Talk:Communications committee/Archive/2008

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 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.

en:Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia

Neither is Bomis Wikipedia... Or anything else. Having a Wikimedia communications committee put "communications" material on Wikipedia is unacceptable, IMHO. Wikipedia pages have always been editorially independant, sans legal risk, with a couple of controversial exceptions.

Please think again about trying to impose this template on en:

Rich Farmbrough 20:55 5 February 2008 (GMT).

I assume this is referring to en:Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 talk 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#ComCom was recently started by Rich Farmbrough. Greeves (talk contribs) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:Wikia_is_not_Wikipedia and en:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_5#Template:Wikia_is_not_Wikipedia also refer. Rich Farmbrough 15:08 6 February 2008 (GMT).
Indeed. Rich Farmbrough 15:08 6 February 2008 (GMT).
I concur. The Wikimedia Foundation can get its opinion about the relationship between itself and Wikia onto Wikipedia like any other group - by publishing it, and having it referenced within the body of the article. If news organizations are not getting the message, then that is a problem — but protected templates set at the top of articles, the removal of which is allegedly punishable by a block, is nowhere near the right answer. Our articles are not "communications with the press" (interviews, press releases), nor the general public (OTRS, possibly the Wikipedia: namespace), and thus fall outside the scope of this committee. GreenReaper 20:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
However, it could fall under "Organizing and coordinating publicity and outreach", which does fall under the scope of this committee. Cbrown1023 talk 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines publicity as "the deliberate attempt to manage the public's perception of a subject." How this could be considered compatible with a work intended to follow a neutral point of view is beyond me. Large warning signs on articles that raise more questions than they lay to rest, removing information that supports opposing points of view . . . we would not accept this kind of POV-pushing from anyone else, so why accept it from ourselves?
The user concerned explained their actions in the context of journalistic failures. If you want to improve that, focus on making good material that journalists can use and getting it to them directly. A good start would be to explain more clearly why it is that people make such a mistake, rather than to try and brush the links (past and present) under the rug. Understand that whatever you do, some will still get it wrong. GreenReaper 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that this requires reliable sourcing and NPOV, all subject to the local project rules. The template is an out of bounds action to enforce the viewpoint of apparently a lone person, in violation of local rules on how administrators are allowed to use their admin tools. Lawrence Cohen 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:

This US Gov't IP has been blocked. 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that's a block on the English Wikipedia. The IP address belongs to the US Department of Justice An email was also sent to the committee outlining this. See here. JoshuaZ 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Communication between the developpers and the communities

The developpers communicate with the communities only when they deem necessary to do so. They consider that communication is a privilege, not a right.

Concretely, when there is a major change including a project-wide "opt out", or "opt in", the devs are willing to communicate : they ask the community to vote on opting in or opting out.

When the change is a minor change they do not communicate. The communities have to guess by themselves how a new feature works, and how the new feature can be translated into the local language.

Sometimes although the change is minor, it is viewed as a nuisance, perhaps because they have not fully understood how the new feature works, by some users who prefer the way the software was running before the change.

The above is based on my experience on the French Wikipedia. See for example this talk. Teofilo 15:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

British national Daily Mail newspaper copies-and-pastes from Wikipedia without accreditation

Hi. I'm not sure whether this is the right place to raise this or whether Wikipedia would be interested in taking the newspaper to task over this, but the Daily Mail's September 18, 2008 article "Survival expert Grylls admits his TV rival Ray Mears is the real tough guy" has several lines on Ray Mears which are very obviously copy-and-pasted from his Wikipedia Beve 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Contact the BBC South Africa News Editors?

I came across a user from the BBC en:User talk: adding hoax material to two articles (en:Baleka Mbete and en:Kgalema Motlanthe), but then quoting their own hoax information in a BBC online article, and attributing it to Wikipedia here, fifth paragraph under the heading, "Jazz". (Took a screen shot if needed). This would suggest that whomever introduced this false information also wrote the article (there was no byline), which I find disturbing.

I sent them an email via their web based "Comments" interface, but It would be nice if someone from Wikimedia could get through to whoever is the South Africa editor. T L Miles 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I put this in the wrong place: adding it to "Notifications". T L Miles 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Local article in Oregon

Article about the Oregon Encyclopedia compares it to Wikipedia; reporter did not contact local wiki community, article closes with a quote implying that Wikipedia editors do not care about bias. Local wiki group has had extensive contact with Oregon Encyclopedia editors; maintains a blog to be more transparent and communicative with public. Worth official contact? -Peteforsyth 01:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)