattisse's talk page were ... disturbing. I didn't speak up when I saw your SPI because I feared my participation would only increase drama, but there was no justification that I could see for that SPI. Perhaps you will consider now that three people have informed you that you might stay out of the Mattisse situation from here forward. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
not a problem, i don't see why adding accessdates is ever really an issue but there you go, Tom B ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I e-mail you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Give me yours and I will email you. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - you can send e-mail through my user page and I'll reply; or find mine via the website link on my website http://pigsonthewing.org.uk. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. TCO ( reviews needed) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There, I believe that now the article has expanded beyond a stub. Basically, there is nothing more one can write about the team, unless one wishes to pointlessly include past team members. Cheers! (air)Wolf ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think would be better in place of Statue of Liberty? it should be something vertical which fits on the base and also look good... please let me know what do you think, thank you. ■ MMXX talk 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm interested. Happy to list this (as a newly promoted list) in September. Write a blurb like the other TFLs, and I'll tentatively schedule it for either early or late September.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Glad to help! I'll let you finish up as soon as I get them done. Shouldn't take that long. Aurous One ( talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if you realise, but you can transclude the review pages onto your userpage, so that people can edit them from there. Instead of copy-pasting the contents of the page (which, if you're dealing with someone picky, may lead to copyright problems anyway...), you can just add {{title of the page}}
. So, for instance, for the tortoise FPC, replace the copy-paste with {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/gopher tortoise}}
.
J Milburn (
talk)
10:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I would rather encourage people to go over to the actual page. Maybe they poke around and participate. Also, I don't want the comments living in my userspace. I fill out the template, so not seeing the copyright issue. In the past, I just used links, like for Myrrha. But this is convenient to copy, paste. TCO ( reviews needed) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm don't think that RFA question to Cavall is entirely appropriate. Asking for off-wiki work to demonstrate suitability as a Wikipedia sysop just doesn't seem right.--v/r - T P 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Did you mean that there was a delay when loading the page to read it or edit it?
I know there was a problem some months ago that led to me having to un-tick the tool-bar from my preferences and add the code into my Vector custom JavaScript page. It worked fine after that. Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The lag is on the Wiki side and is often 20-30 seconds for pages with 200 cite template references. Direct, with and without testing showed it was not on the user side or related to the pictures. Taking the cite templates out cut the times down to 5 seconds or so. This is totally uncontroversial, was hashed over, people like "gadget" (super cite template expert) all agreed. If you want more, go look at the trials. TCO ( reviews needed) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it, check with Jwinius, though, he was the original editor.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to inline arkiv refs (you're probably doing that) and get rid of Pers. Comm. reference - those are normal in scientific articles, but are not allowed on wikipedia. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...you eced me! Only a couple to go. ;) TCO ( reviews needed) 06:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support | |
Thank you for your great question and support at my RfA. It's true that we have to wonder what will really happen to these candidates once they get all those fancy buttons. I shall do my best to live up to your and the community's expectations. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for being with the article these days. You've added some really nice things; you've also led me yo make something more nice. Everything important seems to be done: only smaller checks and a copy-edit are on the way (I don't know when I'll do this, little time now, second half of August maybe) and I like the artcile more than before the previous FAC. Other than that, I hope you'll be on a great vacation. Really. Take a good time :)
I hope that you'll be on or just see the 3rd FAC, which (as I think now) should start around September 1. And when it passes (it's the time), I'll contact you. If you want then, we'll take over indium. So...I just hope to see you on FAC, even though you don't have to (it's a long vacation or anything). And once again, have a good time! Cheers-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
This is in recognition for welcoming new users. Great work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
On 31 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Common box turtle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the male common box turtle (pictured) has to lean back past the vertical to mate with the female? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 09:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you voted at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Three versions of Amazing Grace, I was hoping you would comment at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Message_on_behalf_of_TonyTheTiger.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
JBarta have fixed the image here (reflections in the glasses). Is that good enough or is there any other problems that I should point out to him? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a book over at your TCO page and then deleted it. Well actually copied to text file. Might send it to you someday. Then I looked at the history of Ernest Hemingway and found this. Ripple effects you know.... Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several points in your report which need a little discussion. The point that the B-Class articles are of low quality and only a combinations of unrelated subsections. This is not the case for a lot of the articles. If you include all the B-Class into the category for articles good enough for the encyclopaedia. This would make a better picture for wikipedia and this would be also true.-- Stone ( talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi TCO, I read your analysis with interest and entusuasim, having been sparked by the disucssion on talk:FAC you iniciated earlier in the month. I certainly get the gis of you argument, I think most do, but I think your thesis needs work yet. Youve prob noticed that, ah, you've alienated a lot of people, and made some new dubious admirers. The problem is that your method is incomplete, with very very narrow sample ranges, a tendany to leap to conclude correlation with out excluding or evening mentioning other influencing factors. The statical community is not impressed (wags finger!). And then you went and named and categorised people on such a small sample, and deeply offended a bunch of volunteers who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours (I dont know who long a thousand hours is) giving to the project and getting fuck all in return but abuse. Frankly your powerpoint presentation has thrown oil on fire and worsened the situation many many time; withness the EH debacle, Mattisse dancning with glee on WR, the forthcoming spiteful signpost article. See where this is going? You suggested the semi-prot of all FAs, but this is the kind of thing that could bring down the OWN exemption on FAs. You have no idea of the big boring SHIT people have to go through to keep these articles from depreciation from, well, you know, sometimes well intentioned and some times not...uncoolness. Well fine, grand, and here we are. My suggestion is listen to people re the methods you used to jump to the conclusions, strenghten your method, widen the sample, remove the specious and leaps of fancy, come out with an overall more crediable argument and get the people behind you. As I say, I support your intention, very much in fact. Oh and sorry I cant spell, have stopped even trying at this stage. Ceoil ( talk) 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. Yeah, the Mattisse chortle is a shame, even just tactically for her. Same but opposite vector with Sandy losing her cool with the USEP conspiracy theory. Lot of people in this place seem to assume the enemy of my enemy is my friend and my two enemies must be friends. It's really different than other chat forums that I've been on, where you might fight and curse and all, but there are not these deep feuds and cliques. I'm fine with Moni calling me on the carpet though. Seems more in the eye.
The EH thing came out of nowhere. But was going on before, no? That's not 100% on me, is it? I'm actually OK if you need to give me a punch for TK. I know you are the tough guy and are tight with her and I think she is a gentle soul as well. Thought it was interesting when she said I made her think about some things and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all.
Yeah, sure it is a small sample, time-wise. Although I did freaking survey of 290+ FAS, written by 155 writers over 9 months. It is what it is. The areas that are sketchier (read the methadology) are some aspects of sampling (the FA thing is really a mini survey) distributions (like the 10,000 GAs!) and the use of medians. I did play with it a bit and think it is not bad and will not change much per story if you had some bot or the like and could crunch the whole thing.
I have a pretty good intuition on the limits of the individual tags (as you do). I could have larded down the writing with a bunch of wimpy caveats in there about small samples (e.g. someone who wrote now FAs in those months is not even in there...duh)! Don't you think everyone gets that intuitively and understands such results for an individual have this issue? [Actually you are right, I'll add a footnote (or a headnote) and a comment in methadology on this issue of the individuals. I really do think the inherent limitations...which parts are stronger/weaker should be easy for someone who works with data to grok, but maybe not. OK.
But I figured people would want to know where they came out. It's human nature. And I had the data. I was surprised where you came out and thought you might be angry, but happy that you have the savvy to understand the limits of the analysis. The other thing is those charts with the individuals do show what a leader board would look like that was not WP:BFAN or a Wikicup that was page view weighted. And the study and any decisions should come from consideration of group results, not individuals. I guess, I could cut those pages. Or cut the column with names. Hmm. I do think giving names kind of gives flavor also, so you lose some insight if it is all abstract.
From law of large numbers, group tendancies, etc. the implications for the broad distribution...are unlikely to be that much different with extending to full calender year or even two years. I mean, you see the basic forms of behavior and the distribution and the like. I'll Bayesian bet you that for the group, challenger to star collector effectiveness does not change as a story with more data. I mean it is 155 data points with 2 factor analysis. That's like 153 degrees of freedom. No? And just comparing similar article types (e.g. turtle examples) one can see how the payoff is just higher for championing. You can't rack up 500 view stars fast enought to make it work.
I guess...yeah I'm sure there are all kinds of factors. I think I blathered about a little of them, did I not? [Actually, I should just step back and let you say what you mean here, so I don't crowd the space and make sure to get your thinking.] I dig multifactor analysis (well, not really, I'm not a math jock, but I like imagining all these things as concepts). I would say though that we need to build insight from the mist. Before our single output metric was NUMBER of FAs and GAs. Sure that is a metric. But a pretty flawed one. Gameable. At least I add another factor (number of views) that gives a lot more insight than just "an article" into what the readers care about. (and VAs, Louie's importance and Gorbatai's project rankings...all show similar implications for a purely subjective ranking of importance.) .
In terms of causative factors...hey...I totally buy some of the fundamental issues with the Wiki: crappy interface, that you don't get a byline, that others can screw up your prose and bog you down with gnomey-shit fights that make you not even want to work on an article and then where is the damned gnome stuck with nothing to fuck with, Facebook competition, bullyboy admins, fill in more. But I would just counter this and say...yeah...we KNOW those things exist. And sure I'm up for the cause for fixing some of them. But we also KNOW star collecting is a substantial driver of behavior in the current situation. All the outside literature on the Internet supports this. And all the cuts of looking at things I did. Do we really think that all those hurricane articles would be FA/GA and Andrew not if the rewards were page view weighted somehow? That the WikiCup with pageview weighted rules would not drive very substantial contribution vice templated GAs? So sure...the problem is hypercomplicated, but that does not mean we can't get some insights and consider some changes right now.
Donno about more analysis. I personally punched all those pages, wrote down all those numbers, etc. without server data and made like 40 pages of Excel. The only places with server data are the published Gorbatai analysis and the new Gorbatai analysis. I think there is some academic interest that was already heading down these same tracks so maybe you get more of that power of analysis (although I find some times being close to the data helps as well...not just massive data crunching on variables provided, but doing cases and the like).
I've had a little discussion about an (probably more than one) academic paper. It might be a lot of work though. And I really wrote it as more of a corporate strategy weeney document than something academic. It's more like a selection of several of the (sometimes quite good) little studies that people do here on the Wiki to understand this or that (e.g. can see the ones done on IP vandalism of TFAs). I may have a paid gig coming in soon and need to keep earning dineros to feed my cats, so can't really commit to more grunt work. Maybe it sparks some thoughts?
I'm in favor of the small ownership exemption for FA and expanding it. You have a good point that it might never fly. And I really did not study it much or even think about it anyhoo. I had not considered the gamesmanship issue of losing what we have by going for more! Hmm. My main thing is not the protection though. It would be nice, but given the hurdle, think concentrating on things that are more feasible makes sense. Or just take what you can get wherever you can get it. Wiki has a way of bogging things down with perfect is the enemy of better.
P.s. Thanks again for the straight remarks. Fair enough.
P.s.s. I do think FA is in danger of becoming too much of a clique and a closed shop and they should think about it. Not just mobilize the white blood cells.
P.s.s. I'm a lousy speller and writer. But you know grammarian is a very weak flame warrior.
You are straight. Agreed, friends think alike. And the friends defend friends. I like that about Malleus even if we disagree on something.
That's cool that you thought the first discussion was worthwhile. Didn't realize that.
Let me take a look at the presentation and see about adding some caveats where individuals feel skewered. I don't want to baby it though because star collectors want to star collect. Or the FAC leader feels turfy.
On the content reviews, this is the kind of crit that is fine. That was a first pass attempt to try to do something. And it is not proving Euclid's theorems. It is analysis. We could try something else like having some magazine editor or the like read several reviews and see if content is not getting addressed well. I did try to look for previous reviews if referenced in the discussion and noted that. I have been a part of some reviews at FAC that were light on content discussion and the issue has been raised by others. It's not an insane thing to try to assess. We just have to figure out the right way to measure it and nail it. I do think a definitive statement (as with images or close paraphrasing) on content should be made ("I looked at content deeply in peer review") if that is what we are relying on. Obviously if the content is hashed out in the review itself than that covers it.
TCO, following Xeno's various moves I have restored your userrights. I am uncertain if the TCO (renamed) account should be blocked. I will consult with Xeno on that, I guess. Welcome back, but whoa!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of the thoughts in your slide deck. The importance of FA, first page promotion, edit counter ... is mainly that they function as incentives. These incentives should be designed to stimulate as valuable work as possible. An article that is seen by many is more valuable than an article that is seen by few. An article that is deemed very important by a project is most likely more valuable than an article that is deemed unimportant. That is the whole point of making those evalutations (of subjects, not the content). We should strive to design these systems so that star collecting creates as valuable content as possible. Star collection behaviour is not a problem. The problem is that we hand out flawed stars, or rather, that the star eligibility criteria are flawed. We should create an value creation counter that weighs in quality of article, number of page views, number of characters added (deletions are a bit tricky), vital article status etc. Only articles of broad interest should be promoted on the first page. If FA's are lacking, we should promote GA's instead. -- Ettrig ( talk) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, TCO; I am a managing editor of the Signpost and have been watching the fallout from your study with keen interest. I am very happy that you have expressed interest in the piece being covered in the Signpost, and would like to extend an invitation for you to make your case in our pages. What I have in mind is a statement by you summarising the study's main point, and anticipating/defending against criticisms, followed by a critical response by one or more of the FAC/GA people, and perhaps a final impartial piece exploring what questions the affair raises for the quality content community and the project at large. Skomorokh 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ping. Skomorokh 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Jumping into this but will in fits and starts as I read and review your power-point. First, I think there's a real serious organization problem - it's just too hard to follow logically and so certain bits and pieces jump out at the reader. Every reader comes away with what they want if they like it and with what they hate if they dislike it. As Ceoil says you have traction and it's too late to stuff this genie back in the bottle, so you need to spend some time with your methodoloy. I've been trying to review again and had to stop at the section about reviews - I can give tons of diffs for peer reviews, good article reviews, etc. It's true that some articles don't get a lot of content review at FAC, but that's because the writers were responsible and took the time to have reviews prior to FAC. You gotta fix that section, and do some research. Look at what the folks at Peer Review are doing, a very under-appreciated small group, and then try to correlate. The flipside is nominators who don't listen to reviewers; have a look whether nominators are listening to what reviewers are telling at GA on PR or simply rushing to FAC. Also, FAC isn't a step above GA. All too often I've seen a page pass GA and nominated at FAC within the hour or the next day. It should not happen that way! GA is a stepping stone - the bank of the river is still far away. A lot has to be done first. If an underprepared page shows up at FAC then naturally the first thing that will jump out at reviewers are seemingly trivial: MoS, refs, prose, etc. But the assumption is that stuff has to be right because this is a publishing endeavor of sorts. Then the content is dug into. I won't review pages that have obvious errors - too much of a timesink. Also you gotta gotta take out the personalities. Do not make labels, do not name names. Ever. This is the internet dude and bad shit happens. So stop that. I'll be back with more - am reviewing your piece. And listen to what Moni3 has to say would be my advice. Oh one last thing - if we follow the advice below to give partial stars or whatever, then people will stop writing. Period. And you will have brought down the entire FAC system. I think FAC like everything else everywhere else is flawed - I don't believe in perfection - but I don't think the problem lies with the process. And as processes go, it's pretty good in my view. The problem is elsewhere. If you apply a more rigorous methodology to your research you might discover the problem. Truthkeeper ( talk) 15:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The other thing to look at is why reviewers don't oppose as much as they should. This is a perennial problem for Sandy et. al. They have to follow community consensus, and I think it's a process that works fairly well - most of the time. The problem lies, to some extent, with the reviewers of which there is a huge shortage. Have a look at this review. Most of my review is on the talk-page. I found out much later this was a commissioned piece but it was not ready for promotion so I opposed. Look at the language and tone from the nominator (who went to write a nasty essay about me which has since been deleted) and ask yourself whether reviewers need to spend volunteer time putting up with this kind of shit. And then extend it out and try to gather data. All I can tell you is that each time I've opposed on a review it's turned into a Bad Experience. I rarely review these days and I only review pages that I know I can support. But if nominators have friends tagging along behind who put in multiple drive-by supports and no one else will engage it causes a problem and often delegates have no choice but to promote. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper ( talk) 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm threading my comments here as I read. I have a question about the dates & the samples. Like seriously how do I get to be a battleship & Ceoil a dabbler? Or a BrianBoulton? Like seriously, have you looked at their pages? You need a much larger data set. And it would be interesting to see what happens if the data sample is expanded. More later. Still reading ..... making notes as I go along. I think if you stay with this data set that every table has to indicate the distribution clearly because at the moment I'm scrolling all over the place. Truthkeeper ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've put some stuff here. It's not as well pulled together as I'd like but this battleship is tired and has had enough of this place for a while. Sorry if the points seem harsh, but for a full analysis I think you should take some of them into consideration. Also just be aware that the way this report was used against me on EH stopped the work there in its tracks. I know that wasn't the intention but there are ripple effects that can be potentially multiplied by a lot. Personally I'm starting to think this is not a very healthy place to spend time. Thanks, Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not about you, Sandy. It's about the overall process. You are a strong reviewer and look at the articles more closely than other delegates and than many reviewers. The issue is that overall reviews by the set of reviewers are light (on content). That article would be heavily reviewed for content (and not just by me, but by several) regardless of the Ames photos. We have some that get passed without even a global claim "I checked content". Do you want to put money that if I get several subject matter experts or magazine editors to look at the issue of "level of content review" at FAC that they don't have some similar concerns? TCO ( talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I love that. Am very proud of you or whoever did that. It's not even just about the review, but is great press for Wiki and might draw someone into the web. TCO ( talk) 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A DYK nomination is stuck, like the turtle in The Grapes of Wrath, on its back. See User talk:TCO's latest and greatest entry. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed one to the old criteria. And I guess there are all kinds of new difficult stuff. Sounds really hard. Ah...fuck it...will be bold. OK. RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Nice request. Will do.
That's some pretty obvious canvassing-- I've brought this to Nikkimaria's attention so she'll have another look to be sure issues were resolved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I read the sources and read the article and looked for plagiarism or close paraphrase or whatever we call it as that seemed like the major concern from previous reviews on the DYK page and other than that, it looked like a pretty decent new article.
Looked fine to me although I am not a superstar in finding tiny phrase copies and lack a tool. But pretty decent at scanning and having warning bells go off when we are cribbing. I had some other comments on the thing (see article talk page). Hope they are helpful as you develop it.
Don't need to worry about me meatpuppeting. Yeah, I have a warm spot for Kiefer. But I'm honorable. Not into the scarlet C (for canvass) or the Kabuki theater we do with asking for reviews or views or whatever in exactly the right words. I know if I am just biasing a vote or am trying to look at a piece fairly. Plus KW is just being acerbic.
Nuff said...that is how I roll.
Heck...I figured it would give something to gotcha me for if a phrase turned up! (But I really did read the three sources and the article...and make an honest review...what is on the DYK and article talk is what I'm capable of.)
Dear TCO,
I was feeling like the soon-to-be neurotic kid in dysfunctional family. I had no idea why SandyGeorgia was so upset with you, TCO.
What is important is that we nurture writers and editors, whomever they are and whatever their interests. There are other encyclopedias and surveys, like the Encyclopedia of Statistics or the New Palgrave or the Russian Encyclopedia of Mathematics, so the world can survive without an FA article on convex sets. I think it's fine that we offer good references in articles on important subjects, and that we develop articles that are ignored by other sources.
We need leadership, like you and Geometry guy and Jakob and Charles Matthew and MF, etc., all of whom have helped teach me how to write. We need to to find and develop editors. Everything else is secondary. I liked some of your suggestions about finding more quality writers, and I hope that others will re-read your paper and see the wealth of ideas and good suggestions.
On the other hand, would we really want our friends or family to edit here?
In my experience, whenever I stray from mathematical topics, I run into POV pushers and weirdos that make editing a pain. I've given up on many of the articles that I used to protect, before my RfC. (Partly because none of the statisticians bothered to help at my RfC.) Editing on vital topics---or even important topics, like the guys who brought us the 40 hour workweek and the March on Washington with King's "I have a Dream" speech---usually means running into kids who at best have read a few books on the topic, and most of those books were written by hacks! When we try to defend our articles or to fix despicable articles, too many administrators come to the aid of the incompetents or POV pushers. It is not worth the trouble to write on important topics outside of mathematics. I am happy to tell the story of Tom Kahn but I wouldn't dare bother with a more important, controversial article.
I think it was Sandy who mentioned to me that editors who stay usually write in a relatively quiet corner. We won't be able to change WP for the better until we have enough happy editors in their corners that we can change policies to deal with administrators who value "civility" above truth and honesty.
That's my take.
With respect and affection, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 08:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I note the clarification and appreciate your point. Would still say that it is a contradiction. If it's a useless support in terms of final promotion, then why let it affect your decision to kick something off the queue? This is getting tedious though. I'm usually willing to engage point for point to an extent that it is boring for people. I've seen you go pretty radio silent yourself, when corrected. TCO ( talk) 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You might appreciate this.. Football is 0 and infinity.Basketball only slightly better. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your report was poorly executed and damaging to Wikipedia. Behind usernames there are individual human beings but your report treats them like commodities. Calling Feature Article writers "Star collectors" is pejorative in that implies vanity as motivation. Can you tell me who the authors of Apache are? That's a far more important open source project than Wikipedia and its creators are essentially anonymous. Pitting editors in a "contest" that neither has entered and then declaring a winner??
The primary asset of Wikipedia is editors -- people -- which are mostly entirely volunteers. Offending "non vital" featured article writers is not very likely to make them go edit the so-called vital articles, it's more likely to make them less motivated to edit.
It's likely -- probable even -- that you have a valid point that the incentive structure of Wikipedia could be improved. (It's ironic that the rhetoric of the report shows such little understanding of motivation.) With care, it could have easily been written to make the same point without naming names and pissing people off. Comment on content, not on contributors is Wikipedia 101. Gerardw ( talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this report. Unfortunately, I must criticize it for failing to address the fundamental problem at hand, namely the complete and total failure of administrators to adequately patrol and watch our vital articles. The reason good and featured article writers focus on obscure content is because vital articles are, for the most part, watched and edited by users who do not share the goals of article improvement, and who make collaboration difficult, if not impossible. As a result, editors wishing to actually write and improve articles must move on to unwatched and undiscovered topics. This has been known for many years now, so I was quite surprised to see you ignore the problem in your report. When I first arrived here in 2004, I was told by regulars and admins alike that they had completely given up on working on many of our vital articles, and they spent their time on quiet articles in order to get work done. Otherwise, they would be bogged down into unproductive talk discussions by editors who didn't care about the article improvement process. It is my opinion that editors have all but abandoned and fled the vital articles because administrators have failed to patrol and control the problem of uncollaborative and disruptive editors who are here only to argue and not to research, write, and improve the encyclopedia. In fact, most administrators will admit that they avoid content disputes and controversial topics, which only makes the problem worse and leads to more editors leaving those topics behind. If you want to improve vital articles, you will need to address the inability of administrators to deal with highly watched and important articles that attract editors who have no interest in improving the topic. Otherwise, editors will continue to work on quiet and obscure pages until administrators actually start doing their job. Since that isn't going to happen, an effort needs to be made to delegate administrative powers to WikiProjects so that people involved in the daily maintenance of related articles can exert administrative oversight for the sole purpose of enabling and empowering editors to improve the articles. When you think about this, it makes the most sense, because it is the most active project users who will be able to improve the vital articles and setup collaboration with associated projects. For example, we might have a lead coordinator on the films project who is not an administrator but might need administrative tools to help out the active editors. To do this, administrative rights would be given to that lead coordinator for permission on all film-related articles. Delegating rights and permissions by topic would allow users who work in vital areas to speed the article development and improvement process along. Viriditas ( talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
FYI, I've put the paintined turtle back to a single paragraph. That's the standard formatting I use for TFAs, because it makes it easier to distinguish the blurb from the footer. I like the idea, but I'm not wed to it. With that said, I haven't seen a good reason to change that for the painted turtle blurb. Raul654 ( talk) 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know who Mike Christie is. Is he another editor on here? You've thrown me for a loop, pard.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Happy belated Painted turtle Day! | |
Diannaa ( talk) 01:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, doll. You seem to be doing all kinds of great things on site. Keep up the victories! TCO ( reviews needed) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
About
this comment you have posted in reply to my comment
on Commons: It seems to me that you may not have enabled the script which would allow you to use the Wizard, since it is the script who changes the default value/behavior of the button
from [[File:Example.jpg]]
to that interface displayed in
the screenshot. If you followed
the instructions of the help page and it is not working as expected (e.g. the tooltip of the button should be "Add media wizard" instead of the default "Embedded file"), could you add a note to its talk page? Maybe there is some bug with the feature at the moment.
Helder
01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is working! WOW!
I added it, but not sure how to actually spit out the smilies. What buttons to push when editing. :) TCO ( reviews needed) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I got it now. Have to click Images. Think I tried that before. On/off made it work. TCO ( reviews needed) 16:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO, I don't know what's going on with you, but I am pretty disturbed that you would go to the talk page of a blocked user currently under Arbcom sanctions, make extensive comments there, accuse her of socking, file the closest thing to a groundless SPI I've seen in a good while, and then complain that Arbcom is being informed of the results of the check. All in all, you've created a great deal of drama and anguish for Mattisse, and have unfairly accused both her and other editors of socking. It's also pretty unfair of you to make snarky jokes about the archive leaks; I can quite assure you that nobody is happy about that situation, and your comments are just a little extra salt in the wounds of those whose names and personal information has been stolen and publicised, apparently for the lulz.
Your content work is very good, and I genuinely encourage you to continue with this. However, your interventions in various areas that are not directly related to content is proving to be less than helpful, and I'd suggest that you might want to rethink the way you are interacting in project space. Please give it some consideration. Risker ( talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I stated my suspicion and what it was based on very clearly. If it was groundless, then you should say so and don't pursue it. I told Mattisse what I was doing since I operate in the open. And I was ready to be proved wrong. And very happy she was innocent. Heck, maybe her reputation is undeserved and this proves it.
That 'boots account still makes me wonder, with a blank user page for 2 years and now putting the sock template on her own page. I'm not convinced that is not someone's sock.
Given I, Mattisse, and Wehwalt all took pause with the "take it to Arbcom", you might want to think how that looks.
I know I make a lot of sarcastic remarks all over the place. (And yes they are evil and wrong.) On something like this, I'm completely straight and honest and would look you in the eye to say so.
TCO ( reviews needed) 06:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You stated your point, Risker. Please stop trying to have the last word. If I feel I'm a bully, I'm capable of being shamed. I don't feel that...and feel you are trying to push me around actually.
I brought it, knowing that it could be turned down, Risker. And in the open. And knowing that it might be wrong. (Or even might not get acted on. And I'm glad the CU was done to clear her.)
I joke around like crazy on this site, but this had nothing to do with that. And I will eventually pay the price for it. And it is its own thing. But connecting the two is crap. You better believe I had a scrunch factor before filing that case. I would look you in the eye and say this was exactly as stated in the CU application.
I still don't like the Smarty account. If that is someone connected to Mattise, even a "victim"...
I'm not getting the whole Arbcom hushhush thing either, but it's not as important and I guess old ways...
TCO ( reviews needed) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. I never asked for the technical details, Risker. And if it is a tough technical operation, then fine. But that is still not a "need to go to Arbcom". The volunteers (I guess Hersford and you) looked at the logged IPs regardless of if it was made an Arbcom matter or not. I think we will have to agree to disagree.
2. Do you know if either account I named is a sock (of someone other than Mattisse)? I'm not "stuck on it". I'm just asking point blank. And I'm not asking you to speculate.
3. Another reason for doing the private request is lower hurdles to run the test and less embarassment for the person asking (and CUs) if it comes up dry. Personally, I would MUCH rather have any CUs done on me, come from public submissisions.
TCO ( reviews needed) 15:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Karen...you know what I said behind your back...that you are a sweetheart. And I said Sandy makes the FA process work and deserves huge credit for it. She's not...a sweetie, but still worth ten of you or I or Raul or any of that...because of the performance delivered. I dug it when she busted our chops for the bomb reduction of uranium! Simple?
2. I Think you neeed to consider the "mean girls" in context and as a conditional. If Mattisse is misbehaving, then I don't support her. If she's being picked on, then I do and am not scared of the ultravets' old friends club. ;) And I pretty much think given all the past crimes (just like I'm an evil permabannee for slamming kids here) she needs to suck it up for a while...even endure some false suspicions. I don't see how you can read my remarks any other way. Including submitting a socking investigation on her (negative!)
3. The Arbcom thing is a side issue, but I still don't get the "yes I will do the check but take it to Arbcom". If it was a questionable request, then defer it, but the clerk endorsed and the CU looked at the IPs. the only thing that was done was some big flutter to take it to Arbcom. And both accused and accuser were taken aback by that. And we didn't bother on the last suspected sock that was brought forward falsely attributed to Mattisse (although interesting that it really was a sock of someone else).
TCO ( reviews needed) 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that it's over, I want to agree with Risker, and say that generally I find this, and your approach to Wikipedia and your so-called humor that takes up lots of bandwidth on many pages where people have work to do, to be unhelpful. I was quite surprised that any CUs even accepted that SPI, which was based on nothing credible that I could see, and your entries on Mattisse's talk page were ... disturbing. I didn't speak up when I saw your SPI because I feared my participation would only increase drama, but there was no justification that I could see for that SPI. Perhaps you will consider now that three people have informed you that you might stay out of the Mattisse situation from here forward. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
not a problem, i don't see why adding accessdates is ever really an issue but there you go, Tom B ( talk) 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I e-mail you? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Give me yours and I will email you. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - you can send e-mail through my user page and I'll reply; or find mine via the website link on my website http://pigsonthewing.org.uk. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. TCO ( reviews needed) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There, I believe that now the article has expanded beyond a stub. Basically, there is nothing more one can write about the team, unless one wishes to pointlessly include past team members. Cheers! (air)Wolf ( talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think would be better in place of Statue of Liberty? it should be something vertical which fits on the base and also look good... please let me know what do you think, thank you. ■ MMXX talk 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm interested. Happy to list this (as a newly promoted list) in September. Write a blurb like the other TFLs, and I'll tentatively schedule it for either early or late September.... The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem! Glad to help! I'll let you finish up as soon as I get them done. Shouldn't take that long. Aurous One ( talk) 01:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if you realise, but you can transclude the review pages onto your userpage, so that people can edit them from there. Instead of copy-pasting the contents of the page (which, if you're dealing with someone picky, may lead to copyright problems anyway...), you can just add {{title of the page}}
. So, for instance, for the tortoise FPC, replace the copy-paste with {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/gopher tortoise}}
.
J Milburn (
talk)
10:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I would rather encourage people to go over to the actual page. Maybe they poke around and participate. Also, I don't want the comments living in my userspace. I fill out the template, so not seeing the copyright issue. In the past, I just used links, like for Myrrha. But this is convenient to copy, paste. TCO ( reviews needed) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm don't think that RFA question to Cavall is entirely appropriate. Asking for off-wiki work to demonstrate suitability as a Wikipedia sysop just doesn't seem right.--v/r - T P 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Did you mean that there was a delay when loading the page to read it or edit it?
I know there was a problem some months ago that led to me having to un-tick the tool-bar from my preferences and add the code into my Vector custom JavaScript page. It worked fine after that. Chaosdruid ( talk) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The lag is on the Wiki side and is often 20-30 seconds for pages with 200 cite template references. Direct, with and without testing showed it was not on the user side or related to the pictures. Taking the cite templates out cut the times down to 5 seconds or so. This is totally uncontroversial, was hashed over, people like "gadget" (super cite template expert) all agreed. If you want more, go look at the trials. TCO ( reviews needed) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it, check with Jwinius, though, he was the original editor.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You'll need to inline arkiv refs (you're probably doing that) and get rid of Pers. Comm. reference - those are normal in scientific articles, but are not allowed on wikipedia. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...you eced me! Only a couple to go. ;) TCO ( reviews needed) 06:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support | |
Thank you for your great question and support at my RfA. It's true that we have to wonder what will really happen to these candidates once they get all those fancy buttons. I shall do my best to live up to your and the community's expectations. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for being with the article these days. You've added some really nice things; you've also led me yo make something more nice. Everything important seems to be done: only smaller checks and a copy-edit are on the way (I don't know when I'll do this, little time now, second half of August maybe) and I like the artcile more than before the previous FAC. Other than that, I hope you'll be on a great vacation. Really. Take a good time :)
I hope that you'll be on or just see the 3rd FAC, which (as I think now) should start around September 1. And when it passes (it's the time), I'll contact you. If you want then, we'll take over indium. So...I just hope to see you on FAC, even though you don't have to (it's a long vacation or anything). And once again, have a good time! Cheers-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
This is in recognition for welcoming new users. Great work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
On 31 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Common box turtle, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the male common box turtle (pictured) has to lean back past the vertical to mate with the female? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 09:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you voted at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Three versions of Amazing Grace, I was hoping you would comment at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Message_on_behalf_of_TonyTheTiger.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
JBarta have fixed the image here (reflections in the glasses). Is that good enough or is there any other problems that I should point out to him? -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 13:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a book over at your TCO page and then deleted it. Well actually copied to text file. Might send it to you someday. Then I looked at the history of Ernest Hemingway and found this. Ripple effects you know.... Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several points in your report which need a little discussion. The point that the B-Class articles are of low quality and only a combinations of unrelated subsections. This is not the case for a lot of the articles. If you include all the B-Class into the category for articles good enough for the encyclopaedia. This would make a better picture for wikipedia and this would be also true.-- Stone ( talk) 18:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi TCO, I read your analysis with interest and entusuasim, having been sparked by the disucssion on talk:FAC you iniciated earlier in the month. I certainly get the gis of you argument, I think most do, but I think your thesis needs work yet. Youve prob noticed that, ah, you've alienated a lot of people, and made some new dubious admirers. The problem is that your method is incomplete, with very very narrow sample ranges, a tendany to leap to conclude correlation with out excluding or evening mentioning other influencing factors. The statical community is not impressed (wags finger!). And then you went and named and categorised people on such a small sample, and deeply offended a bunch of volunteers who have spent hundreds or thousands of hours (I dont know who long a thousand hours is) giving to the project and getting fuck all in return but abuse. Frankly your powerpoint presentation has thrown oil on fire and worsened the situation many many time; withness the EH debacle, Mattisse dancning with glee on WR, the forthcoming spiteful signpost article. See where this is going? You suggested the semi-prot of all FAs, but this is the kind of thing that could bring down the OWN exemption on FAs. You have no idea of the big boring SHIT people have to go through to keep these articles from depreciation from, well, you know, sometimes well intentioned and some times not...uncoolness. Well fine, grand, and here we are. My suggestion is listen to people re the methods you used to jump to the conclusions, strenghten your method, widen the sample, remove the specious and leaps of fancy, come out with an overall more crediable argument and get the people behind you. As I say, I support your intention, very much in fact. Oh and sorry I cant spell, have stopped even trying at this stage. Ceoil ( talk) 22:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. Yeah, the Mattisse chortle is a shame, even just tactically for her. Same but opposite vector with Sandy losing her cool with the USEP conspiracy theory. Lot of people in this place seem to assume the enemy of my enemy is my friend and my two enemies must be friends. It's really different than other chat forums that I've been on, where you might fight and curse and all, but there are not these deep feuds and cliques. I'm fine with Moni calling me on the carpet though. Seems more in the eye.
The EH thing came out of nowhere. But was going on before, no? That's not 100% on me, is it? I'm actually OK if you need to give me a punch for TK. I know you are the tough guy and are tight with her and I think she is a gentle soul as well. Thought it was interesting when she said I made her think about some things and she was willing to talk to me even as an evil IP and discuss Steinbeck and all.
Yeah, sure it is a small sample, time-wise. Although I did freaking survey of 290+ FAS, written by 155 writers over 9 months. It is what it is. The areas that are sketchier (read the methadology) are some aspects of sampling (the FA thing is really a mini survey) distributions (like the 10,000 GAs!) and the use of medians. I did play with it a bit and think it is not bad and will not change much per story if you had some bot or the like and could crunch the whole thing.
I have a pretty good intuition on the limits of the individual tags (as you do). I could have larded down the writing with a bunch of wimpy caveats in there about small samples (e.g. someone who wrote now FAs in those months is not even in there...duh)! Don't you think everyone gets that intuitively and understands such results for an individual have this issue? [Actually you are right, I'll add a footnote (or a headnote) and a comment in methadology on this issue of the individuals. I really do think the inherent limitations...which parts are stronger/weaker should be easy for someone who works with data to grok, but maybe not. OK.
But I figured people would want to know where they came out. It's human nature. And I had the data. I was surprised where you came out and thought you might be angry, but happy that you have the savvy to understand the limits of the analysis. The other thing is those charts with the individuals do show what a leader board would look like that was not WP:BFAN or a Wikicup that was page view weighted. And the study and any decisions should come from consideration of group results, not individuals. I guess, I could cut those pages. Or cut the column with names. Hmm. I do think giving names kind of gives flavor also, so you lose some insight if it is all abstract.
From law of large numbers, group tendancies, etc. the implications for the broad distribution...are unlikely to be that much different with extending to full calender year or even two years. I mean, you see the basic forms of behavior and the distribution and the like. I'll Bayesian bet you that for the group, challenger to star collector effectiveness does not change as a story with more data. I mean it is 155 data points with 2 factor analysis. That's like 153 degrees of freedom. No? And just comparing similar article types (e.g. turtle examples) one can see how the payoff is just higher for championing. You can't rack up 500 view stars fast enought to make it work.
I guess...yeah I'm sure there are all kinds of factors. I think I blathered about a little of them, did I not? [Actually, I should just step back and let you say what you mean here, so I don't crowd the space and make sure to get your thinking.] I dig multifactor analysis (well, not really, I'm not a math jock, but I like imagining all these things as concepts). I would say though that we need to build insight from the mist. Before our single output metric was NUMBER of FAs and GAs. Sure that is a metric. But a pretty flawed one. Gameable. At least I add another factor (number of views) that gives a lot more insight than just "an article" into what the readers care about. (and VAs, Louie's importance and Gorbatai's project rankings...all show similar implications for a purely subjective ranking of importance.) .
In terms of causative factors...hey...I totally buy some of the fundamental issues with the Wiki: crappy interface, that you don't get a byline, that others can screw up your prose and bog you down with gnomey-shit fights that make you not even want to work on an article and then where is the damned gnome stuck with nothing to fuck with, Facebook competition, bullyboy admins, fill in more. But I would just counter this and say...yeah...we KNOW those things exist. And sure I'm up for the cause for fixing some of them. But we also KNOW star collecting is a substantial driver of behavior in the current situation. All the outside literature on the Internet supports this. And all the cuts of looking at things I did. Do we really think that all those hurricane articles would be FA/GA and Andrew not if the rewards were page view weighted somehow? That the WikiCup with pageview weighted rules would not drive very substantial contribution vice templated GAs? So sure...the problem is hypercomplicated, but that does not mean we can't get some insights and consider some changes right now.
Donno about more analysis. I personally punched all those pages, wrote down all those numbers, etc. without server data and made like 40 pages of Excel. The only places with server data are the published Gorbatai analysis and the new Gorbatai analysis. I think there is some academic interest that was already heading down these same tracks so maybe you get more of that power of analysis (although I find some times being close to the data helps as well...not just massive data crunching on variables provided, but doing cases and the like).
I've had a little discussion about an (probably more than one) academic paper. It might be a lot of work though. And I really wrote it as more of a corporate strategy weeney document than something academic. It's more like a selection of several of the (sometimes quite good) little studies that people do here on the Wiki to understand this or that (e.g. can see the ones done on IP vandalism of TFAs). I may have a paid gig coming in soon and need to keep earning dineros to feed my cats, so can't really commit to more grunt work. Maybe it sparks some thoughts?
I'm in favor of the small ownership exemption for FA and expanding it. You have a good point that it might never fly. And I really did not study it much or even think about it anyhoo. I had not considered the gamesmanship issue of losing what we have by going for more! Hmm. My main thing is not the protection though. It would be nice, but given the hurdle, think concentrating on things that are more feasible makes sense. Or just take what you can get wherever you can get it. Wiki has a way of bogging things down with perfect is the enemy of better.
P.s. Thanks again for the straight remarks. Fair enough.
P.s.s. I do think FA is in danger of becoming too much of a clique and a closed shop and they should think about it. Not just mobilize the white blood cells.
P.s.s. I'm a lousy speller and writer. But you know grammarian is a very weak flame warrior.
You are straight. Agreed, friends think alike. And the friends defend friends. I like that about Malleus even if we disagree on something.
That's cool that you thought the first discussion was worthwhile. Didn't realize that.
Let me take a look at the presentation and see about adding some caveats where individuals feel skewered. I don't want to baby it though because star collectors want to star collect. Or the FAC leader feels turfy.
On the content reviews, this is the kind of crit that is fine. That was a first pass attempt to try to do something. And it is not proving Euclid's theorems. It is analysis. We could try something else like having some magazine editor or the like read several reviews and see if content is not getting addressed well. I did try to look for previous reviews if referenced in the discussion and noted that. I have been a part of some reviews at FAC that were light on content discussion and the issue has been raised by others. It's not an insane thing to try to assess. We just have to figure out the right way to measure it and nail it. I do think a definitive statement (as with images or close paraphrasing) on content should be made ("I looked at content deeply in peer review") if that is what we are relying on. Obviously if the content is hashed out in the review itself than that covers it.
TCO, following Xeno's various moves I have restored your userrights. I am uncertain if the TCO (renamed) account should be blocked. I will consult with Xeno on that, I guess. Welcome back, but whoa!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of the thoughts in your slide deck. The importance of FA, first page promotion, edit counter ... is mainly that they function as incentives. These incentives should be designed to stimulate as valuable work as possible. An article that is seen by many is more valuable than an article that is seen by few. An article that is deemed very important by a project is most likely more valuable than an article that is deemed unimportant. That is the whole point of making those evalutations (of subjects, not the content). We should strive to design these systems so that star collecting creates as valuable content as possible. Star collection behaviour is not a problem. The problem is that we hand out flawed stars, or rather, that the star eligibility criteria are flawed. We should create an value creation counter that weighs in quality of article, number of page views, number of characters added (deletions are a bit tricky), vital article status etc. Only articles of broad interest should be promoted on the first page. If FA's are lacking, we should promote GA's instead. -- Ettrig ( talk) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, TCO; I am a managing editor of the Signpost and have been watching the fallout from your study with keen interest. I am very happy that you have expressed interest in the piece being covered in the Signpost, and would like to extend an invitation for you to make your case in our pages. What I have in mind is a statement by you summarising the study's main point, and anticipating/defending against criticisms, followed by a critical response by one or more of the FAC/GA people, and perhaps a final impartial piece exploring what questions the affair raises for the quality content community and the project at large. Skomorokh 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ping. Skomorokh 19:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Jumping into this but will in fits and starts as I read and review your power-point. First, I think there's a real serious organization problem - it's just too hard to follow logically and so certain bits and pieces jump out at the reader. Every reader comes away with what they want if they like it and with what they hate if they dislike it. As Ceoil says you have traction and it's too late to stuff this genie back in the bottle, so you need to spend some time with your methodoloy. I've been trying to review again and had to stop at the section about reviews - I can give tons of diffs for peer reviews, good article reviews, etc. It's true that some articles don't get a lot of content review at FAC, but that's because the writers were responsible and took the time to have reviews prior to FAC. You gotta fix that section, and do some research. Look at what the folks at Peer Review are doing, a very under-appreciated small group, and then try to correlate. The flipside is nominators who don't listen to reviewers; have a look whether nominators are listening to what reviewers are telling at GA on PR or simply rushing to FAC. Also, FAC isn't a step above GA. All too often I've seen a page pass GA and nominated at FAC within the hour or the next day. It should not happen that way! GA is a stepping stone - the bank of the river is still far away. A lot has to be done first. If an underprepared page shows up at FAC then naturally the first thing that will jump out at reviewers are seemingly trivial: MoS, refs, prose, etc. But the assumption is that stuff has to be right because this is a publishing endeavor of sorts. Then the content is dug into. I won't review pages that have obvious errors - too much of a timesink. Also you gotta gotta take out the personalities. Do not make labels, do not name names. Ever. This is the internet dude and bad shit happens. So stop that. I'll be back with more - am reviewing your piece. And listen to what Moni3 has to say would be my advice. Oh one last thing - if we follow the advice below to give partial stars or whatever, then people will stop writing. Period. And you will have brought down the entire FAC system. I think FAC like everything else everywhere else is flawed - I don't believe in perfection - but I don't think the problem lies with the process. And as processes go, it's pretty good in my view. The problem is elsewhere. If you apply a more rigorous methodology to your research you might discover the problem. Truthkeeper ( talk) 15:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The other thing to look at is why reviewers don't oppose as much as they should. This is a perennial problem for Sandy et. al. They have to follow community consensus, and I think it's a process that works fairly well - most of the time. The problem lies, to some extent, with the reviewers of which there is a huge shortage. Have a look at this review. Most of my review is on the talk-page. I found out much later this was a commissioned piece but it was not ready for promotion so I opposed. Look at the language and tone from the nominator (who went to write a nasty essay about me which has since been deleted) and ask yourself whether reviewers need to spend volunteer time putting up with this kind of shit. And then extend it out and try to gather data. All I can tell you is that each time I've opposed on a review it's turned into a Bad Experience. I rarely review these days and I only review pages that I know I can support. But if nominators have friends tagging along behind who put in multiple drive-by supports and no one else will engage it causes a problem and often delegates have no choice but to promote. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now. Truthkeeper ( talk) 16:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm threading my comments here as I read. I have a question about the dates & the samples. Like seriously how do I get to be a battleship & Ceoil a dabbler? Or a BrianBoulton? Like seriously, have you looked at their pages? You need a much larger data set. And it would be interesting to see what happens if the data sample is expanded. More later. Still reading ..... making notes as I go along. I think if you stay with this data set that every table has to indicate the distribution clearly because at the moment I'm scrolling all over the place. Truthkeeper ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've put some stuff here. It's not as well pulled together as I'd like but this battleship is tired and has had enough of this place for a while. Sorry if the points seem harsh, but for a full analysis I think you should take some of them into consideration. Also just be aware that the way this report was used against me on EH stopped the work there in its tracks. I know that wasn't the intention but there are ripple effects that can be potentially multiplied by a lot. Personally I'm starting to think this is not a very healthy place to spend time. Thanks, Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not about you, Sandy. It's about the overall process. You are a strong reviewer and look at the articles more closely than other delegates and than many reviewers. The issue is that overall reviews by the set of reviewers are light (on content). That article would be heavily reviewed for content (and not just by me, but by several) regardless of the Ames photos. We have some that get passed without even a global claim "I checked content". Do you want to put money that if I get several subject matter experts or magazine editors to look at the issue of "level of content review" at FAC that they don't have some similar concerns? TCO ( talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I love that. Am very proud of you or whoever did that. It's not even just about the review, but is great press for Wiki and might draw someone into the web. TCO ( talk) 18:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A DYK nomination is stuck, like the turtle in The Grapes of Wrath, on its back. See User talk:TCO's latest and greatest entry. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed one to the old criteria. And I guess there are all kinds of new difficult stuff. Sounds really hard. Ah...fuck it...will be bold. OK. RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Nice request. Will do.
That's some pretty obvious canvassing-- I've brought this to Nikkimaria's attention so she'll have another look to be sure issues were resolved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I read the sources and read the article and looked for plagiarism or close paraphrase or whatever we call it as that seemed like the major concern from previous reviews on the DYK page and other than that, it looked like a pretty decent new article.
Looked fine to me although I am not a superstar in finding tiny phrase copies and lack a tool. But pretty decent at scanning and having warning bells go off when we are cribbing. I had some other comments on the thing (see article talk page). Hope they are helpful as you develop it.
Don't need to worry about me meatpuppeting. Yeah, I have a warm spot for Kiefer. But I'm honorable. Not into the scarlet C (for canvass) or the Kabuki theater we do with asking for reviews or views or whatever in exactly the right words. I know if I am just biasing a vote or am trying to look at a piece fairly. Plus KW is just being acerbic.
Nuff said...that is how I roll.
Heck...I figured it would give something to gotcha me for if a phrase turned up! (But I really did read the three sources and the article...and make an honest review...what is on the DYK and article talk is what I'm capable of.)
Dear TCO,
I was feeling like the soon-to-be neurotic kid in dysfunctional family. I had no idea why SandyGeorgia was so upset with you, TCO.
What is important is that we nurture writers and editors, whomever they are and whatever their interests. There are other encyclopedias and surveys, like the Encyclopedia of Statistics or the New Palgrave or the Russian Encyclopedia of Mathematics, so the world can survive without an FA article on convex sets. I think it's fine that we offer good references in articles on important subjects, and that we develop articles that are ignored by other sources.
We need leadership, like you and Geometry guy and Jakob and Charles Matthew and MF, etc., all of whom have helped teach me how to write. We need to to find and develop editors. Everything else is secondary. I liked some of your suggestions about finding more quality writers, and I hope that others will re-read your paper and see the wealth of ideas and good suggestions.
On the other hand, would we really want our friends or family to edit here?
In my experience, whenever I stray from mathematical topics, I run into POV pushers and weirdos that make editing a pain. I've given up on many of the articles that I used to protect, before my RfC. (Partly because none of the statisticians bothered to help at my RfC.) Editing on vital topics---or even important topics, like the guys who brought us the 40 hour workweek and the March on Washington with King's "I have a Dream" speech---usually means running into kids who at best have read a few books on the topic, and most of those books were written by hacks! When we try to defend our articles or to fix despicable articles, too many administrators come to the aid of the incompetents or POV pushers. It is not worth the trouble to write on important topics outside of mathematics. I am happy to tell the story of Tom Kahn but I wouldn't dare bother with a more important, controversial article.
I think it was Sandy who mentioned to me that editors who stay usually write in a relatively quiet corner. We won't be able to change WP for the better until we have enough happy editors in their corners that we can change policies to deal with administrators who value "civility" above truth and honesty.
That's my take.
With respect and affection, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 08:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I note the clarification and appreciate your point. Would still say that it is a contradiction. If it's a useless support in terms of final promotion, then why let it affect your decision to kick something off the queue? This is getting tedious though. I'm usually willing to engage point for point to an extent that it is boring for people. I've seen you go pretty radio silent yourself, when corrected. TCO ( talk) 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You might appreciate this.. Football is 0 and infinity.Basketball only slightly better. -- JimmyButler ( talk) 15:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your report was poorly executed and damaging to Wikipedia. Behind usernames there are individual human beings but your report treats them like commodities. Calling Feature Article writers "Star collectors" is pejorative in that implies vanity as motivation. Can you tell me who the authors of Apache are? That's a far more important open source project than Wikipedia and its creators are essentially anonymous. Pitting editors in a "contest" that neither has entered and then declaring a winner??
The primary asset of Wikipedia is editors -- people -- which are mostly entirely volunteers. Offending "non vital" featured article writers is not very likely to make them go edit the so-called vital articles, it's more likely to make them less motivated to edit.
It's likely -- probable even -- that you have a valid point that the incentive structure of Wikipedia could be improved. (It's ironic that the rhetoric of the report shows such little understanding of motivation.) With care, it could have easily been written to make the same point without naming names and pissing people off. Comment on content, not on contributors is Wikipedia 101. Gerardw ( talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this report. Unfortunately, I must criticize it for failing to address the fundamental problem at hand, namely the complete and total failure of administrators to adequately patrol and watch our vital articles. The reason good and featured article writers focus on obscure content is because vital articles are, for the most part, watched and edited by users who do not share the goals of article improvement, and who make collaboration difficult, if not impossible. As a result, editors wishing to actually write and improve articles must move on to unwatched and undiscovered topics. This has been known for many years now, so I was quite surprised to see you ignore the problem in your report. When I first arrived here in 2004, I was told by regulars and admins alike that they had completely given up on working on many of our vital articles, and they spent their time on quiet articles in order to get work done. Otherwise, they would be bogged down into unproductive talk discussions by editors who didn't care about the article improvement process. It is my opinion that editors have all but abandoned and fled the vital articles because administrators have failed to patrol and control the problem of uncollaborative and disruptive editors who are here only to argue and not to research, write, and improve the encyclopedia. In fact, most administrators will admit that they avoid content disputes and controversial topics, which only makes the problem worse and leads to more editors leaving those topics behind. If you want to improve vital articles, you will need to address the inability of administrators to deal with highly watched and important articles that attract editors who have no interest in improving the topic. Otherwise, editors will continue to work on quiet and obscure pages until administrators actually start doing their job. Since that isn't going to happen, an effort needs to be made to delegate administrative powers to WikiProjects so that people involved in the daily maintenance of related articles can exert administrative oversight for the sole purpose of enabling and empowering editors to improve the articles. When you think about this, it makes the most sense, because it is the most active project users who will be able to improve the vital articles and setup collaboration with associated projects. For example, we might have a lead coordinator on the films project who is not an administrator but might need administrative tools to help out the active editors. To do this, administrative rights would be given to that lead coordinator for permission on all film-related articles. Delegating rights and permissions by topic would allow users who work in vital areas to speed the article development and improvement process along. Viriditas ( talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)