The graph on the history of the Swedish article on Michael Jackson is quite striking, but for a graph to be useful, people need to have a key, or some way of understanding what the graph means. After a bit of searching, I can now guess that the colors represent the amount of content contributed by an individual editor, with the x-axis representing different versions over time. Smallbones (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, didn't the note say "representing each revision by a vertical line and distinguishing the amount of text contributed by each author with different colors"? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo didn't "overturn" anything. He reverted the action as a normal editor. The essay was and remains a pointy rant about a single content dispute, and in no way encapsulates a meaningful debate on a bigger picture issue. The definition of "hardcore" used is contrived so as to only include images of bukkake and little else. Gigs (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the decision regarding the appointment of a consultant rather than an employee was unrelated to the discussion about legal liabilities on the IRC chat. WMF didn't change our position on consultant vs. employee due to a heighten concern over legal liability. We have always been concerned about legal liability. We decided that the activities that we need fulfilled at the moment are best done via a consultancy. We might change this perspective as we move forward as we are still learning.Barry Newstead --BazaNews (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note this has also been discussed on Wikimediaindia-l [1]. Sorry about not replying earlier and thanks for the useful clarification. The sentence in the story that you are referring to (which was clearly marked as an educated guess) was not just about the consultant vs. employee question, but also about dropping "the Wikimedia Foundation's chief representative in India" language.

There is of course nothing wrong with the Foundation changing job descriptions between putting out the ad and doing the actual hire. However, in previous cases where this happened, the original job description was mentioned and the change was explained (examples include your own hire last year, and you hiring Asaf and Moushira recently). It was a bit surprising to see neither here, despite a lot of other information about this hire and the new position, and other were left guessing about the reason too. (I am assuming that Hisham and the other applicants that you were referring to in your explanations originally applied for the National Director job opening - if I'm wrong about that and there was indeed a job opening published for the position in its current form, please correct me.) I had planned to ask you for comment about this, but I wasn't able to attend the IRC office hour on the topic, and didn't get around to contact you directly before writing the story. I'll try to do so next time in a similar situation. In the meantime, considering that we frequently cover the Foundation's India expansion in the Signpost, and that such legal risks are relevant for the whole community (which could soon be faced with the new situation that editorial decisions on Wikipedia might expose someone like Hisham to a personal risk), a question about your recent comment that "I have had some informal conversations about legal questions and WMF's new General Counsel Geoff Brigham has this as a priority as he gets started": Was the original job description from August vetted and endorsed by the then General Counsel?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of Usernames are visibly gender related (possibly also comparing different languages) - and what is the equivalent for other areas of the Wikiverse? WP is not an obvious first choice for looking for adult material per se (as distinct from 'what does this weird term mean?). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really demands more explanation or another reference. Was it really "off-the-record"? Or was it "background" or "not for attribution"? There are differences among all these categories. It would certainly be news if The New York Times acceded to an off-the-record lunch for a Wikipedia person but not for one with President Obama (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/with-off-the-record-lunch-obama-extends-a-hand/) I hope to see this explained within this article as soon as possible. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a verbatim quote from Sue Gardner's statement. As a former journalist who has worked many years for a major news organization, she should be expected to be familiar with the precise meaning of these terms.

Still, you are raising an interesting point, but there might be more appropriate venues to seek and publish such a clarification (Signpost articles should not be modified significantly after publication without a pressing need).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is as good a place as any to make my point: "At the lunch, we talked with them about our gender gap. We knew it would stimulate a big, public conversation. And it did: immediately after the story was published, we were flooded with media inquiries and offers of help." Sounds like it was "not for attribution." Many journalists still don't know the distinction, even after All the President's Men. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly one would not expect wp:jargon to be used in News and notes. I refer here to the word userfied, which has absolutely no meaning in the English language. The internal link provided does not even go to a definition: Rather it goes here. I am a bit incensed at this in-groupism, but I remain sincerely yours, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly common in Wikipedia parlance, though I think it should well have been parenthesised or linked. The correct link is Wikipedia:USERFY. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to attract neophytes to edit, don't put them off with in-groupish jargon, that's all I am saying. (It even puts me off, and I have been around for years.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]