Jump to content

User talk:John Cummings/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 15

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: November 2019





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in GLAM: December 2019





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155


Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: January 2020





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: February 2020





Headlines
  • Armenia report: Wiki project on Museums with My Armenia
  • Brazil report: Moreira Salles Institute GLAM initiative in Brazil
  • Finland report: The Helsinki then and now exhibition
  • France report: GLAM related blogposts
  • Indonesia report: Proposing collaboration with museums in Bali; First Wikisource training in the region
  • Netherlands report: Students write articles about Media artists, Public Domain Day 2020, Wiki Goes Caribbean, WikiFridays at Ihlia - Wikimedia Nederland in January & February 2020
  • Norway report: Wikipedia editing workshop with the Norwegian Network for Museums
  • Serbia report: Great dedication of librarians
  • Sweden report: Historic photos; Support for international Wikimedia community; Library training tour; Many GLAMs improved on Wikidata
  • UK report: Kimonos and Khalili
  • Ukraine report: Winning photos Wiki Loves Monuments shown in different cities; Libraries Lead an All-Ukrainian Challenge
  • USA report: Black History Month and Open Access Anniversaries
  • Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons report: Summary of pilot projects, and what's next
  • Wikidata report: Leap into Wikidata!
  • WMF GLAM report: New Team Leadership, GLAM-Focused Grants Review, OpenGLAM Declaration Research
  • Calendar: March's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162


April offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: March 2020





Headlines
  • Australia report: Know My Name; Public libraries of Queensland join Wikidata
  • Colombia report: Gender gap, Wikipedia and Libraries from the GLAM team
  • France report: WikiGoths; WikiTopia Archives
  • Indonesia report: Volunteers' meet-up; Wiki Cinta Budaya 2020 structured data edit-a-thon
  • Ireland report: Video tutorials; Celtic Knot Conference 2020
  • Kosovo report: WoALUG and NGO Germin call Albanian Diaspora to contribute to Wikipedia
  • Netherlands report: Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen contributes to Wikimedia Commons again; Student research on GLAM-Wiki at Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Serbia report: March Highlights - Everything is postponed
  • Sweden report: FindingGLAMs; Wikipedia in libraries; Art from the Thiel Gallery Collections; Kulturhistoria som gymnasiearbete
  • UK report: Colourful Kimonos from Khalili
  • USA report: Women & Editing in the time of virus
  • Special story: COVID-19
  • Wikidata report: Lockdown Levellings
  • WMF GLAM report: Mapping GLAM-Wiki collaborations
  • Calendar: April's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Nomination for deletion of Module:Is rtl

Module:Is rtl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166


May offerings at Women in Red.

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject COVID-19/header

Template:WikiProject COVID-19/header has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject COVID-19 tabs. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Arbitration for Pixel 3

John Cummings: There's discussion of deleting the section on arbitration that you wrote a couple of years ago. The discussion is at Talk:Pixel 3#Binding arbitration clause. I'd value your participation in the discussion. Thanks. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2020





Headlines
  • Brazil report: GLAMce at Museu Paulista: making things machine-readable
  • Czech Republic report: WikiGap 2020 in Czech Republic; International event; support for Wikimedia community; edit-a-thon run with the US embassy and the Swedish Embassy
  • France report: Association des Archivistes Francais; Palladia, a museum collection portal based on Wikimedia resources
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020
  • Ireland report: Hunt Museum image donation; Livesteaming and video demonstrations
  • Italy report: Archivio Ricordi, webinars and videos
  • Kosovo report: One Village, One Article for each village in Albania and Kosovo
  • Netherlands report: Photo collections Afrika-Studiecentrum Leiden; meetup and media donations for Wiki goes Caribbean; first online WikiFriday
  • Sweden report: Skrivstuga (edit-a-thon) online – Wikipedia in libraries
  • Switzerland report: More women on Wikipedia
  • UK report: Japanese silk and Spanish iron
  • USA report: Earth Day
  • Wikidata report: Seven Million People Can't Be Wrong
  • Calendar: May's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red

June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169

Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: May 2020





Headlines
  • Armenia report: Edit-a-thon dedicated to International Museum Day
  • Colombia report: A #1Lib1Ref to close the gender gap
  • Côte d'Ivoire report: #1Lib1Ref 2020 from 26 to 28 May in Côte d'Ivoire
  • France report: WikiArchives; IMD 2020: Cross-Chapter Collaboration
  • Indonesia report: Wikisource Competition 2020 recap; International Museum Day 2020
  • Italy report: New collaborations and contents!
  • Netherlands report: Analysis of Dutch GLAM-Wiki projects in relation to the Dutch Digital Heritage Reference Architecture, Content donation from Utrecht Archives, Detecting Wikipedia articles strongly based on single library collections and Collection highlights of the KB
  • Sweden report: Free music on Wikipedia; NHB webinars; Wikipedia in libraries – Projekt HBTQI
  • Switzerland report: International Museum Day 2020
  • UK report: Japanese art
  • USA report: Workshops & COVID-19 Symposium
  • Special story: Content partnership category - your help is needed
  • WMF GLAM report: GLAM metadata standards and Wikimedia projects
  • Calendar: June's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations

Wikimedia 2030 Celebration Image Wikimedia 2030
Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Partnerships working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: June 2020





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Louise Richardson page

Hi John! I know you had some interest in the Louise Richardson article before. I've posted some further edit request suggestions on the article talk page if you were interested! Liz McCarthy (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Editathons, page creation, and draft publication

Hi! It's not 100% clear, but it looks like you probably run editathons from time to time.

I've looked through a bunch of your own work on Wikipedia, and it looks good.

If you run editathons too, this is excellent! Some percentage of editathon participants may end up becoming long-lasting contributors who hang around for years.

At any editathon, some participants might create good pages; others might create pages which aren't so good. It's fine to let them create problematic pages. But, if you publish the problematic pages directly to mainspace, this may not be ideal.

When reviewing participants' drafts, if I could offer you some suggestions, I would encourage you to please keep in mind:

  • Non-notable awards. When contributing to biographical articles, new Wikipedians sometimes mention awards which should probably not be mentioned. Please see WP:ORGAWARDS.
  • Notability. If your editathon participants create pages, it would be best if you could please make sure the subjects are notable before you publish them. Why? Let me explain. New pages by editathon participants can contain mistakes: here's an example from a page which you published. It can take a long time for those mistakes to be corrected: here's an edit where the aforementioned example edit was corrected. Sometimes, a mistakes might never be corrected at all. If your editathon participants write only about notable individuals, mistakes are more likely to be quickly found and corrected.
  • AfC. If you suspect that a draft is probably not OK, I encourage you to send it through the standard Articles for Creation process instead of publishing it to mainspace yourself. If you do so, the AfC team can check for all of the issues I've mentioned above. AfC review often takes weeks, but it's a useful service. After an AfC draft is reviewed, Wikipedia can automatically email the draft's creator.

I've never been to an editathon, but I suspect that recommended editathon procedures have evolved over the years. Here some additional suggestions. I've quoted them from Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon#Teach, and bolded some bits.

  • "Demonstrate using the Article Wizard and Articles for Creation to confirm that a new article is appropriate before publishing."
  • "Creating acceptable new pages is an advanced activity unsuitable for brand new editors. Encourage improving existing mainspace pages as the best way for new users to learn. It is usually better to expand an existing topic until it's ready to become a spinout page, than to create a dubious stub. Data clearly shows pages created by new users get deleted at a much higher rate than pages created by users with as few as 10 edits over 4 days. Don't set new users up for disappointment as their new page gets speedy tagged or sent to WP:AfD."

Again, if you run editathons, this is excellent of you, and I thank you for your service, and I hope that you will continue. I hope that the above wall of suggestions did not offend you in any way, and in fact made you happy. :)

If you have time, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Do you think that the suggestions above are both good and practically doable? Also, did my message to you offend you even slightly?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Unforgettableid:
Yes you're correct I've run quite a few editathons over the years (although not at the moment obviously). To explain my thinking, I mainly run editathons with UN agencies, mostly around the gender gap on English Wikipedia supported by work populating Wikidata with women not covered on Wikipedia. I think that the main underlying issue is that Wikipedia's policies and processes are set up for equality rather than equity which does not reflect or interact with reality very well and so will not get us to 'the sum of all human knowledge'. I think this is partially happened because of the historic demographics of majority male western Wikipedia contributors who made up the rules to begin with based on the idea of a meritocracy. To break it down a bit:
  • I'm aware of the notability requirements in Wikipedia but there issues especially around biographies of women with systematic bias in the media leading to under representation of women (e.g only 1/5th of experts interviewed in the media are women). There's also an issue with the over representation of biographies of women being nominated for deletion which is leading to this emphasis on awards etc in articles to establish notability.
  • I think that whilst some of the articles people publish in editathons are not perfect this is ok, it shows them that Wikipedia is a collaborative process and that others will improve the article over time and the process introduces them to other contributors. It also gives the participants a real sense of achievement being able to have something on Wikipedia at the end of the workshop and really helps with retention (which at best guess by WMF is around 1% which is really not ideal).
  • I agree that creating new biographies is a harder task for new people, but in my experience this is generally why they come to workshops, it what people want to learn to contribute to Wikipedia for. They most often come wanting to write about someone they have an emotional connection to, a personal hero, a professor who taught them at university, someone they read the book of etc. I think part of the issue with new users contributions being sent to AfD is that AfD is pretty broken and contributors over-report to AfD without trying to improve the articles themselves first, especially for articles by new users which may have technical issues (but don't detract from the importance of the topic).
  • I'm really not happy with recommending or using AfC for pretty much anything, its a great idea in theory but has a whole bunch of issues that I don't really know how to address or work around. There's a huge time delay, it rejects articles that are totally fine (I've especially had issues with AfC with biographies of women being rejected) and also the tone of the messages given which tend to be blunt/rude etc, this is pretty normalised on Wikipedia but is really off putting for new contributors and not something I want to subject them or myself to.
  • If you'd like to be involved any any editathons I'm running in future you'd be more than welcome, also Women in Red run a lot as well and I'm sure would be very happy to receive any improvements you could add to women's biographies etc.
Best
John Cummings (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi John,
  • Indeed, systematic bias in reliable secondary sources, multiplied by systematic bias among Wikipedians, could lead to even more systematic bias on Wikipedia.
  • Unfortunately, Wikipedia is overrun with biographical puff pieces written by paid editors. These exhaust the patience of new pages patrollers and the AfC team, who therefore don't always assume good motives when reviewing biographies by brand-new users. And we're sometimes too exhausted with the deluge of paid puff pieces that we delete rather than fixing.
    • If you wish, you could add an AfC comment to each editathon-participant AfC. This comment would state that the article is written by an editathon participant. This might or might not help increase the chances that we'll assume good faith. I dunno for sure.
  • The huge AfC time delay is a problem — perhaps especially so for editathon participants.
    • I wonder if AfC could somehow try to provide priority service for editathon participants — with the goal of accepting or declining a draft within two hours, if possible.
  • I wonder if the newbie mistake of over-inflating the size of the "Awards" section might make a biography even more likely to be deleted.
  • I assume mean you're unhappy with the tone of the canned AfC decline explanations. Understandable. In theory, it'd be useful to invent a set of extra-nice comments to use on editathon participants. In practice, editathons are uncommon enough that this would be unlikely to happen.
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2020





Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

2020-08 no-go zones

Hello,

I saw Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303#No Go Zone anti-Muslim conspiracy theory (Fox News), then added https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-no-go-zone-conspiracy-theory/ to the wikidata item and to my draft. Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Stone Mountain

Hello John, I reverted your edit at Stone Mountain. I think this editorial opinion, expressed by the SPLC might fit under the "controversy" section of the article, but only as an expressed opinion of the source, rather than a statement in the voice of Wikipedia. Cheers! Gulbenk (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging