Talk:Russian Wikipedia: now has over 2,000,000 articles

clarification question

Hi @Lesless 👋🏻

What is "Cebuano, Warai" and "Dutch, Swedish"? Page names or site section names? Could you explain in article, and wikilink if possible, please?

How did you calculate the name of the 2000000th article? I know one source has this information, but there is confusing, but I did not fully understand.

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

w:ru:Википедия:Ботопедия. Lesless (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

По вычислению двухмиллионной статьи. Это было в некоторой степени "политическое решение" (русский фразеологизм, не обязательно про политику). Так как статьи постоянно добавлялись и удалялись, двухмиллионное место плавало, технически, видимо, отметку в 2000000 преодолела статья, которая была сразу удалена. "Музыка" была следующей. Lesless (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

related discussion

LINK. Gryllida (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Possible OR:

• asked Russian Wikipedia forum to clarify what is automatic fill. Received link to Ботопедия from Lesless and they added it to article. I consulted the linked official documentation page and added information from it into the article.
• Checked how many pages the author of the reportedly 2000000th page wrote - on his user page. I also checked which page he is working on right now.
• Looked up on forum and on Wikimedia Commons pages , which users were involved in breaking the news and in creating the new logo.
• Checked user rights & roles of several users whom I linked and listed their roles in the article.

This is not OR, but I added attribution to the note about which article is 2000000th one, to reduce risk of misinformation.

The 3dnews source looks relatively independent.

I think this is probably the closest I can get to addressing all the known concerns to me. Maybe some of them are still not fully addressed. This is about as much as I think is possible to do.

I am happy to answer questions and to help further. Gryllida (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OR?

how? BigKrow (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In the notes section above. Gryllida (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Status on this article

I have somewhat been following this talk page but only recently realized Gryllida is too involved in article development to review it.

The article was in the review queue but has been heavily edited recently so I moved it to developing.

Feel free to bounce it back to review when it's ready. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 01:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

should be in review queue now Gryllida (talk) 02:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

(I'm surprised I edited the article yet was not automatically subscribed to its talk page; that's weird.) Gryllida (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think in this case, given the language, you were best-suited to review this article. I think moving forward, it is best for you not to get involved with developing Russian-based stories so you can review them (unless of course you are the original author).

I would like to review it, however the language barrier for me is quite steep. Machine translation does not do so well with ru → en. All of the sources are in Russian and most of the links point to content in Russian. Some of the discussion here is in Russian. I can not find English sources commenting on the focal event. That does support the assertion that this is better-suited for ru.WN and less-suited for en.WN.

However, it could be argued that this article might be newsworthy to our Russian readers, of which we have a significant number. Russian is the top, non-English language for our viewers.[1]

@Gryllida, some specific questions:

• Have you established that this does represent OR?
• The last sentence "In fact, the Russian Wikipedia is in fourth place after the English, German and French Wikipedias." doesn't square with this link provided in the article, which places it at seventh, which is mentioned earlier in the article. To what is 'fourth' place regarding?
• DTF should be listed in the sources at "DTF" and not ":ru:DTF", correct?

@Heavy Water, Bddpaux, Acagastya: do you have any input? Is this newsworthy for en.WN, given our high number of Russian-speaking readers? What problems/dangers do we face if we publish it and later find inaccuracies or problems? What problems would we face if we publish and there are no inaccuracies found?

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

• My OR involved adding which users discovered the news and who created logo
• And which story the author is working on (some other Nabokov story)
• Including how many pages he wrote. Which is a lot. Some 0.3% as said on user page. Existing othervreports on this news do not include this number.
• All this information is publicly available and did not require contacting anyone in private, because this is a wiki. The only time when I needed to ask someone a question was to get an explanation what "automatic fill" is on the ruwp forum, which was also a publicly available documentation page.
• So I dunno how this qualifies as OR or not. It did involve some digging more than "lookup 2M ruwp" and combine search results into one article. Yet, all sources of information are public because this is a wiki.
• If there are some doubts I can attempt to interview the person who wrote the 200000th page on-wiki. I don't know how successful I will be. Their user page says they do not like to be involved in talk page discussions because it is a waste of time oftentimes and involves interacting with people who are more interested in noise than in content writing. Let me know if you would like me to attempt this.

---

• About fourth place this sentence can be removed and if either myself or @Lesless manage to answer within 24 hours after publishing then it can be re added.
• I used :ru:DTF for wikilink to work. There is ruwp article about it but not enwp.

Regards, Gryllida (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Мне особенно понравилось "All of the sources are in Russian and most of the links point to content in Russian. Some of the discussion here is in Russian. I can not find English sources commenting on the focal event. That does support the assertion that this is better-suited for ru.WN and less-suited for en.WN". Послушайте, у нас международная энциклопедия. Все языки равны. Источники не перестают быть АИ от того, что они на другом языке. В русской Википедии и Русских Викиновостях принимаются англоязычные источники без ограничений. А у вас что, цензура? И это неправда, что Гугл-переводчик плохо работает ru → en. Я вот сейчас ниже покажу, как он перевёл этот текст. И источников сейчас больше трёх. Этого достаточно? Я уж молчу, что оригинальный репортаж на то и оригинальный, что не требует никаких источников вообще. Я и есть АИ. Я автор новости. По поводу четвёртого места. Это 7−3=4. Из семи вычитаем три ботопедии и получаем четвёртое место. Вам источник на это нужен? Ну есть вот такой источник, только там считали по-другому: meta:User:Ladsgroup/coverage_ranking_of_Wikipedia_languages. Для новостей о Википедии все источники могут быть внутри Википедии, это нормально! И меня очень удивил тот факт, что администраторы Викиновостей не знают очевиднейших вещей. Про заливки, ботопедии, места Википедий по языкам, выбор юбилейной статьи и прочих вещах, о которых в Русской Википедии знает почти каждый участник. Lesless (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

ru → en by Google translate

I especially liked "All of the sources are in Russian and most of the links point to content in Russian. Some of the discussion here is in Russian. I can not find English sources commenting on the focal event. That does support the assertion that this is better-suited for ru.WN and less-suited for en.WN". Look, we have an international encyclopedia. All languages ​​are equal. Sources do not cease to be Reliable sources just because they are in another language. The Russian Wikipedia and Russian Wikinews accept English-language sources without restrictions. Do you have censorship? And it is not true that Google Translate does not work well ru → en. I will show below how it translated this text (here it is). And there are now more than three sources. Is that enough? I will not even mention the fact that the original report is original because it does not require any sources at all. I am Reliable source. I am the author of the news. Regarding fourth place. This is 7−3=4. From seven we subtract three botopedias and get fourth place. Do you need a source for this? Well, there is such a source, only they calculated differently there: meta:User:Ladsgroup/coverage_ranking_of_Wikipedia_languages + https://www.wikipedia.org/ - without botopedias. For news about Wikipedia, all sources may be inside Wikipedia, that's okay! And I was very surprised by the fact that Wikinews administrators do not know the most obvious things. About authomatic filling, botopedias, Wikipedia locations by language, choosing an anniversary article and other things that almost every user in Russian Wikipedia knows about. Lesless (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In English there are a few main points,

• firstly foreign language sources are not issue for global news project like this one,
• secondly from list of large wikis a few wikis needed to be taken out as they are "botopedia" that is tiny stubs imported by bot. (Maybe it needs to be clarified in article).
  • Supposedly each user in ruwp knows how botopedia and automatic fills work. [Gryllida never heard of it]
• And OR is Lesless himself as significant analysis included.

In reply: no, here Wikipedia is not considered reliable source.

In reply: this news is for international audience not enlightened about wiki workings, it needs to be clarified.

Hope it helps and please ask if any questions. Gryllida (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In Russian Wikinews, all news about Wikipedia is based solely on Wikipedia and does not require external sources. В Русских Викиновостях все новости о Википедии основываются исключительно на Википедии и не требуют сторонних источников: Русская Википедия: теперь 2 000 000 статей, Джимми Уэйлс пожелал удачи правительству России, Русские википедисты написали письмо поддержки украинским коллегам, Телеведущая Екатерина Андреева манипулирует Википедией, 15 лет Википедии в Москве, Джимбо Уэйлс в Москве, Русские Викиновости обогнали Польскую Википедию, Википедии исполняется 20 лет, Русская Википедия восстановила статью «Путин — хуйло!», В Английской Википедии 5 миллионов статей... etc. Lesless (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Даже в самом шаблоне написано! "Если автор репортажа не указал свои источники, источником информации является он сам"!! "If the author of the report does not indicate his sources, the source of information is he himself"!! Шаблон:Оригинальный репортаж. "с использованием собственных источников и информации, которая ранее не публиковалась" = "using our own sources and information that has not been previously published." Категория:Оригинальные репортажи. Lesless (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

For your reference, I edited the story beyond minor edits so I cannot publish myself. It is stuck because awaiting another reviewer. Gryllida (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are notes from your original reporting -- what information you obtained yourself -- which were not discussed earlier, and which help to verify a part of the content, then please include this information here now. It will help the reviewer. For the little parts I looked up and added, I included notes how I retrieved that information. Gryllida (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright: Not sure if "better suited" refers to source translation difficulties (legit) or newsworthiness on en.wn, but for the record, if I understand correctly, volume of English-language coverage is not evidence against newsworthiness, although it could serve as evidence for to the same extent as volume of coverage in any other language. And I don't think we should give weight to where Wikinews (or en.wn specifically) readership is concentrated. But for the reasons I mentioned at the assistance water cooler I don't think this is newsworthy. Heavy Water (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that a lack of coverage by sources in the English language might indicate a lack of relevance to English-speaking readers. I was not trying to imply that disqualifies en.WN from being the first English source to publish it, which I see no problem in us doing.

Your comment regarding giving weight to where en.WN readership is concentrated is well-received. I wasn't recommending we start intentionally catering to specific cohorts. Rather, I was recommending that we could, in cases like this, consider our readership demographics as contributing factors when considering things like relevance and newsworthiness. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Stale

Thursday, September 19, 2024 originally dated, plus sources are old. Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Так а кто тут всё затянул-то? В русских новостях было опубликовано сразу. И в Reliable sources тоже. Только тут бодягу развели на две недели. Вы все дела так делаете? Lesless (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Lesless, I share your frustration with the lack of nimbleness of en.WN. It is not caused by any single person, but a combination of factors, the main one being a stringent peer-review process combined with too few active reviewers. I understand the article was published quickly at ru.WN and that is great. However, we don't share all of the same policies here at en.WN and that means work is done differently between the two projects.

I hope this doesn't push you away from posting future articles here. When you do post articles here in the future, please be mindful of our policies so that we can work together to correct any issues quickly and easily and get content published. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Нет уж, больше я с такой бюрократией связываться не собираюсь. Ценность новостей в оперативности. Вы никогда не работали в СМИ? А я работал, был репортёром. Lesless (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Я, кстати, тоже работал =))) Помнишь я говорил тебе, что с ними тут бесполезно что-либо делать? Эти люди не википедисты. Я даже не могу понять кто они, но только не википедисты. По ним office action плачет. Если бы в этом office кого-либо что-либо тут интересовало — там тоже сидят не википедисты, и занимаются они не вики-проектами. --Ssr (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Your policies? You don't have people, but have policies. But Wikimedia is made for people, not for policies. -- Ssr (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4799695 [Not ready]

Revision 4799695 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See comments below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: As a new reviewer, I defer to more senior reviewers regarding newsworthiness. As previously mentioned[2], we have existing policy detailing the higher bar required for Wikimedia article to be considered newsworthy or relevant: WN:WMFNEWS. We also have existing policy for working with non-English sources, which are allowed and are not censored: WN:Source. The main problem with using non-English sources and machine translation is we possibly loose accuracy in translation. While machine translators are good enough, they often fail on tricky or obscure words and the person using the translator won't be aware of the inaccuracy. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4799695 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See comments below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: As a new reviewer, I defer to more senior reviewers regarding newsworthiness. As previously mentioned[3], we have existing policy detailing the higher bar required for Wikimedia article to be considered newsworthy or relevant: WN:WMFNEWS. We also have existing policy for working with non-English sources, which are allowed and are not censored: WN:Source. The main problem with using non-English sources and machine translation is we possibly loose accuracy in translation. While machine translators are good enough, they often fail on tricky or obscure words and the person using the translator won't be aware of the inaccuracy. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Imagine that you were given an editorial assignment to cover the voyage on the Titanic. You survived and brought the report. And the editor says to you: where are the independent three publications in independent sources? Lesless (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

refresh

I asked Nikolai to comment using wikimail. Let's see what comes out of this. Gryllida (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

🙂 Gryllida (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No updates. Still stale and abandoned.

@Lesless, there has been no update to the article that would warrant a status change from abandoned to review. Also, see Gryllida's comment above attempting to reach out for help. There has been no update that I know of from Nikolai. Given our policy on WN:Freshness, I don't see how this article is now reviewable. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, agreed. BigKrow (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an update. I require a reviewer to schedule a 30 min time slot for publishing interview. Tell me when (in Sydney time please) and then I will upload it here by then. Gryllida (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I don't understand what you mean.

You have information from Nikolai that is pertinent to reviewing this article? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes and I need scheduling 30mins on irc with you to upload it and do the review. Gryllida (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you send it to scoop so all reviewers have access and can possibly review it, rather than me specifically? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This will need someone available for 30 to 60 minutes to do this quickly and completely. I am open to scheduling the time for this in advance. In email I explained why and provided the data. Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have received the email and can access the document. However, I can not verify this was an interview with Nikolai as it is merely a text document that contains no usernames, no email addresses, etc. I have no way to cross-reference or verify the document.

If I review this I will need to be able to verify that the interview is indeed with Nikolai. Otherwise any other reviewer is welcome to review the article. I do not want to hold up the process.

I don't understand the cloak and dagger-ness of this whole thing. The email states Nikolai "just today agreed to release the interview under the wikinews licence (cc 2.5 something)." If this is an interview with another Wiki user who has agreed to release the full interview, why not have that user post it here while logged in for full transparency? Alternatively, you can post it here and Nikolai can acknowledge it is them while logged in.

Also, who is the interviewer?

The email asks "Please advise how to put it to wiki without it sitting for two weeks and getting deleted as stale." If I expand the article with text from the interview, I will disqualify myself from reviewing it.

Since you've already expanded the article and disqualified yourself from reviewing, can you add it to the article (assuming that is what is meant by 'put it to wiki')?

Again, I don't want to hold up this process so any other reviewer is free to move forward with this if they understand the request and the process better than I do. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikinews will eternally be "stale and abandoned" as long as you are not being true Wikimedians. No one reads you despite your efforts. No one readed 10 years ago, no one cares now (you don't care also! so it's biliminal), no one will care in 10 years forward. -- Ssr (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What would you do differently? Which policies and/or guidelines do you see as the main problem? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I would add that I don't necessarily disagree with your general statement. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)