Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Village pump news   post
The news section of the village pump is used for news or updates that are expected to require public discussion, rather than, say, specific actions, or discussion on their own talk pages. Wikipedia milestones should be posted at Wikipedia:Announcements; all other news should go to the community bulletin board.
Shortcut:
WP:VPN
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Archive
Village Pump
Village pump
News (post)
Policy (post)
Technical (post)
Proposals (post)
Assistance (post)
Miscellaneous (post)

Contents

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (news)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.


[edit] Sinbad (actor)

The fact that Sinbad (actor) was vandalized to falsely report that Sinbad had died is being discussed on television (it made the "crawl" on Fox News Channel and was talked about on "Live with Regis and Kelly"), yet I can't find any discussion on Wikipedia of the fact that this is giving Wikipedia a bad reputation. Where, if anywhere, are people discussing this as a general concern to Wikipedia? (I don't mean just as a topic of discussion at Talk:Sinbad (actor) but as a WP-wide issue.) --Metropolitan90 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinbad, Dave Grohl... man, we're killing people on a regular basis around here. =P Unfortunately, one such occurrence probably spurs on more vandals to kill off thir favourite (or less than favourite) person to see if they can make the news. It's something that responsible editors have to keep an eye on, and try to deal with as soon as possible. Why it keeps hitting the mainstream news, I've got no idea. Slow news day, I suppose. "Hey, people vandalize Wikipedia. Shocking!" (The big media obviously needs something to do while they wait for Anna Nicole to rise from the dead.) If we're vigilant and check up on such claims when they're made, it should be something we can deal with as part of the usual vandal fighting process. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, most vandalism is reverted in a few minutes, the fact that vandalism lasting 72 minutes is newsworthy is probably a good sign. --YbborT 21:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it depends on the time of the vandalism, the popularity of the article, the number of watchlists it's on, and a bunch of other factors as to how quickly it gets reverted. RC patrol quite likely has gaps in coverage - this one probably just slipped through one of them, and unfortunately, someone decided to make it a news item. (I'd have spiked it, personally, if I were the editor in charge, and told the reporter to get a real story.) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm experimenting with the article being unprotected; so far it's worked. Everybody keep an eye out on it, though. -- Zanimum 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The news outlets aren't quite sure yet how to handle Wikipedia-related stories. Wikipedia's too big and too obviously a real breakthrough in information technology for them to just ignore stories, but then they tend to run the other way; they get fad-addicted and report on things like e-vandalism that will later be recognized as the ephemera they are. I used to work in a local television station's news department and every newsroom has its occasional newsgasm and its periodic mountains being made out of molehills. Vandalism of Wikipedia articles will continue to occur to some degree, despite the watchdogs' best efforts, but eventually the news outlets will see it for the non-story it is. --Molon Labe 07:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Bio Errors On Wikipedia

As a user of this encyclopedia I'm concerned about the recent felonious biographical articles about people being put into Wiki. First their was the misinformation about the golfer (sorry I don't have his name)in the news, where a writer claimed him to be a alcoholic and a wife abuser. This was untrue and the man is now suing.

Now there is the false information about comedian Sinbad having died of a heart attack, that was posted/added to his bio on Wiki. This too was false, since the actor, comedian spoke to the Associated Press, just today, to confirm he is still quite alive. He thought it was humorous, I find it professionally and morally reprehensible.

This is an encyclopedia not a blog, networking, chat room. The people who post here should be serious students, professionals or educated people who want to share knowledge and information. Not childish pranksters who want to hurt, in some cases, the careers or reputations of others.

I hope Wikipedia is doint something about this misuse of it's web site. This can only damage their credibility as being a online encyclopedia.

Theresa Manley --16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Theresa Manley

The nature of Wikipedia is a double-edged sword. Because it can be edited by anyone, that means all of us can add our own knowledge to articles, and articles can be updated instantly when something changes. This is one of the great strengths of Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia can be vandalized and things like this can occur. We do a pretty good job of taking care of the vandals, and most of Wikipedia's editors act in a very serious and professional matter. 99% of vandalism is removed a few minutes after it is added. The issue of who should be allowed to edit is a point of contention, however in my opinion, we would lose more than we would gain by restricting editing rights. GhostPirate 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Doing a "pretty good job" was adequate with 100,000 articles seen only by a relatively small number of people. Now that wikipedia dominates Google, it may or may not still be adequate. The problem is how to reduce the problem without destroying the whole concept of anybody-can-edit, because nothing short of verifiable registration will stop the above-listed problem. Maybe that's going to have to happen, though. - 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not really that hard to reduce the vandalism effects by a huge amount: just institute "sighted versions", which means edits by new or anonymous editors don't get presented to readers until an experienced editor checks them out. Anybody can still contribute, they just can't share the results of their vandalism right away, if ever. -R. S. Shaw 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Just implement a major change in procedure which would require a few dedicated editors to spend all of their time "checking out" the hundreds of thousands of edits that are made daily? Wikipedia would be unusable in less than a day. Not to mention the thousands of edit conflicts which would arise. Corvus cornix 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't work like that. There would be no more edit conflicts than now (only one version would be editable at any one time, just as now). No one would need to hurriedly "check out" edits; it can be done more in the normal course of editing, unlike today, where many dedicated editors spend much of their time trying to quickly erase the large volumes of vandalism. (Details here) -R. S. Shaw 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Corvus Cornix - that would quickly turn into Nupedia II, meaning growth would grind to a halt. But maybe wikipedia has reached the point where that would be acceptable. - 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would growth slow? Anons could still add at any time, month-old editors could ok the current version for general visibility. It would allow anons to add to pages that have to be semi-protected now. -R. S. Shaw 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If I understand your idea, I think the number of anon-edited articles awaiting review would pile up and up and up, swamping the number of editors willing to OK them. - DavidWBrooks 17:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps for obscure articles, but articles with activity would likely soon get the anon edits made visible, simply because non-novice editors would typically (perhaps) want their own new edits to be visible, and to make them visible they would need to (checkbox) OK the current version. If the piling-up were really a problem, there could be an automatic OK after say a month of no edits, or the visibility-delay could be applied to a subset of pages (such as those now semiprotected). -R. S. Shaw 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
This may be hard to swallow, but usability and practicability are far more important than credibility. Wikipedia is not and never has been aiming to take over the full market share of information available to all; therefore, it has no special responsibility. Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a secondary source of info, not a primary one. Therefore, it never needs the pure credibility that the primary sources require. "Credible enough" is all right as long as everyone is made to understand how the information in this work is constructed, i.e, via an open, rather than very controlled process. After my three years as a Wikipedian, I have only seen quality go UP UP UP, despite the openness, messy spots and occasional bad press. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Re: False information on Wikipedia −Just to add my two cents...I think people get too worked up over such trivial things, such as an online biography of Sinbad having false information on it....I mean honestly, don't we have better things to do than sit around getting pissed off because there's a few incorrect bits of information on this website.

-D.J.C.- 3/31/07

[edit] Resignations

The recent resignations from the Wikimedia Board of Danny Wool and Brad Patrick have hit wired news. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the news reports news and that is news I suppose. Captain panda In vino veritas 12:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism Study results

Oh so long ago, User:Remember posted a proposal at the VP for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies (post), and low and behold it took roots and about four months later we've finished Study 1.

The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

It's nice to see something from start to finish that's taken so long, and that started merely as an idea posted on VP Proposal. Anyways, further discussion is currently happening for Study 1. Also Study 2 is being planned out right now if any are interested in helping our or just peeking around and leaving some thoughts. JoeSmack Talk 05:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

With a tiny sample and a dubious methodology, I don't think this study should be taken very seriously. Still, it's better than guessing from one's impressions. _R_ 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My thought is that the study should be taken seriously, but that the results need to be considered in light of the sample size and methodology. It is a start and subsequent studies will no doubt benefit from this first one - including constructive criticism of the first. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's more or less what I meant. I should have written "the results of this study", sorry. _R_ 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Criticism welcome; we had to start somewhere, and I think the data still has some important things to say. JoeSmack Talk 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Mugabe's daughter - news story originating from Wikipedia?

Yesterday in the House of Commons, James Duddridge MP asked the following question of Ian McCartney, government minister. [1] (link will change soon)

"Can the Minister confirm that Robert Mugabe’s daughter, Bona Mugabe, is currently studying at the London School of Economics, and if so, can he say who is paying?"

The reply "On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I understand that that is the case. On the second part, I am not certain so I cannot answer. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library of the House. In response to the hon. Member for Cotswold I said, without prompting, that we should seriously consider extending the travel ban to children and other members of the family."

This made the news, with several dozen stories [2].

Subsequently, it appears this is completely false. Here's an account which shows the retraction and also official anger from Zimbabwe [3],

  • "Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, Zimbabwe's Minister of Information told New Zimbabwe.com that the original claims by McCartney were "part of the many lies they have been peddling about Zimbabwe".
  • He said: "This is just one of a thousand lies they have been peddling against Zimbabwe. The British government continues to make so many statements which are untrue, obnoxious and concocted.
  • "I am glad to note that the minister has withdrawn his false claims. He should be embarrassed with himself and his government. But we prefer to let him stew in his malicious lies which must be positioned in the bigger plot to unsettle the elected government of Zimbabwe."

The story has been officially denied by the London School of Economics - she is not studying there, but nonetheless the result of the false story is that [4] the travel ban against Mugabe's family will be extended.

Now this part is somewhat speculative, but it appears likely, given that the story is entirely false, and that Mugabe's daughter is NOT studying at LSE at all, that the original source of the false information is Wikipedia. An anonymous IP, using the Swedish ISP Labs2 inserted the following text on 4th November 2006:[5]

"Their children however are not included to the EU travel sanctions, in fact Bona Mugabe has entered an elite social sciences university (London School of Economics) in the United Kingdom in September 2006 Formerly LSE Student Email Directory now only accessible through LSE for You "

In fact the student directory is fully publicly accessible - "LSE for You" access isn't required, and Mugabe's name is not there.

This information remained in the article, untouched until it was removed by another anonymous IP with no other edits [6], on March 15th. But this time the anon IP was in the LSE itself [7], and likely able to verify the truth of the Swedish IP's claim.

The information is still still in many wikipedia mirrors, such as answers.com[8]

In summary, it appears that we have an entirely baseless claim that remained in wikipedia for five months (the information was added back yesterday, but following the initial news stories, not the dodgy claim about the email directory), and is still extant on the web in mirrors. This claim has I believe led an MP to make a question in Parliament, followed by a false statement by a minister, and now a minor diplomatic incident. This is the only plausible explanation, as statements in wikipedia tend to be treated as knowledge, so anyone reading the article (such as an MP) between November and March 15 (or still now, on mirror sites), would 'know' that Bona Mugabe was at the LSE, handy 'knowledge' for use in Parliamentary debates on Zimbabwe.

The other explanation, that LSE is lying, and that Bona Mugabe is actually studying there, is implausible as there are thousands of students there, and it would be implausible that following an official denial, one of those students (at what is a Universities known for its politics) would not call their bluff. There's just no way they could lie about this. Nssdfdsfds 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And the other other explanation is that there are vast potential sources of misinformation in the world outside of Wikipedia. It does not seem unlikely that this is just a rumor which both the article poster and the MP heard.--Pharos 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also of course possible that the IP was going off of a rumour on another website or thought he'd seen her, or whatever, rather than that he deliberately made it up. But we probably are the ones incidentally to blame for publicizing it. Not really much we can do about that sort of thing though, other than try futilely to convince people that we aren't supposed to be perfect. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
A google search shows no sources for the information outside of Wikipedia. Nssdfdsfds 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Even in this day and age, every random piece of gossip does not turn up in a Google search. The fact that Ian McCartney himself was also familiar with the rumor suggests that it came from British politicians' gossip, not the Internet. There is no evidence at all that this should be attributed to Wikipedia.--Pharos 08:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My suspicions were correct. It does appear that incorrect information on Wikipedia has caused a minor international incident. Here are the relevant letters, the first Duddridge's letter, the second from minister Ian McCartney immediately following the incorrect information given in Parliament, and the third response 2 days later at which time McCartney was better briefed. Nssdfdsfds 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Duddridge's letter of 26th March 2007 to Ian McCartney

'I am writing to inquire about the veracity of a rumour I have come across that relates to a member of Robert Mugabe’s family travelling to the UK.

I have heard from two separate sources that Robert Mugabe’s daughter, Bona Mugabe, is currently studying at the London School of Economics (LSE). One source comes from a newspaper with whom I have been in contact, who received an anonymous call from an individual with a southern African accent. The other is the fact that the entry for ‘Robert Mugabe’ on the website Wikipedia carried a clause stating that “Bona Mugabe entered an elite social sciences university (London School of Economics) in the United Kingdom in September 2006“. This clause was added to the site on 4th November 2006 and removed on 15th March 2007.

I have sought to verify this information from other sources but been unsuccessful. However, I strongly feel that it may well be the case that Bona Mugabe is studying at the LSE, and I should therefore be grateful if you could shed any light on this matter. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not usually comment on individual cases, but given the current situation in Zimbabwe and the issues surrounding the travel ban and frozen assets I believe that this is truly a matter for the public interest.

I hope to raise this matter with you during the Statement on Zimbabwe that you will be delivering to the House of Commons today.

I look forward to hearing from you.'

[edit] McCartney's reply (partial) to James Duddridge following the initial incorrect statement to Parliament, dated 26th March 2007

"You asked about whether the daughter of Robert Mugabe was studying at the London School of Economics. I said that I understood that to be the case. I mis-recollected an earlier briefing. I intended to re-affirm an general point I had already made to the House that we are looking at tightening up the targeted measures on the regime to include the offspring of regime members including where appropriate those in education. I apologise for this incorrect answer."

[edit] McCartney's letter of 28th March 2007 (partial)

"Our Embassy in Harare has now been able to confirm that Bona Mugabe attends a high school in the city, where she is in the Upper Sixth studying for A-Levels this year. A teacher at the school has confirmed that Bona has been a pupil there since the first grade."

He also added that Bona was not planned to be subject to any restriction on her movements, as these restrictions only are applied to family members in the Mugabe government. Nssdfdsfds 14:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom announcement

The Arbcom is soliciting requests for checkuser access. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Checkuser requests Raul654 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • For some values of "done" and "consensus". 62.73.137.190 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Volunteers

The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to contribute to forming the Communications Projects Group, for the purpose of acting on specialized communications requests, such as researching press lists, analyzing media coverage, as well as other functions not presently covered under ComCom.

This committee will be made up of translators, wiki liaisons and consultants, from a variety of countries, including graphic artists. We are looking for volunteers who are willing to make CPGroup their first priority.

CPGroup will be responsible for executing and carrying out PR campaigns. Members of CPGroup will also be given the opportunity for training and eventual entry into the Communications Committee.

Interested parties should contact Sandra Ordonez or myself with your details and/or specialties.

More details may be found at Communication Projects Group Cary Bass demandez 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia offer on Linguist List

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Wikipedia%7EVillage_pump_%28news%29_d176.html"
In other languages