The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-02-15. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-15/Arbitration report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-15/Features and admins

This page was nothing but spam, so I blanked it. Ntsimp (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you don't have to "request" the report on journalists' use of Wikipedia. You just need to fill out the one page form to download the PDF directly. Steven Walling 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. (For what its worth, I call that a request). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic on the Swahili contest. I've always thought it'd be neat if someone funded a "Summer of Wikipedia" to support young scholars to write on the often ignored, esoteric topics. Little did I know that Google was already experimenting like this. Joshdboz (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: After this article was published, DR (until now a Checkuser on the Russian Wikipedia) was named as the fourth Ombudsman Commission member, filling one of the two vacant slots. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great news and signals a potential new chapter in Wikipedia growth. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• there was some downtime on February 2nd but the ninjas in #wikimedia-tech fixed it before anyone noticed. Here is a screenshot I managed to grab of an uptime monitor in the middle of the incident. It was kind of neat to be in the IRC channel while the hamsters were mobilized. ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• It would be nice if the developers could work on StringFunctions... (at this point it is de facto REOPENED but I don't have the cojones to change it myself; it also is moving slower than molasses in this weather.) --Thinboy00 @832, i.e. 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you add a question about the challenges faced by editors of Singapore-related articles. ----J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone left out tha capitalisation in 'Wikipedian'. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That someone has fixed it :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that "in Singapore, photography is banned in many places and people taking photos in public sometimes receive unwanted attention from security personnel" are the reasons why we sometimes lack good photographs. I think it is more likely that the smaller population means there aren't as many people taking photographs and uploading them under free licences. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

JackLee brings up a point which may prove to be Wikipedia's greatest weakness: we all tend to "beaver away at articles that they are interested in on their own without feeling the need to get in touch with other" Wikipedians. While writing has always been a solitary activity, the downside is that when a Wikipedian is in need of some help for any number of reasons -- looking for assistance in a conflict with other Wikipedians, needing some careful advice with writing or research, or simply to talk with someone else who shares the Wikipedia experience -- it's hard to find another person. Wikipedians end up feeling isolated, become more discouraged & enter a vicious cycle that may lead them to leave. -- llywrch (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel there are numerous avenues available to Wikipedians to want to get in touch with other editors for advice, support and other reasons, including user talk pages, Wikipedia policy and WikiProject talk pages, and general fora such as the Village Pump. It is really a matter of how much contact each editor wants to have with others. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am pointing out involves more than simply "wanting to get in touch". Based on my experience, there is a tendency for a Wikipedian who adds a lot of content -- but interacts relatively little with other Wikipedians -- to wonder why her/his work receives so little comment, based on the assumption that contributing edits is, by definition, communicating itself. "I'm writing all of this content about X," the editor thinks. "So why is no one responding to my communications?" Introversion is confused with extroversion, & the silence is wrongly interpreted as a lack of approval -- or even disapproval -- leading to isolation & so forth. (This dynamic is not unique to Wikipedia: I know from experience that one's first encounter of honest criticism in a creative writing class can be quite devastating. But online media seems to strengthen this effect.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... It's certainly true that it can be hard to gauge people's attitudes through written messages. What was intended to be friendly advice can, if not worded carefully, come across as criticism. We should all bear that in mind when posting messages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Prolific GA writers are our most valuable resource and ought to be given more support, not treated like this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but it has always been my impression that we are supposed to "follow the spirit, rather than the letter, of policies" - this is certainly supported by policies and guidelines, WP:IAR predominant among them, which actively encourage ignoring other policy where it obstructs improving the encyclopedia. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Corrected to "may follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of policies". Thanks for pointing that out! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)