Task force/Living People/Internet relay chat meetings/02.08.2010

From Strategic Planning
Jump to: navigation, search

[2010-01-31 20:58:10] <Keegan> Begin public logging

[2010-01-31 20:58:16] <Keegan> So hi to everyone

[2010-01-31 20:58:35] <Keegan> The Living People task force is starting back up this week

[2010-01-31 20:58:38] <Administrivia> so I think we should delete all BLPs

[2010-01-31 20:58:50] <Keegan> I've been working to organize the program

[2010-01-31 20:59:03] <Keegan> This is a free forum to see thoughts other than delete all BLPs

[2010-01-31 20:59:21] <Keegan> Plus we're doing away with that acronym

[2010-01-31 20:59:32] <Keegan> They're LPs

[2010-01-31 20:59:39] <harej> LPs?

[2010-01-31 20:59:42] <harej> fun, fun

[2010-01-31 20:59:44] <MrZ-man> only bots should be allowed to edit BLPs, living editors have a COI

[2010-01-31 20:59:46] <Keegan> The scope relates to all aspects of working with living people

[2010-01-31 21:00:28] <Keegan> I don't have a plan for this get together, so y'all just discuss as it takes you

[2010-01-31 21:00:35] <Administrivia> all aspects of working with living people?

[2010-01-31 21:00:39] <Administrivia> as opposed to what?

[2010-01-31 21:00:46] <Lara> Hold on, what?

[2010-01-31 21:00:48] <Administrivia> working with dead people?

[2010-01-31 21:00:57] <Keegan> Ignoring things, like mugshots as the lead image for example

[2010-01-31 21:00:59] <Lara> We're dropping it to living people?

[2010-01-31 21:01:28] <Keegan> Lara: yup

[2010-01-31 21:01:34] <Keegan> It's not just biographies

[2010-01-31 21:01:48] <Lara> Right, but we're not dealing with the people themselves.

[2010-01-31 21:01:53] <Lara> For the most part.

[2010-01-31 21:01:57] <Keegan> Oh, I see, correct

[2010-01-31 21:02:15] <Keegan> That will be a small set of recommendations, dealing with subjects editing their articles

[2010-01-31 21:02:20] <Keegan> Good thing to discuss

[2010-01-31 21:02:43] -->| Dragonfly6-7 (~test@bas1-montreal48-1176431245.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #wikipedia-blptf

[2010-01-31 21:03:05] <Dragonfly6-7> I say we add the words "{ARTICLENAME} eats babies" to each and every article

[2010-01-31 21:03:11] <Dragonfly6-7> as part of the sitenotice, even

[2010-01-31 21:03:35] <Administrivia> we should randomize what they do to babies, so that may be true

[2010-01-31 21:03:48] <Lara> Keegan: I'd say it's time to flex the op power.

[2010-01-31 21:03:59] <Keegan> Ha, yeah

[2010-01-31 21:04:21] <Lara> how's the proposal for BLP PROD coming?

[2010-01-31 21:04:24] <Keegan> Everyone behave and stay on subject for a bit, this is being publicly logged

[2010-01-31 21:04:34] -->| Krimpet (fran@wikimedia/Fran-Rogers) has joined #wikipedia-blptf

[2010-01-31 21:04:49] <Keegan> Good thing to put in my outline

[2010-01-31 21:04:57] <Keegan> We're getting started this week

[2010-01-31 21:05:09] <Dragonfly6-7> Keegan - put "being publicly logged" in the /topic, then

[2010-01-31 21:05:30] =-= Keegan has changed the topic to ``Open forum | Public log will be posted

[2010-01-31 21:05:42] <Lara> We've got admins like Prodego/Administrivia who mass unPRODed while vowing not to add a single source.

[2010-01-31 21:06:00] <Lara> Yes, we don't want the children misbehaving under the misconception that it's behind closed doors.

[2010-01-31 21:06:15] <pakaran> subjects becoming involved is an issue. I'm hardly an active otrs agent, but i've seen that dozens to hundreds of times. and most often the subject has a real concern.

[2010-01-31 21:06:22] <Lara> So does anyone know at what stage the PROD proposal is in?

[2010-01-31 21:06:24] <juliancolton> yeah

[2010-01-31 21:06:31] <Administrivia> I've never had a problem working with people on their own article

[2010-01-31 21:06:32] <pakaran> and sometimes gets handed a 'unproductive editing' or 'legal threat' boilerplate

[2010-01-31 21:06:46] <juliancolton> Administrivia: when have you ever worked on an article though? :P

[2010-01-31 21:06:49] <Lara> It depends, really. A lot of the problem is the way their initially treated.

[2010-01-31 21:06:49] <Administrivia> they largely are well intentioned and usually listen

[2010-01-31 21:07:06] <juliancolton> Lara: I think it had very weak consensus last I saw

[2010-01-31 21:07:11] <Lara> They're almost always greeted in a hostile manner.

[2010-01-31 21:07:14] <Administrivia> juliancolton: well I tend to respond to specific compliants not so much 'writing encyclopedias' or whatever it is people do

[2010-01-31 21:07:24] <juliancolton> but it depends, there are many many PROD proposals

[2010-01-31 21:07:38] <Dragonfly6-7> do we have a category for PRODs ?

[2010-01-31 21:07:44] <Dragonfly6-7> like we do for speedies?

[2010-01-31 21:07:48] <juliancolton> Category:Proposed deletions?

[2010-01-31 21:07:48] <Administrivia> of course

[2010-01-31 21:07:51] <vonRanke> Dragonfly6-7: I think so

[2010-01-31 21:07:53] <Lara> juliancolton: Jehochman's.

[2010-01-31 21:07:58] <juliancolton> ah, k

[2010-01-31 21:07:59] <pakaran> i feel like any expediated deletion proposal, while it may be necessary, is going to catch a lot of articles that could be sourced and salvaged.

[2010-01-31 21:08:04] <juliancolton> yeah, that one was going decently

[2010-01-31 21:08:04] -->| Philippe|BRB (~Philippe|@wikimedia/Philippe) has joined #wikipedia-blptf

[2010-01-31 21:08:24] <Administrivia> pakaran: +1

[2010-01-31 21:08:38] <Administrivia> I also don't like that all these proposal seem to shift the Template:Sofixit burden

[2010-01-31 21:08:45] <Lara> So is the BLPTF going for another round because the first round didn't finish with the proposals, or because proposals/recommendations were given and the board didn't act, Keegan?

[2010-01-31 21:08:46] <pakaran> and a lot, in this case, could be tens of thousands.

[2010-01-31 21:08:59] <Keegan> Didn't finish

[2010-01-31 21:09:01] <Lara> Poor argument.

[2010-01-31 21:09:04] <Lara> Poor, poor argument.

[2010-01-31 21:09:08] <pakaran> any admins who want to wade through tens of thousands of DR entries, raise your hand now

[2010-01-31 21:09:17] <Lara> Tens of thousands of unsourced biographies that have been sitting for months to years.

[2010-01-31 21:09:26] <Lara> Source them after you have them restored if they're so important.

[2010-01-31 21:09:32] <pakaran> Lara, yeah.

[2010-01-31 21:09:42] <pakaran> and we're now so buried that there's no good solution

[2010-01-31 21:09:48] <pakaran> only less bad solutions

[2010-01-31 21:09:50] <Lara> That makes no sense.

[2010-01-31 21:10:02] <Lara> You don't wade through hundreds of pages to find a link to restore.

[2010-01-31 21:10:08] <Dragonfly6-7> oh, I'd be doing it a lot more if I wasn't so busy with NEWPAGE PATROL

[2010-01-31 21:10:09] <Lara> You type in the title and restore it.

[2010-01-31 21:10:23] <Keegan> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People

[2010-01-31 21:10:25] =-= Philippe|BRB is now known as Philippe|AFK

[2010-01-31 21:10:39] <vonRanke> Dragonfly6-7: you hold out the flood while we bail out the water

[2010-01-31 21:10:48] <Dragonfly6-7> I'vebeen working on that

[2010-01-31 21:10:59] <Dragonfly6-7> and also cleaning up the lesser namespaces

[2010-01-31 21:11:07] <Lara> NPP may be a tad easier if you could just kill the unrefed BLPs on sight.

[2010-01-31 21:11:24] <Lara> Or, really, all unrefed articles.

[2010-01-31 21:11:29] <Lara> This is an encyclopedia, afterall.

[2010-01-31 21:11:46] <vonRanke> Lara: that's assuming that all new articles are made by epope, with a comprehensive understanding of our policy and referencing

[2010-01-31 21:11:53] <pakaran> on the other hand, we've become the world's largest encyclopedia thanks to our openness.

[2010-01-31 21:12:01] <harej> I actually have an agenda for being here but I don't feel like interrupting your current converation.

[2010-01-31 21:12:03] <vonRanke> epope... don't even know what that's a typo of

[2010-01-31 21:12:11] <vonRanke> people, maybe

[2010-01-31 21:12:20] <Lara> Haha

[2010-01-31 21:12:30] <harej> e-pope

[2010-01-31 21:12:38] <vonRanke> Pope Lolcat

[2010-01-31 21:12:45] <vonRanke> offtopic...

[2010-01-31 21:12:46] <Administrivia> harej: my agenda is to push doing nothing

[2010-01-31 21:12:50] <Krimpet> This is Web 2.0... it should be iPope nowadays.

[2010-01-31 21:12:54] <Lara> Well, it is an encyclopedia. Maybe add an edit notice pointing out what an encyclopedia is, then tell them to reference their additions, else they be deleted.

[2010-01-31 21:13:17] <vonRanke> I think that would scare off too many people.

[2010-01-31 21:13:24] <Lara> Good.

[2010-01-31 21:13:28] <vonRanke> Heh

[2010-01-31 21:13:30] <MrZ-man> they don't need a comprehensive understanding, they just need to tell us where the information came from

[2010-01-31 21:13:32] <Administrivia> Lara: this is true, but I don't execpt someone's first article to be written perfectly, and that might mean that it could be unsourced

[2010-01-31 21:13:38] <Lara> We have enough morons on the project. Let's scare others off.

[2010-01-31 21:13:53] <Administrivia> I'm not sure that's a good attitude

[2010-01-31 21:13:54] <vonRanke> We don't have enough morons who actually write articles.

[2010-01-31 21:14:01] <Lara> Then encourage newbs to drop in raw urls.

[2010-01-31 21:14:03] <Lara> And we'll do the rest.

[2010-01-31 21:14:08] <MrZ-man> we're not asking for inline references with citation templates, just sources, anything

[2010-01-31 21:14:08] <Administrivia> we need new editors, and just because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they are 'morons'

[2010-01-31 21:14:17] <vonRanke> Exactly

[2010-01-31 21:14:55] <Lara> If they can't grasp that an encyclopedia is written from existing sources, and thus avoid OR and drop in a link to the site they're referencing, or the title of the book, then yes, they're morons.

[2010-01-31 21:15:01] <Lara> And we sure as hell don't need more of them.

[2010-01-31 21:15:23] -->| FloNight (~chatzilla@unaffiliated/poore5) has joined #wikipedia-blptf

[2010-01-31 21:15:51] <Lara> We're already beyond overwhelmed with work.

[2010-01-31 21:16:04] <Lara> Check out how often Dragonfly pushes for help on NPP.

[2010-01-31 21:16:11] <Lara> No body wants to do that shitty job.

[2010-01-31 21:16:23] <pakaran> this is my first edit. new info, uncited, not properly formatted. even uses raw html. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Mercury_(element)&diff=prev&oldid=1459792

[2010-01-31 21:16:33] <pakaran> if i'd been called a moron and warned, i might not have stuck around

[2010-01-31 21:16:39] <Lara> We need clear rules that WP is to a point now that we need to start cleaning up. A little less dropping of garbage, and a little more fixing what we've already got.

[2010-01-31 21:16:49] <Lara> At least it has a source.

[2010-01-31 21:17:01] <Lara> O html

[2010-01-31 21:17:05] <Lara> I'm thinking url.

[2010-01-31 21:17:23] <pakaran> and it's not, say, a bad blp of my least favorite high school teacher, yeah

[2010-01-31 21:17:28] <vonRanke> Lara: I think you're forgetting the way the public views us. We're an encyclopedia, but one that everyone can contribute to. I think to the vast majority of the public that implies something slightly different than a volunteer Brittanica.

[2010-01-31 21:17:39] <harej> I might as well interject randomly because this waiting in line thing isn't working. In six months time I will have a fork of Wikipedia operational. I have decided that this website will handle the BLP situation better. For one, flagged revisions will be running on the site from day 1. I want to hear from you, the people most interested. This is your chance to get the rules and practices right.

[2010-01-31 21:17:48] <MrZ-man> well, I wouldn't recommend actually calling them morons :)

[2010-01-31 21:17:53] <[Soap]> whoa

[2010-01-31 21:17:56] <[Soap]> seriously?

[2010-01-31 21:18:16] <Lara> I'm in.

[2010-01-31 21:18:18] <vonRanke> hm

[2010-01-31 21:18:55] <Lara> I was just talking to someone within the past 24 hours about the shared desire for a project worth contributing to.

[2010-01-31 21:19:28] <MrZ-man> harej: what are your plans for publicity?

[2010-01-31 21:19:29] <Keegan> Remember folks, this is not an official meeting but let's stick to working towards positive ends here

[2010-01-31 21:19:29] <Dragonfly6-7> you know what we should have?

[2010-01-31 21:19:36] <Dragonfly6-7> at the very least, we should change the sitenotice

[2010-01-31 21:19:40] <Dragonfly6-7> not "that anyone can edit"

[2010-01-31 21:19:44] <Lara> Sounds like the best possible end to me.

[2010-01-31 21:19:44] <Dragonfly6-7> "that anyone can improve"

[2010-01-31 21:20:12] <Lara> If, ultimately, as has been suggested before, all BLPs were transferred to another project, that's the ultimate positive end.

[2010-01-31 21:20:18] <Lara> WP is too irresponsible for it.

[2010-01-31 21:20:20] <harej> Keegan, lara, what sort of special attention to BLPs should my website pay?

[2010-01-31 21:20:30] <Keegan> Then go for it, but we're talking about positive solutions for Wikimedia projects

[2010-01-31 21:20:54] <Lara> Keegan: Explain the actual point here.

[2010-01-31 21:21:07] <Lara> I mean, we've been talking in circles amongst ourselves for months, years even. Name me a positive result.

[2010-01-31 21:21:25] <Lara> Anything significant?

[2010-01-31 21:21:32] <Keegan> That's because we haven't tried, we just talk

[2010-01-31 21:21:39] <Keegan> So let's talk about what we can do to try

[2010-01-31 21:21:39] <Lara> Any effective change to policy?

[2010-01-31 21:21:41] <Lara> Ha, yea.

[2010-01-31 21:21:43] <Lara> Right.

[2010-01-31 21:21:50] <Lara> I'm sorry, you just lost me.

[2010-01-31 21:21:57] <MrZ-man> so what exactly are are trying to do here?

[2010-01-31 21:21:59] <Keegan> Any thoughts about WikiSource and/or Quote?

[2010-01-31 21:22:00] <Dragonfly6-7> Lara - there's another problem, and that is that any non-BLP article can mention a BLP

[2010-01-31 21:22:23] <Keegan> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People

[2010-01-31 21:22:36] <Lara> Dragonfly6-7: Yes, true. But easier to deal with that if the BLPs are being sufficiently cared for elsewhere, since Wikipedia and the board won't take even the most basic measures.

[2010-01-31 21:22:43] <Administrivia> MrZ-man: argue in circles I think

[2010-01-31 21:22:47] <Lara> The Foundation isn't going to do anything.

[2010-01-31 21:22:49] <FloNight> Dragonfly6-7: And images and poor quotes.

[2010-01-31 21:23:04] <NuclearWarfare> Oh shoot, we started

[2010-01-31 21:23:08] <Dragonfly6-7> and while we have this discussion, the glut increases

[2010-01-31 21:23:10] <[Soap]> hi Nuke

[2010-01-31 21:23:11] <harej> My argument is that if all we can do here is talk, perhaps on a different website we could actually put the rules in effect. I am quite conscious of the issue at hand and am open to implementing what have you if it makes for a good website.

[2010-01-31 21:23:27] <Lara> What would be good would be to have people who actually care split up in to active groups to patrol certain areas.

[2010-01-31 21:23:29] <MrZ-man> are we supposed to be coming up with ideas for a policy to force down people's throats, or ideas that the community might actually accept on their own?

[2010-01-31 21:23:47] <Lara> I don't do Wikiquote because it's a mess and better sites have long existed to serve the save purpose.

[2010-01-31 21:23:51] <Keegan> Lara: That's a good point

[2010-01-31 21:23:58] <Keegan> So talk about community involvement

[2010-01-31 21:24:18] <Lara> Well, such an idea requires a good number of people who /actually/ care.

[2010-01-31 21:24:48] <Keegan> They are out there. How do we find them?

[2010-01-31 21:25:04] <Lara> Hell if I know. I created the project. Kevin Costner was wrong. They didn't all come.

[2010-01-31 21:25:11] <Lara> Or maybe they did.

[2010-01-31 21:25:19] <NuclearWarfare> The Wikicup. Coordinate with the judges and have those people source articles for a month

[2010-01-31 21:25:20] <Lara> In which case, it's not enough to split.

[2010-01-31 21:25:26] <NuclearWarfare> There are 100 content writers there

[2010-01-31 21:25:34] <NuclearWarfare> If each do one a day, that's 15k off the backlog

[2010-01-31 21:25:36] <Natalie> Lara: Finding people who care is hard.

[2010-01-31 21:25:39] <vonRanke> NuclearWarfare: you mean make it a contest?

[2010-01-31 21:25:52] <NuclearWarfare> no, actually suspend the WikiCup for a month

[2010-01-31 21:25:59] <vonRanke> hm

[2010-01-31 21:26:08] <NuclearWarfare> Or give those people WikiCup points for sourcing articles, or whatever

[2010-01-31 21:26:09] <[Soap]> that would be very interesting

[2010-01-31 21:26:17] <Natalie> That seems a bit silly, Nuke.

[2010-01-31 21:26:23] <NuclearWarfare> They have already shown that they are about improving the encyclopedia for points

[2010-01-31 21:26:40] <FloNight> NuclearWarfare: I agree that collaborative projects and possibly contests can help get energy into the area.

[2010-01-31 21:26:41] <Natalie> We can't force people to work on biographies. And you don't want to. Volunteer project and all that. I think you'll get backlash...

[2010-01-31 21:26:42] <NuclearWarfare> So it is highly likely that a good number of them would help out with BLPs for points

[2010-01-31 21:26:42] <Administrivia> this is true, lets make it into MORE of a MMORPG

[2010-01-31 21:26:55] <Administrivia> actually this is probably the best idea anyone has had

[2010-01-31 21:27:02] <Administrivia> because it would actually work

[2010-01-31 21:27:04] <Administrivia> sadly

[2010-01-31 21:27:10] <Lara> Natalie: Exactly.

[2010-01-31 21:27:13] <NuclearWarfare> Not saying I like it, but if it works it works

[2010-01-31 21:27:20] <vonRanke> It sounds like it could yield results.

[2010-01-31 21:27:39] <NuclearWarfare> just approach the judges and say "Any chance of adding a thing where you get X points for sourcing a BLP?"

[2010-01-31 21:28:01] <Natalie> Why are we focusing on sourcing over deletion?

[2010-01-31 21:28:04] <Administrivia> NuclearWarfare: heck, give them extra points for removing false statements

[2010-01-31 21:28:11] <Administrivia> Natalie: because it's preferable?

[2010-01-31 21:28:13] <Natalie> The onus is on the article creators here.

[2010-01-31 21:28:18] <Natalie> Administrivia: Is it?

[2010-01-31 21:28:27] <Lara> Wrong room for it, Natalie. The inclusionists are among us.

[2010-01-31 21:28:30] <Natalie> I think a lot of these biographies, even sourced, should be deleted as the people they cover aren't notable.

[2010-01-31 21:28:31] <NuclearWarfare> The community feels otherwise Natalie

[2010-01-31 21:28:37] <Administrivia> Natalie: if I page meets the inclusion criteria I'd rather have it than not

[2010-01-31 21:28:48] <Administrivia> what those criteria are I rather disagree with at the moment, but

[2010-01-31 21:28:50] <Lara> That's where harej's project needs to go differently.

[2010-01-31 21:28:58] <Lara> Notability needs to be realistic.

[2010-01-31 21:29:02] <Lara> And consistent.

[2010-01-31 21:29:05] <Administrivia> if a page*

[2010-01-31 21:29:10] <Dragonfly6-7> the thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's the community

[2010-01-31 21:29:12] <Natalie> NuclearWarfare: The Community ...

[2010-01-31 21:29:19] <NuclearWarfare> â„¢

[2010-01-31 21:29:24] <Lara> "Community"

[2010-01-31 21:29:26] <FloNight> NuclearWarfare: Some wikiprojects already have ongoing monthly article improvement contests.

[2010-01-31 21:29:32] <Dragonfly6-7> remember what happened with spanish wikipedia when there was the advertisment clusterfuck

[2010-01-31 21:29:38] <Dragonfly6-7> and they schismed off?

[2010-01-31 21:29:45] <NuclearWarfare> No

[2010-01-31 21:29:47] <NuclearWarfare> Because that was 8 years ago

[2010-01-31 21:29:50] <Dragonfly6-7> Mediawiki is free, our database is free

[2010-01-31 21:30:07] <Dragonfly6-7> if we crack down, people split off and start over with their own copies of the database

[2010-01-31 21:30:09] <NuclearWarfare> Our website name is free. The odds of anyone successfully forking is really low

[2010-01-31 21:30:20] <NuclearWarfare> Our website name isn't free*

[2010-01-31 21:30:34] <Administrivia> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enciclopedia_Libre_and_Spanish_Wikipedia_article_count.JPG

[2010-01-31 21:30:38] <Natalie> NuclearWarfare: I don't agree with that at all.

[2010-01-31 21:30:46] <Administrivia> and it works

[2010-01-31 21:30:47] <vonRanke> Forking would solve nothing, because people who still go to wikipedia, rehardless of the policies elsewhere.

[2010-01-31 21:30:52] <Natalie> I'd say the exact opposite. I think forking is absolutely inevitable.

[2010-01-31 21:30:55] <FloNight> NuclearWarfare: Maybe we could get those to add points for BLP work, and get more wikiprojects to have this type of improvement drive.

[2010-01-31 21:30:57] <vonRanke> *would still go

[2010-01-31 21:30:59] <Administrivia> vonRanke: that didn't happen with the spanish wp

[2010-01-31 21:31:11] <Natalie> I think any reliance on WikiProjects is a very poor idea.

[2010-01-31 21:31:19] <[Soap]> arguably all of Wikia is a Wikipedia fork for pages that were deemed outside our project scope

[2010-01-31 21:31:23] <Natalie> From what I've seen, most are completely unfocused or dead.

[2010-01-31 21:32:28] <[Soap]> there's also Conservapedia and Wikinfo, which have small but determined followers

[2010-01-31 21:32:40] <Natalie> Right...

[2010-01-31 21:32:43] <FloNight> Natalie: They need organization, true.

[2010-01-31 21:32:55] <vonRanke> We would need more MILHIST and VG for project-based solutions to work

[2010-01-31 21:33:19] <Natalie> vonRanke: Right. And those are the only two that have their act together.

[2010-01-31 21:33:47] <vonRanke> I liked Nuke's idea, but with some variations to directly promote BLP sourcing or improvements.

[2010-01-31 21:34:19] <juliancolton> in fairness...

[2010-01-31 21:34:28] <juliancolton> most projects are a mess, with a couple active users

[2010-01-31 21:34:37] <vonRanke> juliancolton: exactly

[2010-01-31 21:34:48] <juliancolton> MILHIST and video games are very popular subjects, hence their projects' success

[2010-01-31 21:35:11] <Lara> People don't care about random other people.

[2010-01-31 21:35:26] <Lara> And there's nothing fun about working with BLPs.

[2010-01-31 21:35:47] <juliancolton> shrug, I don't mind it

[2010-01-31 21:35:55] <Lara> I think it sucks, but I did it anyway.

[2010-01-31 21:36:47] <FloNight> juliancolton: The Community Health task force wiki looked at the wikiprojects and saw potential for good things to come from them IF they were given help to work better.

[2010-01-31 21:36:57] <Keegan> (remember: there is intentionally no structure this time, since we technically haven't started the task force yet)

[2010-01-31 21:37:11] <juliancolton> hm

[2010-01-31 21:37:18] <NuclearWarfare> I'm still confused what our remit is as a task force

[2010-01-31 21:37:34] <NuclearWarfare> Recommendations to the Foundation, to the Community, policy by fiat?

[2010-01-31 21:37:44] <Keegan> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People

[2010-01-31 21:38:03] <Keegan> Write and pass a global policy on living people

[2010-01-31 21:38:13] <Keegan> First and foremost

[2010-01-31 21:38:27] <Keegan> Recommendations and findings for communities

[2010-01-31 21:38:33] <NuclearWarfare> the policy isn't what is killing this project though. The policy is OK. It's the enforcement that's bad

[2010-01-31 21:38:34] <FloNight> Recommendations to the board that can be anything we want.

[2010-01-31 21:38:43] <Keegan> Encouragement of discussion in a positive manner

[2010-01-31 21:39:06] <FloNight> Implementation is key and what is lacking, yes.

[2010-01-31 21:39:11] <Keegan> NW: Yes, another aspect is how to change global perspective

[2010-01-31 21:39:14] <juliancolton> neither is the enforcement... it's that there are different methods of enforcing it

[2010-01-31 21:39:20] <juliancolton> none of which are inherently "bad" or "wrong"

[2010-01-31 21:39:25] <Keegan> It worked for non-free content

[2010-01-31 21:39:36] <Keegan> It was all accepted until it wasn't

[2010-01-31 21:39:37] <pakaran> i think most if not all page creations get seen

[2010-01-31 21:39:42] <pakaran> between huggle and other things

[2010-01-31 21:39:44] <Dragonfly6-7> we also need to treat disciplinary measures more seriously

[2010-01-31 21:39:56] <juliancolton> pakaran: yeah

[2010-01-31 21:40:07] <vonRanke> Dragonfly6-7: mhm

[2010-01-31 21:40:15] <pakaran> what if those tools had a one-key shortcut to tell the creator that they've made an unsourced blp, which is againt our policies for x y andd z reasons, so please see this page about adding sources

[2010-01-31 21:40:57] <FloNight> pakaran: yes, getting the person that started the article to help fix it is key.

[2010-01-31 21:41:20] <FloNight> pakaran: and reaching right away is a must.

[2010-01-31 21:41:42] <Dragonfly6-7> pakaran - something in the sitenotice, maybe

[2010-01-31 21:41:45] <Dragonfly6-7> in the article wizard

[2010-01-31 21:41:48] <juliancolton> pakaran: there's a bot that does that (not to mention scripts like Twinkle and NPP)

[2010-01-31 21:41:48] <pakaran> yeah

[2010-01-31 21:41:57] <juliancolton> DASHbot? or something?

[2010-01-31 21:41:58] <pakaran> i'm not too involved in npp

[2010-01-31 21:42:10] <pakaran> used huggle for awhile, cut back since i moved more towards secure login

[2010-01-31 21:42:21] <juliancolton> Lara: what's the name of the bot that yells at people for making unsourced BLPs?

[2010-01-31 21:42:27] <NuclearWarfare> LaraBot

[2010-01-31 21:42:32] <juliancolton> no...

[2010-01-31 21:42:36] <NuclearWarfare> Actually, yes

[2010-01-31 21:42:37] <juliancolton> yeah, it is DASHbot

[2010-01-31 21:42:46] <NuclearWarfare> LaraBot is for new unsourced BLPs

[2010-01-31 21:42:49] <FloNight> pakaran: The person gets notified, the article tagged, but no follow up to address the prolems.

[2010-01-31 21:42:51] <NuclearWarfare> DASHbot is for the backlog

[2010-01-31 21:42:51] <juliancolton> oh

[2010-01-31 21:42:52] <juliancolton> I see

[2010-01-31 21:43:12] <Lara> DASHbot is nicer than LaraBot.

[2010-01-31 21:43:19] <Lara> And LaraBot isn't as bitchy as she should be.

[2010-01-31 21:43:27] <NuclearWarfare> Make it bitchier then

[2010-01-31 21:43:32] <Lara> I've considered it.

[2010-01-31 21:43:45] <NuclearWarfare> This is publicly logged, isn't it

[2010-01-31 21:43:47] <NuclearWarfare> Meh

[2010-01-31 21:43:51] <Dragonfly6-7> yes

[2010-01-31 21:43:59] <Lara> But then I get bitched out on my talk page, and I'm far more bitchy than the bot, and far less capable of replying nicely.

[2010-01-31 21:44:30] <NuclearWarfare> Then don't redirect the talk page to your own

[2010-01-31 21:44:35] <Lara> I don't.

[2010-01-31 21:44:40] <Lara> It's directed to Natalie's talk page.

[2010-01-31 21:44:44] <NuclearWarfare> Don't do that either

[2010-01-31 21:44:45] <Dragonfly6-7> you know what bothers me?

[2010-01-31 21:44:46] <Lara> His bot.

[2010-01-31 21:44:50] <NuclearWarfare> Make something like ClueBot Commons

[2010-01-31 21:44:54] <Dragonfly6-7> that we're wasting time talking when we could be sourcing BLPs

[2010-01-31 21:44:54] <Lara> I just inspired it.

[2010-01-31 21:44:55] <NuclearWarfare> and have a bunch of people watchlist it

[2010-01-31 21:45:03] <Lara> lawl

[2010-01-31 21:45:35] <Lara> I edit one BLP, for the most part.

[2010-01-31 21:45:59] <pakaran> as horrible as it sounds, i mostly don't do content editing.

[2010-01-31 21:46:09] <Lara> I've turned into a bitter troll. If there is anything Wikipedia is masterful at producing, it's bitter trolls.

[2010-01-31 21:46:15] <NuclearWarfare> Join the other 1600 admins pakaran

[2010-01-31 21:46:16] <pakaran> i'm taking small steps into getting comfortable dealing with the chu(u) backlog

[2010-01-31 21:46:36] <Lara> So you're a wannabe crat?

[2010-01-31 21:46:42] <NuclearWarfare> He is a crat

[2010-01-31 21:46:44] <Dragonfly6-7> the other day I sourced 14 BLPs

[2010-01-31 21:46:44] <NuclearWarfare> From like 2003

[2010-01-31 21:46:54] <pakaran> yeah, not the most active

[2010-01-31 21:47:10] <pakaran> though not close to the least

[2010-01-31 21:47:45] <Risker> I think part of the problem has been identified: that people who genuinely care about this situation are often too burned out to deal with it effectively

[2010-01-31 21:47:59] <Dragonfly6-7> and also that not everyone who could deal with the problem

[2010-01-31 21:48:02] <Risker> or their time is a limited resource and is committed to other aspects

[2010-01-31 21:48:07] <Dragonfly6-7> understands how important it is

[2010-01-31 21:48:16] <Risker> very true Dragonfly6-7

[2010-01-31 21:48:17] <Keegan> Lara: Please maintain a healthy, positive tone in here. If you would like to be negative, please stick to the usual venues

[2010-01-31 21:48:27] <pakaran> risker, yeah.

[2010-01-31 21:48:37] <pakaran> Keegan, a lot of people aren't aware i'm a crat.

[2010-01-31 21:48:40] <pakaran> it doesn't bug me

[2010-01-31 21:48:59] <Lara> Sure thing.

[2010-01-31 21:49:00] <Administrivia> don't worry pakaran, Special:ListUsers knows

[2010-01-31 21:49:16] <Lara> pakaran: My bad.

[2010-01-31 21:49:32] <pakaran> anyhow, though, there is this perception among some admins, sadly including some of the most active, that we don't have time to do content editing, or don't want to 'deal with it'.

[2010-01-31 21:49:49] <Risker> in recent times, we have put a great deal of emphasis in understanding deletion criteria when selecting new administrators

[2010-01-31 21:49:54] <pakaran> in the extreme case, i think some of us see content as a place that the meta issues we deal with "come from'

[2010-01-31 21:50:05] <pakaran> ("he reverted me on this article, block him")

[2010-01-31 21:50:32] <Risker> I would like to see a focus on demonstrated ability to help (new) users build the encyclopedia instead of worrying whether something is an A7 or a G11

[2010-01-31 21:50:33] <NuclearWarfare> I've seen a lot of people say that, but I've never actually seen that happen

[2010-01-31 21:50:56] <pakaran> Risker, and help the community solve problems in a positive fashion.

[2010-01-31 21:51:44] =-= Administrivia is now known as Prodego

[2010-01-31 21:51:49] <pakaran> and solve problems means work together to build the encyclopedia better, not just see ani/aiv/an3 pop to the top of your watchlist and 'deal with them'

[2010-01-31 21:52:32] <pakaran> yes, we need people to do that.

[2010-01-31 21:52:33] <Risker> yes, pakaran, more focus needs to be put on developing admins who focus on improvement of editorial skills rather than behavioural management and picking the right deletion tag

[2010-01-31 21:52:34] <pakaran> but...

[2010-01-31 21:53:02] <Keegan> It's on my list

[2010-01-31 21:53:18] <Keegan> Task force/Living People/Drafting pages/Community involvement findings

[2010-01-31 21:53:19] <Keegan> Task force/Living People/Drafting pages/Recommendations to the projects

[2010-01-31 21:53:30] <Keegan> Adding content to the talk pages tomorrow

[2010-01-31 21:53:31] <pakaran> the last admin i supported on rfa, bwilkins, does that very well, incidentally.

[2010-01-31 21:53:42] <Risker> he does, pakaran

[2010-01-31 21:54:02] <Risker> Keegan, you asked earlier about Wikiquote and Wikisource

[2010-01-31 21:54:13] <Keegan> Yes, I sure did

[2010-01-31 21:54:16] <Keegan> Thoughts?

[2010-01-31 21:54:36] <Risker> since Wikisource deals almost exclusively with out of copyright material, most of the LPs mentioned there....well, aren't living

[2010-01-31 21:54:53] <Risker> and even if they are, these are published works

[2010-01-31 21:55:12] <Risker> exceptions to that would be free-use court documents and the like

[2010-01-31 21:55:15] <pakaran> Wikiquote certainly has some pages with selections that tend to cast the subject in a negative light.

[2010-01-31 21:55:22] <NuclearWarfare> Still, they should be sourcing all the supposed quotes

[2010-01-31 21:55:31] <NuclearWarfare> And what pakaran said too

[2010-01-31 21:55:55] <pakaran> (start looking up members of the us religious right if you want examples)

[2010-01-31 21:56:08] <Risker> Wikiquote has a much more problematic history, and realistically is one big den of supposed fair use, so I am not entirely persuaded that it is within the mission of the WMF

[2010-01-31 21:56:44] =-= [Soap] is now known as [soap|bed]

[2010-01-31 21:56:46] <--| [soap|bed] has left #wikipedia-blptf ("bedtime")

[2010-01-31 21:56:51] <NuclearWarfare> They could fix that by switching to PD only

[2010-01-31 21:56:58] <pakaran> I think a well maintained book of quotations would be a useful reference. "I want a quote about dying"

[2010-01-31 21:57:02] <Keegan> Quote has some serious issues that need to be examined

[2010-01-31 21:57:13] <FloNight> NuclearWarfare: English Wikiquote is much better now. The worst of the totally non sourced articles related to living people are gone. But still room for improvement.

[2010-01-31 21:57:27] <NuclearWarfare> I don't think I've looked at it in 18 months

[2010-01-31 21:57:34] <NuclearWarfare> When they had that big copyright cleanup

[2010-01-31 21:57:46] <pakaran> I don't really follow events on wikiquote.

[2010-01-31 21:57:48] <FloNight> BLP has been a focus.

[2010-01-31 21:57:58] <NuclearWarfare> Quote also has issues with attracting editors

[2010-01-31 21:58:09] <NuclearWarfare> They practically go on a mission to scare off editors from other projects

[2010-01-31 21:58:16] <pakaran> And I'm wondering whether we wanted to focus on the current contention on the English Wikipedia, particularly in the past two weeks?

[2010-01-31 21:58:17] <FloNight> Unsourced ones are often prodded and deleted.

[2010-01-31 21:58:25] <Lara> NuclearWarfare: Yea, their welcome message is harsh.

[2010-01-31 21:58:43] <NuclearWarfare> I think Cary was thinking about deleting that message once, but I can't really say for sure

[2010-01-31 21:58:51] <Lara> I don't remember if it was dropped on my talk page or I saw it on someone else's, but it was basically a nastygram of en.wiki hate.

[2010-01-31 21:58:52] <NuclearWarfare> It was bad though

[2010-01-31 21:59:04] <MrZ-man> we need to find some way to tell new users that we should be more focused on quality rather than quantity. If that means they don't stay, oh well, if keeping a new user means putting up with a bunch of crappy articles that no one but them cares about, then that's too high a price

[2010-01-31 21:59:05] <Lara> I haven't been back.

[2010-01-31 21:59:21] <Lara> Agree completely.

[2010-01-31 21:59:40] <NuclearWarfare> MrZ-man: I saw you wrote up something about the # of bad unsourced BLPs?

[2010-01-31 21:59:44] <NuclearWarfare> You have that around anywhere?

[2010-01-31 22:00:29] <MrZ-man> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr.Z-man/analysis - probably +/- 5000 or so

[2010-01-31 22:01:03] <FloNight> A plan for systematic quality improvement of articles is needed.

[2010-01-31 22:01:44] <NuclearWarfare> Systematic stubbifying is certainly something to consider

[2010-01-31 22:02:11] <Lara> BLP week.

[2010-01-31 22:02:35] <Lara> I think it was John Vandenberg who suggested we do that.

[2010-01-31 22:02:36] <NuclearWarfare> Watchlist notice linking people to random BLPs?

[2010-01-31 22:02:52] <NuclearWarfare> Watchlist notice for people with >1k edits*

[2010-01-31 22:03:21] <pakaran> hmm

[2010-01-31 22:03:38] <pakaran> why not get some graphic designer to make a blp fixing barnstar, and start giving it to people you see doing well at that

[2010-01-31 22:03:43] <NuclearWarfare> It's certainly possible to check for that using javascript

[2010-01-31 22:03:56] <FloNight> BLP on EN WP are often embarrassingly bad to be the first hit for their name. Having one or two sources is not enough to fix the problem.

[2010-01-31 22:04:28] <pakaran> FloNight, as an otrs agent, i know. believe me, i know.

[2010-01-31 22:04:41] <Lara> BLPs should be removed from Random page.

[2010-01-31 22:04:58] <Lara> 9 out of 10 times a BLP is the result, it's shameful.

[2010-01-31 22:05:02] <Risker> now that might be an idea, Lara

[2010-01-31 22:05:05] <pakaran> i don't think any of the people who are saying 'do something with the unsourced ones' are suggesting that as anything but a first step.

[2010-01-31 22:05:15] <pakaran> Lara, yeah, blp's, us towns, species level bio articles.

[2010-01-31 22:05:19] <Philippe|AFK> Lara, Template:Citation needed. Do you have documentation for 9 out of 10?

[2010-01-31 22:05:27] <Philippe|AFK> Let's work with numbers, but let's be clear that they're real numbers.

[2010-01-31 22:05:50] <Risker> question: do other language wikipedias have the same issue, i.e., being in the top-3 hits for googling for most of their subjects?

[2010-01-31 22:05:52] <Lara> I can go click it until I get 10 BLPs and tell you how many of them are crap, if you like.

[2010-01-31 22:06:09] <Philippe|AFK> Lara, I think a controlled experiment would absolutely be in order. Probably on a larger scale than that, though.

[2010-01-31 22:06:18] <Lara> Go for it.

[2010-01-31 22:06:42] <Philippe|AFK> My point is, there's no question the problem is bad - hyperbole doesn't help. Let's use real numbers.

[2010-01-31 22:07:37] <Keegan> Risker: I know that de.wiki does

[2010-01-31 22:07:51] <Lara> It's my opinion that it's probably close, if not accurate.

[2010-01-31 22:07:56] <NuclearWarfare> BLPs are 3x likely than normal articles to be reported to OTRS for issues

[2010-01-31 22:07:59] <Lara> Anyway, point remains, they should be removed.

[2010-01-31 22:08:03] <NuclearWarfare> That's significant enough for me

[2010-01-31 22:08:31] <Philippe|AFK> NuclearWarfare: That's a fantastic statistic. Is it posted somewhere with the analysis?

[2010-01-31 22:08:43] <NuclearWarfare> yep, 1 se c

[2010-01-31 22:08:52] <Philippe|AFK> Great, that's one that could be powerful

[2010-01-31 22:08:56] <NuclearWarfare> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Volunteer_response_team#info- en_.28Quality.29_.E2.80.93_how_many_a_day.3F

[2010-01-31 22:09:10] * Philippe|AFK tabbed it for later reading, thanks

[2010-01-31 22:10:43] <NuclearWarfare> OK...looks like the conversation has pretty much died down

[2010-01-31 22:11:09] <NuclearWarfare> We came up with some good points, but I remember that one of the problems was last time, it was not acted upon at all

[2010-01-31 22:11:34] <NuclearWarfare> I could volunteer to summarize this meeting and post it if people want

[2010-01-31 22:12:02] <FloNight> The whole log needs to be posted, but a summary would be good, too.

[2010-01-31 22:12:49] <Risker> key points and suggestions would be useful, NuclearWarfare, thank you

[2010-01-31 22:13:07] <NuclearWarfare> Sure, I'll start writing something up now

[2010-01-31 22:13:08] <Keegan> Summary is good

[2010-01-31 22:13:26] <Keegan> These conversations usually run an hour or so

[2010-01-31 22:13:46] <Keegan> Next week will be more formal, with a meeting agenda posted on strategy

[2010-01-31 22:13:58] <Keegan> Ending logging Category:Biographies of Living People