User talk:Kudpung/Archive May 2019

Quo vadis Elizabeth College, Guernsey

Could you have a look at the authorship of Elizabeth College, Guernsey? How do we sensitively treat this one? --ClemRutter (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clem. I assume you refer to the recent edits by a 12-year old account which according to the rules should never have been allowed to exist. There is talk by the editor here of a block but I can't see anything in the block log. The edits are harmless and constructive and I would be loath to block this account, but a Username/COI soft block would probably be the right thing to do according to the rules. Let's see what DGG suggests. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

since it is making its corrections without sources, I wonder about copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I seriously wonder whether the person(s) running that account are even the same as the one who made this comment 12 years ago (cited by Kudpung above). Observe User:Editor Elizabethan created yesterday. It strongly implies a role account. If nothing else, they need a warning about role accounts, shared passwords, etc. The mysterious "block" mentioned by the user in 2007 probably came from editing while logged out from the same IP(s) used by the school's pupils (or others) for vandalism. See here on another admin's talk page later in 2007. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor has since cited a source and reinstated two of the edits, but I'm still uneasy about the nature of the account. Particularly if it's a role account with shared editors, other editors may be less understanding of WP:NOR and understanding COI. Formulaonewiki 09:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Out of the box suggestion

I'd like to run something by you. I'm picking on you for three reasons: one is my enormous respect for your insights. Second, you have considerable experience in the relevant area and last but definitely not least, because I think you may disagree with my suggestion. I'd like to know the arguments against before I go any further.

As background, I think you know I haven't been directly involved in new page patrol while you've been enormously involved. I am tangentially involved in two different ways. As an active OTRS volunteer (sorry I know that's a sore subject), a very common email involves wondering how to speed up the review process. The standard response is painful to send, that they must simply wait the couple of months it may take. My second tangential involvement is due to being an active participant in Copy Patrol. Many of the hundreds of items flagged each day are new drafts.

The second involvement is important as it occurs to me I might have a biased view of drafts — I'm much more apt to see problematic ones than good ones. I get to my proposal and a second but before going too far, I'd want to do some more sophisticated statistical review, not just lean on anecdotes.

Let me jump to my tentative observation — it's my opinion that, as a community, we do a disservice by permitting new editors to attempt to create a brand-new article.

I felt this way for a long time, as witness, this advice I wrote almost a decade ago: User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for new editor advice

Let me emphasize that I'm totally on board with letting brand-new editors, even unregistered editors, edit existing articles as broadly as possible. While some unregistered editors are a pain when it comes to vandalism, I believe that studies have shown that allowing people to edit as unregistered editors both materially improves substantial articles and provides a path they persuade someone to become an established, prolific editor.

In contrast, I feel that editors who start off by trying to create a brand-new article are making a mistake. I'd like to pull together some true statistics but my bet is that over 99% of these efforts fail. If my stat is even close to correct, that has two bad outcomes. One bad outcome is that a potential editor is turned off by the rejection and may not ever become a meaningful contributor. The second bad outcome is that valuable resources (such as you) spend far too many hours reviewing a draft that is not close to acceptable and try to politely provide some advice that doesn't let them down too hard.

The analogy I often use is imagining a friend came to you and said they were thinking of taking up running. Not a bad idea, but they tell you that they decided to enter a marathon as their first attempt. Anyone who knows anything about running knows that this is a horrific idea, even though it is theoretically possible that someone could complete a marathon is the first running event. (As an aside, I'd like to find a more general good analogy)

Imagine a world in which we tell people they are highly encouraged to edit, but if they wish to create a brand-new article from scratch, they need to get their feet wet with smaller edits to existing articles. That will introduce them to MediaWiki concepts, article structure issues, referencing and a whole host of other important concepts which should be learned one or two at a time not all at once.

Every day I nominate for deletion in article drafted by someone for which it is their first edit, and the bulk of which is a copy and paste from some organizations "about" page. It has to be deleted and I suspect that editor may never return. What if they were told they had to start out with smaller edits and even if they do commit a copyright violation perhaps it would be less of a big deal if it's a single edit than the blowing away of a whole page.

Thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. We certainly do a disservice by permitting new editors to attempt to create a brand-new article, and I agree with you 100% there. That was the reason for my almost decade-long battle to get ACTRIAL and ACPERM finally accepted. The restriction set by ACPERM is not , of course, enough but it was as much as I/we dared ask for or suggest in order to obtain an overwhelming consensus. Much better would be 90 days and 500 edits. Those who oppose the imposition of restrictions on the basis of Wikipedia's mantra 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit' are riding on a fallacy or a strawman. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, provided they follow certain rules. Wikipedia is unique in that it's probably the only web site, blog, or social media type site that does not require registration for basic editing, and that's probably where you and I disagree somewhat, but I'm open to being disproved if stats were to show that the vast majority of non-registered edits are positive ones. New bots and filters have done a lot to highlight possible vandalism but a lot still escapes notice, especially the more subtle kind and those that are accompanied by reasonable sounding edit summaries.

We have fought for improvements to the NPR/Page Curation software for 4 years or more and finally topped the WMF's Christmas Wishlist last year and they announced this week that they will begin addressing our requirements. However, it's not entirely everything we wanted, especially better resources for COPYVIO. What we actually wanted was a new version of the script that got lost a couple of years ago that actually automatically examined new articles for copyright violations and templated them. What we got instead was an ORES thing that simply flags articles in the New Pages Feed that there may be a COPYVIO that needs further examination. I wouldn't slight for a moment the work of Copypatrol, but I believe it is more of a palliative than a help to New Page reviewers. The best thing would be to merge copypatrol with NPR, but I have no idea how that could be done and also achieve some collaboration between the New Page patrollers and the Copypatrollers.

OTRS is as you said, a bit of a sore point for me because I was kicked off it for not doing enough - ironically while I was in the middle of handling a delicate complaint from the subject of a BLP. The OTRS interface in those days was also a complete mess but I believe it has since been improved . I wish we could kick off some of the NPR hat collectors, but the rest of the more solid NPR community doesn't appear to entirely share my thoughts . One of the reasons for the erratic backlog graph is that many people see that we have 650 accredited patrollers and believe we have enough people to do the work whereas in reality the actual patrolling is done by just a couple of handfulls of people. If OTRS is getting a lot of questions about the time it takes to review new articles, I think the creators of those article should accept that unlike the other Big-4 web sites, Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and they need to be patient. After all, no Wikipedia articles are urgent - except those by the agents of candidates for political office prior to elections, and those are the very articles we certainly do not want. A lot of the new drafts and articles we get are from people who simply, and genuinely naÏvely, do not understand what an encyclopedia is. Also, many articles are submitted by non native speakers who, IMO, should be encouraged to help build their home language Wiki. The Article Wizard never the makeover that was required to bring it in line with ACPERM. That was something I was going to do, but my time nowadays is rather limited for that kind of detailed development.

There is nothing like experience for knowing how Wikipedia works, and as you and I both know, it's a long and empirical learning curve, but many people (and even newer admins) don't have the staying power. I retired from my de facto decade-long coordination of NPP/NPR two years ago, but no one has really taken the initiative to carry on the work, so NPR is at the moment somewhat rudderless, and despite their efforts, their newsletters are not of the quality they used to be. IMO, NPR is the single most important of all Wkipedia processes - it's our only firewall against unwanted content - but still needs to be improved much more, and software enhancements to make the work a bit easier don't seem to doing the trick as you will see from the self-updating graph at WT:NPR. Perhaps if you were to take a moment (if you have not done so already, of course) and spend a few hours looking at the recent content of the New Pages Feed and the AfC backlog, you will have a deeper understanding of the challenges which we are now required to meet, especially in face of the growth of paid editing which worst of all, exploits our volunteer work for gain, and creates a lot of work at COIN. You are one of the people who can come up with some sensible suggestions, let me know of any ideas you have. Take care, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Thanks for your thoughts, I'll reply in more depth tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Thanks for your extensive response.

While I was aware of ACPERM, I had forgotten some of the details so I thank you for pointing me to that, as it has a lot of useful information — in particular, the views of editors who are likely to oppose what I'm thinking of proposing.

You said, "...finally topped the WMF's Christmas Wishlist last year and they announced this week that they will begin addressing our requirements. " Can you point me to something? I'd like to see what's coming if for no other reason than that it may have some impact on copyright issues.

In my opinion copy patrol is working reasonably well from the point of view of the encyclopedia (not necessarily NPR). I have concerns that it is staffed wrong — two of us are handling the bulk of the request which is not a good long-term plan. I took care to use the term encyclopedia as opposed to NPR. I think we get to most of the reports within a day, which is an acceptable response time from the point of view of the encyclopedia, but I suspect we aren't ahead of NPR in most cases so we don't provide much relief for NPR.

I haven't, and I should take a look at the new page feed. I will, before I go too much further.

However, I'd like to share some of my nascent thoughts.

I'll start by echoing one of your thoughts. We are 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit' but that doesn't preclude certain limitations. Deleting an article is an edit, but we don't permit anyone to do that. Editing a protected article is an edit but we place some limitations on that. My suggestion is we start with the assumption that creating a new article from scratch is not the same as making minor or even major edits to an existing article, and we ought to have the right to place some limitations on the creation of new articles.

I suspect even that reasonable assertion will get some pushback, so I plan to build an exception (number 3 below) whose details still need to be worked out.

Imagine something like this:

Wikipedia supports the mantra that we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This means that if you see an (unprotected) article that could use some improvement, you are free to click on edit and make changes to improve it. However, if you would like to start an article from scratch you need to be authorized to do so. There are three ways this can happen:

1. You demonstrate competence by achieving 500 edits and being here for 90 days since your registration date
2. You demonstrate competence by completing the Wikipedia adventure part one, and Wikipedia adventure part two (this part two is something that would need to be constructed but would contain advanced issues)
3. You persuade an existing editor with requisite permissions (details to be worked out, something short of admin but more than auto confirmed) to help. That editor will create a blank draft containing just the proposed title and will turn it over to you for editing.

The third option is there for two reasons. One can imagine a number of scenarios where someone without many edits might be viewed as competent to create their own article. Perhaps they are active in another language, perhaps they are a subject matter expert with writing experience, or perhaps they are brand-new added editor-a-thon with competent help looking over their shoulder.

It is my belief, anecdotally supported by my experience with new editors and copyright issues, that many brand-new editors aren't quite ready to start a new article from scratch. It's also my opinion that allowing this creates two problems — first we turn off potential new editors by summarily turning down their first attempts, and second, we divert valuable resources from the useful task of reviewing truly promising articles to the tiresome task of reviewing piles of crap. This proposal would address both those problems. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, Kudpung, Sphilbrick! I'm following this thread with interest, and think Sphilbrick's suggestion has lots of merit. Personally, I'd love to see the auto-confirmed threshold raised to 50 mainspace edits, and page move and mainspace article creation rights limited to extended-confirmed users – the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but not just do whatever they or their boss wants in. I don't see the creation of crap drafts as a major problem in itself (I don't think experienced AfC reviewers take long to decide to decline those), except that at the moment anyone with ten edits can (and often does!) move their piece of crap into mainspace. As for copypatrol, the present situation is wholly unacceptable, with just one person (well, OK, now two) carrying the entire load. I don't know exactly why it's so much less accessible to other editors than SCV used to be, but it surely is; I've tried handling a bit from time to time, and – well, ended up doing other things instead. SCV was an invaluable training ground for those interested in helping with copyvio control, and this doesn't seem to be. That's a pity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sphilbrick, Your suggestions are IMHO perfectly valid. However, this almost certainly comes too hard on the heels of ACPERM, one of the major policy changes ever, which was rolled out barely a year ago. Considering the number of years it took to get it finally through, I doubt that the community will accept a further tightening up the rules any time soon. ACPERM was not only a big step, but it was also a major demonstration that the WMF who blocked it for years, were just not in touch with reality until they had the threat of a) New page reviewers going on strike or b) installing our own local script to enable it anyway (a move that the WMF at the time would have probably reverted). Nevertheless, the WMF finally agreed to an extensive data survey by an independent analyst during and after the trial which proved that the WMF had been completely wrong in its assumptions. At the time, IIRC, the NPR backlog was riding at a monumental 22,000 or so - see the article I wrote in The Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Special report regarding NPR, AfC, and black-hat paid editors (the one who was using his privileges at OTRS).

After the implementation of ACPERM, the number of inappropriate new creations dropped significantly, theoretically much reducing the workload for the reviewers, but while the backlog was reduced to under 3,000 at one time, it is now at 7,000 which is totally unsustainable. You can see who of the 650 reviewers actually does the work at Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers and it seems to add credence to my contention that many of the rights holders are hat collectors. There is talk now of doing another backlog drive, but there is a risk that this causes fast, superficial patrolling.

Special:NewPagesFeed has recent enhancements resulting from talks with the WMF I and a couple of others had last year regarding improvements to AfC and the inclusion of the AfC queue in the New Pages Feed, thus NPR shares the same ORES features. This includes the ORES flagging of articles that are potential COPYVIO, Spam, Attack, etc., but as I mentioned above, it does not appear to have enhanced or sped up the actual checking of the copyvios in the way that the defunct COREN bot did, or new page patrolling overall. The ORES flags don't really do much more than a competent reviewer would identify from the article (but what is the level of 'competent'?).

I admit that personal circumstances over the past 12 months have not permitted me to stay abreast of more recent developments, but the list of requests for tweaks to the Curation system can be seen on a page I largely populated in September 2016 at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements. Due to the success at the Christmas Wishlist some of these items are now receiving attention from the WMF (see the Phap tags). These are mainly requests for improvements to the interface, and I don't think they will have much impact on Copypatrol. Coordination of this and other NPR matters was taken over for a while under the initiative of Insertcleverphrasehere, but his personal circumstances have changed recently and I'm not sure he is currently very active. COPYVIO and WP:COIN often go hand-in-hand but I don't believe there is sufficient cross-coordination between the editors who reside in their favourite niche areas - and some of them are very protective about their 'territory', and they are all stretched to the limit. I guess I'm one of the admins who over the years has tried to do a bit of everything, but although it gives one an excellent insight into Wikipedia, it's an impossible task.

The Copypatrol interface is not as easy to use as for example, going straight to Earwig from the link in the Wikipedia sidebar, but at the current state of affairs, it's possible that the Copyvios have already been addressed by yourself or Diannaa. As a patroller, I tend to flag for CSD rather than repair anything that is more than a 50% copyvio. The bottom line is that as an encyclopedia, we are not now, or no longer should be, hungry for new content at any cost, and those who have a COI, or get paid for their work, or who post spam have only themselves to blame. Very few of those kinds of people will come back and become established editors. It's not worth mollycoddling them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you would also be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Draft_PROD proposed by TonyBallioni. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, You have many interesting thoughts.

I did see Tony's draft prod, which had some initial support, but is not going particularly well. I will ping Tony @TonyBallioni: to make one small point. I see that Tony emphasize that this wasn't a proposal it was an attempt to open a discussion. It's my opinion that the idea lab was created to have discussions, not immediately leaping to up or down !votes, and the result of the discussion might be a more finely honed go to "proposals" or "policy" depending on the nature of the idea. It may not be too late to take something to the idea lab and emphasize that it's a place to discuss the concepts.

I will take on board your concern that my proposal "almost certainly comes too hard on the heels of ACPERM". I am already mulling over the possibility that the limitations shouldn't apply to creating a draft but asking for review, although that may be a distinction without a difference. I started a very limited review of the AFC feed, which I'll attempt to summarize shortly. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned that I was working on a review of some of the entries in the new page feed. Although I only looked at six entries, I think they illustrate some important points and suggests to me that tightening up the requirements is worth pursuing. That said, I do see examples of decent submissions created by editors who would not meet a raw edit count/experience hurdle, so this emphasizes the need for alternative paths.

The gory details are here: User:Sphilbrick/New page feed review

I'll copy my general observations here:

General observation

Let's start with the caveat that six items constitutes too small a sample to draw statistically significant conclusions, but these entries do illustrate points worth considering.

As a placeholder, I'm going to use the term "qualified editor" as someone who meets certain standards to be determined, and who status permits them to create a draft and ask for a review.

• Two of the entries (3, 5) are in decent shape. As with any early draft that is room for improvement but I wouldn't be unhappy about seeing either of these in main space. Both of these illustrate the point that a hard count/experience limit should not be the only path to becoming a qualified editor.

• Two of these entries (2, 4) illustrate the problems caused when allowing unqualified editors to create a draft and ask for a review. While the review might not take a long time, when there are literally thousands of items in the queue, a wasting of time by the reviewer as well as the editor creating the draft. Both of these editors might be capable of making small edits to existing articles and when they have enough experience it is very possible they might be able to create an acceptable draft.

• Two of these entries (1, 6) are examples of subjects which probably ought to have an article in main space, but these two drafts illustrate that the lack of knowledge of the editor produces something not yet acceptable. Both of these create a drain on resources as a reviewer has to take the time to be both positive about the likelihood that the subject matter is notable but explaining some of the shortcomings so that the draft can be improved. If the reviewer spends a lot of time and thoroughly lists all issues, perhaps the re-review will be successful, but if they only identify low hanging fruit issues, the next review might also fail. In both of these cases, it is my opinion that a qualified editor would produce an acceptable draft which would produce a higher quality product and lower drain on reviewer resources.

We need more data points, but this very preliminary review suggests that requiring that review requests must come from qualified editors will cut out a portion of doomed submissions, and increase the chance that the submissions which are made are in much better shape and require fewer reviewer resources.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, AfC drafts are available in the New Pages Feed when selected. The feed has separate lists for new mainspace pages and new drafts. Ideally, the two lists should be merged. The required qualifications for the NPR user right are at: WP:NPR. AfC is not governed by an official user right but the reviewers are required to be qualified according to a local system I introduced a couple of years ago. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Many, but not all, AfC reviewers are already holders of the NPR right. There are many AfC reviewers, but like NPR, the question is just how many of them are truly active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Thanks, I now see the option to select between the two. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

i surely hope if my english was more skillful

if i do not know how to say a certain word or word in english, then is it allowed to help yourself in using google translate? i know that some websites are against rules, is that so? (i'm really right now so if there is no permission then please avoid punishment.Atlantic Channel (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic Channel. You can use Goggle Translate to look up single words, but it's best to use a proper bilingual dictionary (book or online). If you are using online tools, always do a back-translation to check the meaning again. Google is reasonably good for translating among European languages, but it's not so good for Hindi and Assamese, and other Asian languages such as Thai for example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Crete (Region)

Hi! I noticed you notified User:Santiago RD that you were marking Crete (Region) for speedy deletion because of copyright violation, but there’s no sign of any tag or any edit at the article...? We’re you looking into it further? :-) — Gorthian (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the COPYVIO tool, this page is a 70.2% COPYVIO of this. There appears to be a glitch in the Curation tool. I notice now that while it put the user warning on the creator's talk page twice, it did not attach the CSD emplate to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Gorthian, BTW, if you would like to go ahead and remove the copyvios, you're welcome to do so if there is anything left to keep, and remove my CSD tag. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ll see what I can do in the morning. I think there may be some copying from Wikipedia mixed in as well. — Gorthian (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Gorthian,, it's already been turned into a redirect by another editor. Also an appropriate solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Hi, apologies. My laptop has a strange lag and I accidentally reverted an edit to your talkpage while looking at my Watchlist. Sorry. Davidelit (Talk) 03:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your in changes in the article about the Beckham Law

Hello Kudpungกุดผึ้ง, the article explicitly says "This article needs attention from an expert in Taxation", which we are. I can add more sources if you want us to reflect consensus on this matter, although there isn't a big literature regarding this topic, which is actually relevant. We intend to make not only one, but several contributions to Wikipedia.(Suarez Santiago (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

×Missing edit summaries process

Hi @Kudpung: What is the process for established editors who continually don't leave edit summaries. I noticed there is no warning template outside Template:Uw-editsummary and once you have posted them with Uw-editsummary 3 times and they still ignore it, what then? scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

scope_creep, probably WP:DTTR. In other words unless it's actually causing a significant problem, it's best not to look for reasons to police and warn regular contributors. You will see for example, that I always use 'reply to user:x' in my talk page es, while on other kinds of talk pages I just leave 'cmt' for comment, which says nothing at all but fulfills the requirement of providing an es. I always use a detailed summary when adding or editing article content. While it is recommended to leave an edit summary for each edit, it is not required by policy. Everything you need to know is at WP:ES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

That is fairly comprehensive. I'll take a look again. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  12:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Problematic account

Block evasion. Ilmulnafia has returned with a new account Shworks999. Same activity, adding promotional box office figures with poor references in Madhura Raja by mass editing and edit warring. See the same "Mobile edit, Mobile web edit" and "Visual edit" edit. Also constructively adding random references at "Reference section and External links section same as Ilmulnafia. Also has edited the talk page in the "Box office collection" section. 62.68.119.33 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your editing of my unblock decline

Hi Kudpung, I'm really curious why you edited my unblock decline and replaced my signature on Shworks999's talk page here? Cheers, stwalkerster (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Stwalkerster, seems like it was an edit conflict. When I started editing the page the only decline was Yamla's. Feel free to revert, but see the section just above here regarding block evasion - you may wish to extend the block to indef. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)