Signpost's upcoming "News From Wiki Edu"

[Giraffe Stapler]

The Signpost has a "News From Wiki Edu" column awaiting publication. It's a heartwarming piece about an immigrant kid who could never imagine himself writing a Wikipedia article but did. The only problem with the story is that the article is terrible, even after several editors have put their hands on it.

Here is the biography of Claibourne Smith when it got moved to article space. Brianda (Wiki Ed) had already consolidated the references (so I guess no one taught MODYLMAO how to reuse references) and copyedited it (according to the edit summary). It is repetitive. It says both "Smith spent about 28 years" and "Smith recently concluded his 28-year tenure", and then it talks about his "more than 25 years of service and 22 years as chairman". It has a (now deleted) image that was taken from LinkedIn (so I guess no one told MODYLMAO about copyright). It says that Smith "recently" did something, when in fact he did it in 2016. Having already said that he concluded his tenure on the University board, it then says "Smith remains an active board member until his term expires in 2016".

I'm not surprised by how terrible the article is, I'm not even surprised by how terrible it is after the "Wikipedia Expert" copyedited it. I'm only surprised that someone would draw attention to this terrible article to show how Wiki Edu works. That's a very low bar.

[Vigilant]

WikiEdu produces garbage nearly uniformly.

It's a scam and needs to be dismantled.

[Kraken]

Student's first draft....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1188352443

Version moved to mainspace by WikiEdu instructor.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1188355860

Version after a couple of months of gnoming by the crowd.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1199981978

Version after being heavily edited by an experienced editor (Yngvadottir).....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1205208480

------

It is horrendously bad for a trained/supervised editor.

It is amazingly good for a brand new editor whose first language may not be English.

It seemingly met the editor's own primary goal that "... people weren't misled by what I wrote, ...". Broadly speaking.

It got another warm body aware of and hooked on Wikipedia. And Arabic Wikipedia too.

It helped a volunteer overcome the sheer fear factor and technical difficulties of becoming a Wikipedia editor.

It has filled a systemic content gap in English Wikipedia. Possibly.

It gave Yngvadottir her daily opportunity to flex.

It gave we happy few something to laugh/cry/think about.

It's a feel good story to tell potential donors.

It is probably most effective on corporate donors whose dirty cash was made from an unregulated internet that couldn't exist without the same laws and ideals of freedom that underpins the Wikipedia experience. Corporations who also turn young people looking for a fix or a flex into commodities, but do it for profit.

------

It's a complicated world.

------

* - It certainly seems to prove answering the question "Is Claibourne Smith wp:notable" is still very hard to answer even for people who know where to look, given how bureaucratic Wikipedia is. Under what criteria do you even judge them? Chemist or academic? Or just plain old GNG? Is the fact they appear to be an edge case for all of those down to poor design, systemic racism or just a reflection of their true status?

One thing that does seem clear, it can't be helpful for student editors to make these assessments when Wikipedia is still so unfinished it appears to know nothing of the concept of Trustee Emeritus. It has an article on the broad concept of Emeritus, but it is of course quite crap, and doesn't even mention Trustees. And the search term trustee emeritus doesn't redirect to that article. Hence why it appears in this article entirely unlinked, with Yngvadottir having unlinked emeritus as entirely unhelpful. You would hope.

What of course we can say at this time, albeit only attributable to DSU themselves, is that being their Trustee Emeritus is....an "honor" and means be can "attend board meetings in a non-voting capacity." (via Denver Post). Something not included in the biography at any stage, for some reason.

------

Perhaps worst of all, if you're a believer in Wikipedia on any level, It seems to prove that even the simplest most basic things, such as writing the first sentence of a Wikipedia biography, is beyond the reach of everyone currently involved in Wikipedia.

From the trainee editor researching the article, to the WikiEdu instructor who copyedited it and officially published it, and the assortment of gnomes who then fiddled with it for two months, and the experienced editor who gave it a thorough blast with their red pen, and whoever else might have seen it in the course of it being linked from a draft of an upcoming Signpost piece. None of those people either seem to know or care that even the first line of this biography is wrong. Embarrassingly so.

I mean for the love of crap, how hard is it to learn and apply the necessary knowledge to know the proper way to start this biography (based only on what I have been shown in the above links, no way am I going to do my own research obviously) would be as follows.....

Claibourne Smith (born January 6, 1938) is an African American retired scientist and former Chairman of the Board of Trustees and former acting President of Delaware State University.

They are not notable as a chemist, the the only reason they are on Wikipedia is for having been the Chairman of the DSU BOT. And since that is not a career, but one might assume its holder was a career Administrator/Educator, it is necessary to state they were a scientist.

Details like their career in chemistry, and the timings of their stint as Chairman and President, and if deemed important (via further editorial investigation) their current position as Trustee Emeritus in their reiterment, can all be expanded on in the subsequent sentences of the introduction.

Arguably their time as temporary President is not even important enough for the first sentence and leads to annoyances like not being able to comfortably include years and having to say former twice, but it being Wikipedia, you just know some dickwad would argue the toss. Pick your battles.

[utbc]

Student's first draft....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1188352443

Version moved to mainspace by WikiEdu instructor.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1188355860

Version after a couple of months of gnoming by the crowd.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1199981978

Version after being heavily edited by an experienced editor (Yngvadottir).....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1205208480

------

It is horrendously bad for a trained/supervised editor.

It is amazingly good for a brand new editor whose first language may not be English.

It seemingly met the editor's own primary goal that "... people weren't misled by what I wrote, ...". Broadly speaking.

It got another warm body aware of and hooked on Wikipedia. And Arabic Wikipedia too.

It helped a volunteer overcome the sheer fear factor and technical difficulties of becoming a Wikipedia editor.

It has filled a systemic content gap in English Wikipedia. Possibly.

It gave Yngvadottir her daily opportunity to flex.

It gave we happy few something to laugh/cry/think about.

It's a feel good story to tell potential donors.

It is probably most effective on corporate donors whose dirty cash was made from an unregulated internet that couldn't exist without the same laws and ideals of freedom that underpins the Wikipedia experience. Corporations who also turn young people looking for a fix or a flex into commodities, but do it for profit.

------

It's a complicated world.

------

* - It certainly seems to prove answering the question "Is Claibourne Smith wp:notable" is still very hard to answer even for people who know where to look, given how bureaucratic Wikipedia is. Under what criteria do you even judge them? Chemist or academic? Or just plain old GNG? Is the fact they appear to be an edge case for all of those down to poor design, systemic racism or just a reflection of their true status?

One thing that does seem clear, it can't be helpful for student editors to make these assessments when Wikipedia is still so unfinished it appears to know nothing of the concept of Trustee Emeritus. It has an article on the broad concept of Emeritus, but it is of course quite crap, and doesn't even mention Trustees. And the search term trustee emeritus doesn't redirect to that article. Hence why it appears in this article entirely unlinked, with Yngvadottir having unlinked emeritus as entirely unhelpful. You would hope.

What of course we can say at this time, albeit only attributable to DSU themselves, is that being their Trustee Emeritus is....an "honor" and means be can "attend board meetings in a non-voting capacity." (via Denver Post). Something not included in the biography at any stage, for some reason.

------

Perhaps worst of all, if you're a believer in Wikipedia on any level, It seems to prove that even the simplest most basic things, such as writing the first sentence of a Wikipedia biography, is beyond the reach of everyone currently involved in Wikipedia.

From the trainee editor researching the article, to the WikiEdu instructor who copyedited it and officially published it, and the assortment of gnomes who then fiddled with it for two months, and the experienced editor who gave it a thorough blast with their red pen, and whoever else might have seen it in the course of it being linked from a draft of an upcoming Signpost piece. None of those people either seem to know or care that even the first line of this biography is wrong. Embarrassingly so.

I mean for the love of crap, how hard is it to learn and apply the necessary knowledge to know the proper way to start this biography (based only on what I have been shown in the above links, no way am I going to do my own research obviously) would be as follows.....

Claibourne Smith (born January 6, 1938) is an African American retired scientist and former Chairman of the Board of Trustees and former acting President of Delaware State University.

They are not notable as a chemist, the the only reason they are on Wikipedia is for having been the Chairman of the DSU BOT. And since that is not a career, but one might assume its holder was a career Administrator/Educator, it is necessary to state they were a scientist.

Details like their career in chemistry, and the timings of their stint as Chairman and President, and if deemed important (via further editorial investigation) their current position as Trustee Emeritus in their reiterment, can all be expanded on in the subsequent sentences of the introduction.

Arguably their time as temporary President is not even important enough for the first sentence and leads to annoyances like not being able to comfortably include years and having to say former twice, but it being Wikipedia, you just know some dickwad would argue the toss. Pick your battles.

Sometimes, or maybe just one time, you could make a post of reasonable length.

[Kraken]

Sometimes, or maybe just one time, you could make a post of reasonable length.

Says the guy who quoted the full post to complain about its length?

What's a reasonable length to you by the way? Is it measured in characters, paragraphs, or what? I'm at your service.

[Giraffe Stapler]

What's a reasonable length to you by the way? Is it measured in characters, paragraphs, or what? I'm at your service.

A reasonable length post should not exceed the height of a standing Jess Wade.

[Vigilant]

What's a reasonable length to you by the way? Is it measured in characters, paragraphs, or what? I'm at your service.

A reasonable length post should not exceed the height of a standing Jess Wade.

Jess Wade is a goddess and Kraken is lucky to serve as her high priest.

[greenday61892]

-snip-

[Dan of La Mancha]

Looks like JPxG decided not to publish the "News from Wiki Edu" piece. See discussion here.

[C&B]

WikiEdu produces garbage nearly uniformly.

It's a scam and needs to be dismantled.

Although in some mitigation I'd say that at least this one is one of the 1% or something who actually write anything eventually publishable and doesn't

a) just leave a half-chewed piece of crap in a sandbox forever, or
b) get themselves blocked for copyright, spam, or general don't-give-a-fuckery about what people are telling them

[Vigilant]

WikiEdu produces garbage nearly uniformly.

It's a scam and needs to be dismantled.

Although in some mitigation I'd say that at least this one is one of the 1% or something who actually write anything eventually publishable and doesn't

a) just leave a half-chewed piece of crap in a sandbox forever, or
b) get themselves blocked for copyright, spam, or general don't-give-a-fuckery about what people are telling them

Ill bet that the quality of random, drive by IP editors is higher than the output of Wiki Edu classes.

[C&B]

Perhaps it may be controversial with some folks - so much the better

(diff)

Sums up the steaming pile of crap that takes the physical likeness of ex-Signpost editor-in-chief Smallbones (T-C-L) neatly.

[Kraken]

It says a lot about Wikipedia's sheer paranoia around UPE that even a WikiEdu student isn't immune from sly accusations from the Faithful that they're part of a CV mill.

It's perfectly normal to write about a person's career in a way that is uplifting and celebratory, charting the ups and downs, hopes and fears There doesn't need to be a transactional relationship at work.

The Wikipedia style is the exception. Even compared to Britannica, it feels oddly dry and lacking in personality.

[owl be it]

It says a lot about Wikipedia's sheer paranoia around UPE that even a WikiEdu student isn't immune from sly accusations from the Faithful that they're part of a CV mill.

It's perfectly normal to write about a person's career in a way that is uplifting and celebratory, charting the ups and downs, hopes and fears There doesn't need to be a transactional relationship at work.

The Wikipedia style is the exception. Even compared to Britannica, it feels oddly dry and lacking in personality.

Should I give Professor Wade your regards then?

[Elinruby]

I don't buy the idea of praising crap to increase representation. It fosters the idea that this is the best the poor dears can do.

There is good-quality work out there, not necessarily coming out of wikiEdu mind you. I give you Regency of Algiers (T-H-L), a very important article recently given a huge overhaul by an Arabic speaker. It is a much better article than where I left it, and the now-primary author has done a fantastic job that deserves a barnstar. I need to do a final copy edit for sentence fragments and such, but my point is that encouraging that guy is a much better idea that some smarmy feel-good Signpost article.

[C&B]

encouraging that guy is a much better idea that some smarmy feel-good Signpost article.