| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wugapodes. |
| I voted in the Movement Charter Drafting Committee election!
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----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=0JtL
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
|
My fields of interest are phonetics and sociolinguistics, sign languages, anthropology of the United States, and law. My university gives me access to a large number of resources, both online through institutional access, and offline through its holdings and inter-library loan, so if you would like something, feel free to ask. I believe in making knowledge accessible, and so try to combat FUTON bias by contributing using information that may be holed up behind a paywall or in dusty, old dead trees. Libraries and librarians are your friends! Most of the work I do would be impossible without the wonderful, knowledgeable humans behind the desk. WorldCat is also an amazing resource that can help you find a library and get access to a number of materials online and off. If you haven't guessed by now, I'm a big fan of WP:OFFLINE.
Stuff I have or am working on[edit]
Unprotection experiments[edit]
Page protections are a last resort to stop disruption, and in rare cases pages are protected indefinitely rather than for a set time period. While this stops disruption, that very fact makes it hard to determine when it is safe to remove protection. Since the only way to know is to remove protection and watch, pages can wind up protected for much longer than intended or even needed. Many of these protections were likely forgotten about: placed on pop-culture pages that have faded out of the public eye or to combat widespread problems that have long-since been resolved.
In May 2021 Wugapodes (and others) began reviewing indefinite move protections in place for over a decade, and some of these pages were also indefintiely protected against anonymous editing for a similar period. As part of the move protection review, Wugapodes began removing long-term edit protection as well in order to see whether protection was necessary (see WP:TRYUNPROT). The effects of page protection are immediate and obvious, so our documentation and policies have adequately considered when and why to apply page protection. What happens when a page is unprotected after a long period, however, has not been adequately documented or understood. This section (and eventual essay) documents pages unprotected as part of the experiment, qualitative analysis of editing activity, and eventual outcomes of the unprotection experiment.
- Dragon (protected due to vandalism on 17 January 2009; unprotected 4 May 2021) an unconstructive edit was immediately reverted by ClueBot. An editor added an unreliable reference which was reverted by a presumed page watcher.
- Dance (protected due to vandalism on 15 January 2009; unprotected 3 May 2021) 6 edits since unprotection (last six edits date to February). One new user made productive contributions and was welcomed. An IP added personal opinion which was removed about three hours later. No bad faith edits after 8 days.
- Flower (protected due to vandalism on 13 January 2009; unprotected 3 May 2021) within 24 hours of unprotection, an IP was warned for making a test edit where they intentionally misspelled a section heading; reverted 15 hours later. No other edits afterwards.
- Cattle (protected due to vandalism on 30 May 2008; unprotected 2 May 2021) 25 edits in 7 days after unprotection (prior 25 edits date to January). Two IPs made good faith but net negative changes which were reverted. Another was warned for test edits which stood for about one minute. Four IPs vandalized: one was immediately reverted by ClueBot, two were reverted within a minute by recent changes patrollers, and a third was reverted by a helpful IP after about 30 minutes. One IP and three registered users have made constructive, non-revert edits after nearly a week. The page was temporarily semi-protected on May 11 following a number of disruptive edits that were not promptly reverted.
- David Beckham (protected due to vandalism on 7 January 2009; Beckham retires from football May 2013; unprotected 2 May 2021). Two editors (one IP) were reverted and warned for making test edits, both were reverted after about 12 hours. An IP vandalized the article and was reverted by a recent changes patroller in about a minute. An IP made a good faith edit which led to a removal of poorly sourced information. Another editor removed a poorly sourced statement due to (presumably) increased meatball:PageChurn. An anonymous editor was introducing unverified material on May 10 and 11 which was not promptly reverted. To prevent BLP violations, the page was pending changes protected for two weeks.
- Frog (protected due to vandalism on 5 January 2009; unprotected 2 May 2021; protected indefinitely 3 May 2021) page was unprotected roughly 40 hours and experienced 11 edits. Of those, 7 edits were spamming sock puppets and the remaining 4 were reverts. Because of the volume and persistence of the problem, the protection was reinstated.
The above data were updated 23:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The below analysis was written 03:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
At this point, data are limited but point towards generally positive outcomes. Of the six test cases, only one had immediate justification for reprotection, and anonymous editors have generally interacted positively with the remaining five articles. The most questionable is Cattle which has experienced disruption roughly once a day, but while anonymous editors have made both positive and negative contributions, existing soft-security processes such as recent changes patrolling and page watching have removed the negative contributions rather quickly. While many positive contributions were ultimately rejected, others were reworked or led to further improvements by more experienced editors all while introducing readers to the editing interface.
This increase in "reader engagement" with the editing interface likely comes even from the "negative" contributions such as test edits. While an apparent majority of anonymous edits were tests that ultimately required volunteer labor to fix, it also provided an opportunity to meatball:WelcomeNewcomers who seem interested if not yet constructive. Similarly, the test edits were generally "conservative" manifesting as changes to single words or digits. While nonetheless disruptive, they are easily reverted and help identify readers who might be productive if they were given direction. For this reason, it may be better to use the {{subst:Welcome}} series of template (e.g., {{subst:welcome-anon-test}}) which provide links to introductory material instead of {{subst:uw-test1}} which links them to the sandbox and provides little direction for their curiosity. Perhaps uw-test1 could be improved by adding a "call to action" similar to {{welcome}}.
Preliminary results are consistent with the theory of meatball:WikiBreathing and suggest that the way readers interact with out content has changed since 2009. The process of WikiBreathing was first documented on WikiWiki where the ability to contribute was periodically restricted and then loosened to manage wiki growth. As a model of the meatball:WikiLifeCycle, it theorizes that wikis go through a period of growth until a point where the community cannot cope with the influx of new members. At this point the wiki begins to "breathe out" by restricting contribution and allowing a net outflow of contributors. This is consistent with the history of Wikipedia prior to 2008 and the period of protections being reviewed. 2009 marks the peak of Wikipedia's entrance into the mainstream, with community size beginning to fall from that point (see Wikipedia#Launch and early growth). As the encyclopedia and wikis as a concept entered the mainstream, high-visibility pages became targets for test edits and general vandalism as the public began to experiment with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The existing community was not large enough to incorporate this influx of contributors and so the soft-security processes broke. To protect the encyclopedia, Wikipedia began to breathe out and make pages more difficult to edit. This trend continued into 2011 when the community added inactivity criteria for administrators (yielding our single highest year-over-year drop in administrators on record) and asking the Wikimedia Foundation to restrict article creation to auto-confirmed accounts (which the Foundation refused until 2017). This sequence mirrors other wikis (in direction, if not magnitude) such as MeatBall and WikiWiki which revoked editing access following major vandalism attacks between 2010 and 2015. The pages present in the data above are moderate- to high-visibility pages on major topics of public interest protected due to vandalism during a period of WikiExhaling, but have circumstances changed enough that continued WikiExhaling is actually harmful to the project?
While the protection accomplished its goal, the data present the possibility that the current effects are a net negative. The obvious harm is in preventing good faith anonymous edits. While many anonymous edits were not retained in full, readers were able to point out areas of the article that needed more attention through action rather than requiring them to write an essay on that talk page. Less apparent though is its affect on meatball:PageChurn and whether the increased presence on Special:RecentChanges increases edits from advanced editors. Preliminary results at David Beckham support the idea that the increased PageChurn positively affects articles. That article saw substantive copyedits by two editors new to the page (no edits to it within two years), and both occurred soon after an IP edit. While the page had been edited and expanded, the IP edits seemed to have instigated copy-editing distinct from what seems to have largely been writing and expansion over the last few edits. This suggests that the PageChurn brings controversial or sub-optimal sections of articles to the attention of experienced editors who are then able to apply the appropriate policies and improve the article. Long-term protection seems to have harmed these pages by making them harder to find and reducing how often regular editors are drawn to them, ultimately reducing the level of policy-informed copy-editing they receive. More data from more pages and for longer periods of unprotection is needed.
Linguistic Society of America Centennial in 2024[edit]
- This subsection is transcluded from User:Wugapodes/LSA Centennial, a centralized page for tracking the improvement effort.
The Linguistic Society of America is celebrating its centennial in 2024 which provides a great motivation to improve the coverage of linguistics and linguists. It's a large task, so feel free to help with some of the goals or articles linked below.
Recently created stubs to improve[edit]
Useful sources[edit]
- Sebeok, Thomas A (2002). Portrait Of Linguists. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. ISBN 9781843710066.
"Mommy, mommy! The dogapodes are kissing!" -The unfortunate child of a linguist, age 3
Draftapodes[edit]
Articles[edit]
Red links and redirects[edit]
To Source and/or Expand[edit]
Selected contributions[edit]
Technical stuff[edit]
My front lawn[edit]
Some people like grass; I prefer my lawn covered in a random collection of things I find cool.
Wugapodes? What's that?[edit]
It's a (poor) linguistics joke. A wug is a fictional bird-like creature made up by Dr. Jean Berko Gleason to test when children learn English morphology, particularly how to make things plural. She would show a child a card that read "Look, there's a wug" that also showed a picture of one wug. Then she would show a picture of two wugs with the caption "Look, now there are two of them! There are two ____?". The child should respond "wugs" if they know how to pluralize normally in English. Wugapodes is a fictitious pluralization based upon a rare plural form of octopus, octopodes, meaning that, instead of the child learning to make plurals with -s they make it with -podes. Despite my name being plural, there is however only one of me.
I run the bot, WugBot, which updates the GAN backlog report and moves approved DYK nominations to the approved section for curation. Its source is available on GitHub. Feel free to ask questions or report errors with the bot (or contribute!). For more urgent matters, email me (or the bot, it is the same email address).
Library reference interview[edit]
Readers come to an encyclopedia because they have information needs. In a traditional encyclopedia, if a reader's information need isn't met they cannot ask the editors, and writing a question on the pages of Britannica won't get a reply. Not so on a Wikipedia. Editors will frequently encounter readers whose information needs are not met as we go about our tasks, making our interactions with newbies more like a librarian and less like an editor-in-chief. Library scientists have researched and developed methods for handling these encounters successfully so that patrons have their needs met and leave with a positive impression of the institution. These same methods can be useful for editors to keep in mind when interacting with newbies on talk pages or who replace article text with questions (after reverting, of course). The following is adapted from our article on Reference interviews, and attribution is available at that page. The reference interview is structured to help provide answers to the patron. In general, the interview is composed of the following stages.
- Welcoming
- Gathering general information from the user and getting an overview of the problem
- Confirming the exact question
- Intervention, such as giving information, advice or instructions
- Finishing, including feedback and summary
These stages may occur in loops, for example when a clarification of the question leads to the need to establish more background information on the query topic. These steps are designed to put the user at ease, and then help ensure that they have correctly explained what they require. When the editor believes that the query is fully understood, they can attempt to provide resources that help satisfy it. This can include making edits to an article, providing links to policy pages, providing useful encyclopedia articles, or recommending external resources. An important and often overlooked final step is checking that the information or service provided was indeed what the user needed.
Links of one kind or another[edit]
Barnstarapodes[edit]
Barnstarapodes
|
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|
| Congratulations on making it all the way to Round 3 of the 2nd Annual GA Cup. Although you didn't make the Final/top 5 (which was very hard), we'd like to commend you with this barnstar. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
|
|
|
The Football Barnstar
|
| Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article bicycle kick. The association football project appreciates valuable contributions to the articles, and your GA review was one of them. Thanks again, and we hope you can work with us again!--MarshalN20 Talk 20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
|
|
|
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
|
| For your hard work creating Bluebook style citation templates; I have no doubt that they will serve as an invaluable tool for future generations of Wikipedians. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
|
|
|
The GA barnstar
|
| For tackling the eight Los Espantos related GA reviews at one time, I know that was not an easy task to do and that you were not forced to do so. Each review got the highest scrutiny and were better for it. Truely appreciate your time anx efforts on this. MPJ-DK 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
|
|
The Technical Barnstar
|
| For your work with WugBot and DYK. I've been away from Wikipedia and by extension DYK for a while. When I came back and saw that someone had finally worked to help automate the DYK review process it made my day. Thanks for all your great work! Best, Mifter (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
|
|
The Writer's Barnstar
|
| Fantastic work getting sociophonetics to the Main Page! Very interesting article. MX (✉ • ✎) 00:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
|
|
The Teamwork Barnstar
|
| I thought your willingness to extend discussion was exemplary. I have no problems with non admin closure and I am fully aware and support the consensus we come to may be exactly what you did. Thanks again and cheers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Barnstar of Awesomeness
|
| I hereby award you the barnstar of awesomeness! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
|
|
Committed identity: d30661676f0d81866404a7e4c6ac2145b6036ba078db0c29c45ed698327d25b638c4a964543256f68d320c9c2fa3e7cfe1d11474bc2a89b21cb77fb8db8e0f33 is a
SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wugapodes. |
United States.jpg)
Black American Sign Language
Electromagnetic articulography
Phonetics ( Version before first edit | diff )
.svg){kind=logo}
