Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

[[:|WP:VPN]]

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.

« Archives, no archives yet (create)

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.

Wikipedia arbitration claims Spartacus.schoolnet.com is "propagandistic" and can't be cited

In an unusual turn of events, Wikipedia arbitration dispute has ended up with a factual finding that the well known UK encyclopedia Spartacus is "propagandistic" and too unreliable to even cite in Wikipedia. Citing a policy governing "extremist" organizations, the Wikipedia arbitration panel has banned Spartacus from use as a reliable source.

“Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [4] ([5]) and [6] ([7]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.” [1]

As background, a group of complaining editors are attempting to ban me on a quickly mutating set of charges which now include being guilty of citing Spartacus. The group of complaining editors seem to be ready to strip references to Spartacus from Wikipedia. As the defending editor in the arbitration, I was surprised to see this happen. The nature of the arbitration, in other respects, has been quite unusual but I am surprised at the intense hostility directed at myself and now Spartacus. Upon hearing of the charges against Spartacus, John Simkin, of Spartacus, sent a message to the arbitration panel stating among other things:

“At the time I created the Spartacus Educational website, I was a history teacher (11-18 year olds) in England. I was also a prolific writer of history books for students. As I still held the copyright for my books, I decided to put them on the web free of charge. Students, from all over the world, were therefore being provided with free teaching materials. This is especially useful for students in the Third World who do not have the money to purchase textbooks or to those who study in countries where the authorities use the political system to control the information they receive. On average, we get 6 million page impressions a month. A survey carried out by the Fischer Family Trust showed that the Spartacus Educational website was used by more history students in the UK than any other website, including that of the BBC. As you can see, I am a very dangerous person.” [2] RPJ 14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Spartacus site, and have in the past found it quite useful. However, it is not NPOV and also has not gone through any sort of peer review process. For an issue like the JFK assassination, where there is a vast body of reputable material, and also a great deal of controversy, I would not consider the site a sufficiently reliable resource. The wording of the ArbCom finding, which I endorsed, might be a bit strong but I do feel that the site is not a reliable enough reference to be relied upon so heavily in the JFK article. I wouldn't support a blanket ban on Spartacus, but it should be used sparingly and with care. I would place it alongside the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance page, where we have similar guidelines worked out after a long debate. - SimonP 17:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simonp is incorrect about Spartacus. First, it is a very reputable publication and it is surprising to hear someone imply otherwise. Second there is no "heavy " reliance on Spartacus in the Kennedy article and that is easy to check by the percentage time it is cited. Third, there were "no long debates" on guidelines finding Spartacus unreliable. In fact, when I formally questioned you arbitrators on why you considered Spartacus "propagandistic" and cited the "extremist organization" policy, I was merely told to go read it.

I did go read additional parts of Spartacus and found it well written and easy to use and wrote a short memo on it to the arbitrators. Simonp didn't even reply. No one replied.

Here is what you concluded:

"4) It is inappropriate to use information from unreliable sources devoted to an extreme partisan point of view, see [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_and_extremist_websites].

"Use of unreliable sources by RPJ

1.4) RPJ regularly cites information from unreliable sites dedicated to a propagandistic point of view, one is spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, [4] ([5]) and [6] ([7]). See also this, this, and this. material from another conspiracy theory site: ratical.org.

Support:

1. SimonP 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

RPJ 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why have you brought this here? There is nobody here who can overrule an ArbCom decision. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that all citations to Spartacus Schoolnet should now be considered invalid? I would imagine that there are several thousand. I'm not sure of the extent to which an ArbCom decision like this sets general policy, as against being a ruling on how a source was used in a particular article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the clarification I posted at WP:RFAR, and appended discussion by other Arbitrators. As far as I'm concerned it is exactly that: a ruling on how a source was used in a particular article. Naturally editors need to take some note of what is said there. Charles Matthews 11:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New reference desk

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive#Popular culture and law reference desks, we have a new entertainment reference desk. (The archiving system still needs to be configured for the new desk.) Neon Merlin 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O'Donnell quotes Wikipedia in her ongoing feud with Donald Trump

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20005257,00.html User:Zoe|(talk) 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that article's impeccably well sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... Durova^Charge! 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

she could be the one who edited that article. 75.3.235.100 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian: The new 100 most useful sites

In a story dated December 21, 2006, The Guardian places Wikipedia among The new 100 most useful sites. Wikipedia is the first site in the "Reference" section of the article:

“

Wikipedia now dominates the reference side of the web, partly because its pages are ranked so highly in Google. User-written, it's not always reliable, but is usually a good place to start.

”

Two years ago, Wikipedia was only mentioned under "Readers' favourites". It didn't merit a mention under "References". - Banyan Tree 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New posters in the store: "Think Free"

I'm running the Wikipedia Cafepress store for the moment, and we're making an attempt to bring it up to date. We've started a new line of posters with the tagline "Think Free" (an apple parody, kind of). Let us know what you think.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Think_Free

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 18:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia founder to launch new search engine

According to this December 24, 2006 article in the Guardian, Jimmy Wales is "set to launch an internet search engine with amazon.com that he hopes will become a rival to Google and Yahoo!". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information Week posted another article about this today. The search engine is code-named Wikiasari. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't called Wikiasari. That's the name of an old search project that pre-dated Wikicities. Angela . 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New project, Wikipedia:Requested recordings

In order to reduce Wikipedia's reliance on fair use recordings of music which is in the public ___domain, Wikipedia:Requested recordings has been started. It works on the same principle as Wikipedia:Requested pictures, hopefully connecting musicians with music which needs to be recorded. Please sign up if you have resources which could be used, or propose a work to be recorded. Thanks, Mak (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100,000,000 edits

it looks like the edit count on the Special:Statistics page rolled over to 100,000,000 edits recently.. break open the champagne? 81.168.22.81 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive donation?

$186,648.00 has been donated to WikiMedia by an Anonymous Donor, with description "This person wishes to remain anonymous. Roger donation made with stocks." Wow. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, thank you very much. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales attacks Google, calling its results "spam and useless crap"

CIO-Today Report: [3] Given the indirect support Google has obviously given Wikipedia and its ability to substantially reduce Wikipedia's traffic, could it be dangerous for Wales to use such rhetoric? Shouldn't Wales also be more cautious when connecting independent Wikipedia's "popularity" to a commercial venture supported by Amazon.com and positioned against Google? Tfine80 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIO-Today seems to be confused as to the distinction between Wikipedia; Wikimedia; and Wikia. Also, Wales didn't say Google's results were always spam and useless crap, he said you sometimes get spam and useless crap. There's a difference. Some Wikipedia articles are spam and useless crap too, and I bet he'd be the first to admit that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the exact quote:

"Google is very good at many types of search, but in many instances it produces nothing but spam and useless crap,"

The same can be said about Wikipedia; it has very many good articles, but many articles are nothing but spam and useless crap. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who hasn't run an occasional Google search and received a load of spam? Today I browsed Wikipedia and eventually reached sex symbol, which was tagged for lack of sources. So I thought I'd run a quick search for definitions and commentary from reputable sources. Surely Harper's or Vanity Fair occasionally run articles on the subject. There really wasn't much of use in the top 100 Google returns.[4] Wikipedia was at the top, followed by an image gallery, then a Wikipedia mirror. The fourth return looked promising: a New York Times article. That discussed a current fad for bearded men - too specialized for a general article about sex symbols. Fifth was an online quiz; sixth, an overview of current Bollywood stars; seventh, a very short biography of Theda Bara. Then (and it surprised me that this sort of thing placed no higher) sex advice. Ninth was some avatar downloads. Then a blog about Jon Stewart. My Google preferences give the top 100 returns on the first page but the rest were about the same: an algorithm's regurgitation based on superficial text analysis and website prominence rather than an intelligent human being's assessment. Some people run that search more for personal amusement than research purposes, but even for that the results were quirky: none of the summaries mentioned Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, but Hillary Clinton and Pee-Wee Herman turned up. There's no accounting for taste... Durova^Charge! 01:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In no short order... the search project is not supported by Amazon; it is not (as far as I am aware) a commercial venture; Jwales did not "connect Wikipedia" to the new project. What you have there is a slightly garbled version of the Times article, which itself got several important factors wrong... Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]