The German Wikipedia briefly became embroiled in a political controversy last week, with a politician seeking to have criminal charges brought over the presence of swastikas and other Nazi images. After getting widespread publicity, the request was dropped the next day amid criticism that the allegations were unjustified.

The incident came about when Katina Schubert (who did not have an article in the English Wikipedia prior to this incident) filed a criminal complaint with Berlin police, alleging that the German Wikipedia contains too much Nazi imagery, and citing in particular the article on the Hitler Youth (German version prior to the report; current German version). Schubert is a member of the party leadership for Die Linke, the primary party of the far left in Germany (roughly the opposite, on the political spectrum, of the National Democratic Party, which is considered the closest thing in Germany to a neo-Nazi party).

It is generally illegal to display Nazi symbols in Germany, although an exception is allowed for educational purposes, which appropriate Wikipedia uses would undoubtedly rely on. The article version immediately prior to the complaint's filing included eleven assorted image files, including an organization chart and three files incorporating many different rank insignia used by the Hitler Youth. At the top was also a template, from the German equivalent of the History WikiProject, flagging the article as in need of improvement.

Arne Klempert, CEO of the German chapter of Wikimedia, defended the Wikipedia editing process and its ability to deal with subjects of this nature, noting that other reference works in Germany include Nazi symbols when they document the period. Several party colleagues also criticized Schubert's move, saying it did not reflect their views and was not the appropriate way to combat right-wing extremists on the internet. As Klempert pointed out, Schubert failed to contact anyone involved in the Wikimedia Foundation about the matter prior to seeking legal action (she told heise online that her aides had been unable to find contact information for Wikipedia). After further discussions, Schubert backed down somewhat, asking for the complaint to be withdrawn, although she reiterated her concern that Wikipedia and other sites might be susceptible to neo-Nazi influence.

Some changes were also brought about on the German Wikipedia in response to the complaint. The first reaction was that somebody requested deletion of the Hitler Youth article, although unsurprisingly this went nowhere. Since then, most of the images have been removed from the article, leaving only the Hitler Youth flag. The article has been protected for the next week due to edit wars, and the template tag now more specifically requests historical background and sources.

Meanwhile, a major weekly German magazine, Stern, ran a cover story last week asking the question, "How good is Wikipedia?" It pitted the German Wikipedia against Brockhaus, the leading commercial encyclopedia in Germany, in a comparison test across fifty subjects. The results were a victory for Wikipedia, whose entries got an average grade of 1.7 when compared with Brockhaus's 2.7 (low scores are better, 1 is the best possible).

Criteria for the grades included whether the articles were correct, comprehensive, up-to-date, and understandable. As the Stern noted to its surprise, Wikipedia came out ahead even in terms of correctness. The one category where Wikipedia fell short was on readability. A Brockhaus spokesman complained that the test was unfair, arguing that it used the online edition of Brockhaus, which has only half as many entries as the full published version.

News reports circulated recently that Jimmy Wales had reversed his position on the citability of Wikipedia in student papers, arguing that this practice should be generally accepted. The coverage was based on a misunderstanding, however, and the BBC article on his remarks has been changed to address the confusion.

The incident arose after the 2007 Online Information conference, at which Wales was a keynote speaker. As part of his remarks there, Wales observed that it's impossible to control where students seek out information, so that banning Wikipedia makes as much sense as a ban on listening to rock and roll. He said that a teacher who would prohibit students reading Wikipedia would be "a bad educator".

Included in the original version of the BBC story about the speech was a provocative assertion. It stated that Wales "now thinks that students should be able to cite the online encyclopaedia in their work. Previously, Mr Wales believed that the website, which is edited by users, lacked the authority for academic work." (While attributing these views to him, the story did not provide a direct quote, although other quotes from Wales were used.)

The topic of whether and how Wikipedia can be used in student research papers has been a subject of debate for quite some time (see archived story). Wales addressed the question publicly two years ago, in a BusinessWeek interview published in the aftermath of the Seigenthaler incident. Both then and on numerous occasions since, Wales has consistently said he believes students should not be relying on citations to Wikipedia in academic papers — usually making the point that citing any encyclopedia, including Encyclopædia Britannica, is not an acceptable form of scholarship.

From the BBC report it would appear that Wales had suddenly changed his stance on the question. After some consternation about this, the section of the article was rewritten, and seems to better reflect the nuances of Wales's remarks. It now reports that Wales still holds that Wikipedia lacks authority for use in academic citations, and that plagiarism from Wikipedia should meet with a failing grade. However, he did say that he thought younger students, whose expected research skills would not be as developed, could use Wikipedia as a reference if the articles were supported by accurate citations.

View the answer to last week's crossword.

This week's WikiWorld comic uses text from "Kilroy was here". The comic is released under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Elections for the Arbitration Committee are ongoing; these elections end on Sunday, December 16. Results of the elections are available, with only two users (Newyorkbrad and FT2) over 80%. FayssalF, Sam Blacketer and Deskana all have between 70% and 80% support, and Thebainer, Rebecca, Raul654, and Manning Bartlett trail behind in the 60-70% range. At least five candidates will be chosen after the elections by Jimbo Wales.

Elections for new stewards are also ongoing; these elections also end on Sunday, December 16. After the elections, the Board of Trustees has the option to select any candidate with at least 80% support. At present, eleven users have at least 85% support: Spacebirdy, .anaconda, Dungodung, Jusjih, Zirland, Thogo, Wpedzich, Lar, Millosh, Andre Engels, and Dmcdevit. Nick1915 is currently right at 80%, and DerHexer trails just below the cutoff point at 78%.

Confirmation of current stewards is also in progress; comments left there will be considered by current and incoming stewards, and some present stewards may lose their positions.

Wikimania 2009 bidding officially opens on Saturday, although bids have already been created. New bids will be open until January 12, at which time the jury will be announced. Bids already created will be open until February 3, when bidding will end, and deliberations will begin. On or before February 20, the host city for Wikimania 2009 will be announced to the public.

The Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser continued this week. In the first seven weeks of the fundraiser, about 35,600 people had donated at least US$1, and the Foundation had raised about $1,118,000. This surpasses the $1,040,000 raised in 2006; without counting a $286,600 matching funds donation from 2006, daily donations have averaged about 40% more than last year's.

Tuesday, December 4's total donations ($11,708.93) and Monday, December 10's number of contributions (345) reached a fundraiser low; however, average donations have risen, at least partly due to a few larger donations this week, including $1,000 donations by M Amy Batchelor and RuthAnn Harnisch, and anonymous donations of $2,000, $1,000, and ¥150,000 ($1,351.35).

• The Main Page was briefly deleted this week by Eye of the Mind, who claimed the deletion was made by his/her sister. The account was desysopped, and briefly blocked; the account has since been unblocked, but its sysop status has not been restored.
• The Greek Wikipedia has reached 30,000 articles.
• The Lithuanian Wiktionary has reached 15,000 articles.
• The Thai Wikipedia has reached 30,000 articles.
• The Limburgish Wikiquote has reached 200 pages.
• The Arabic Wikipedia has reached 100,000 registered users.
• The Venda Wikipedia has reached 100 articles.
• The Hindi Wikipedia has reached 15,000 articles.
• The Indonesian Wikipedia has reached 70,000 articles.

Wikipedia sued for 'aiding neo-Nazis' - Katina Schubert, a German politician, filed charges against Wikipedia, on the basis that the German language site contains too much Nazi symbolism (see related story).

Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain - Judd Bagley, head of communications at Overstock.com, had discovered that an anonymous user was making edits about naked short selling on Wikipedia. These edits, in his opinion, were biased and removed reference to a presentation by Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com. Bagley believed that the edits were due to Gary Weiss, who is a strong critic of Byrne, Overstock.com and naked shorting, but who denies making the edits. Bagley tried to prove his claims to Wikipedia administrators, and at one point, sent spyware to track the opening of files that he claimed as evidence. Ultimately, the IP address ranges used by Bagley and Overstock.com were blocked, a ban justified, according to UK press officer David Gerard, by Bagley's "abuse of the wiki".

Other recent mentions in the online press include:

• Wikipedia ban for disruptive professor - Carl Hewitt, a prominent computer scientist, has been banned (from 2006) from editing articles related to himself or his work, after the Arbitration Committee found that he had been engaging in self-promotion on Wikipedia.
• Here's why teachers who ban Wikipedia are misguided - The writer argues that Wikipedia's depth and speed-to-entry are, for students, advantageous over traditional textbooks and encyclopedias, especially when researching obscure topics.
• Leopard: Dictionary's Wikipedia Search - Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard) has a dictionary tool that can search Wikipedia.

WikiProject Greater Manchester is a WikiProject that aims to improve any of Wikipedia's articles related to Greater Manchester of the United Kingdom. Started by Pit-yacker (talk · contribs) on 24 February 2007, it has grown to 30 participants. As of 8 November, all articles within its scope that used its project banner had been assessed.

We interviewed Rudget (talk · contribs), one of the project's most active members.

1. What is the best way for users unfamiliar with Greater Manchester-related topics, new to Wikipedia, or just interested to get involved in the project?

Well, there are quite a few ways in which any unsuspecting member of Wikipedia can get involved with our works. Our project talk page, has become very active in the past few months, and we are always striving hard to help other users who may have issues or who are just in need of advice on what article they may be editing. It's also a few months since we introduced the welcome templates, just as any other WikiProject's, they work by recognising a users abilities to add content to articles, whilst also keeping key Wiki-policies in mind. Unusually, we use two messages for welcoming users, one as sign that we know they are editing to articles which may be related to Greater Manchester, and then one after once they may or may not have registered.

2. What do you think about the progress the project has made during its time on Wikipedia?

Since the opening editor, Pit-yacker- set up the project, we've now collectively understood that there are at least 820 pages relating to Greater Manchester, (which ideally we'd love to get all to FA standard), there are now 9 featured articles (most in the last month or so), 11 good articles and at least 75 B-class articles, the whole list is viewable here. Several of the editors, including Jza84, Malleus Fatuarum, And-Rew and WebHamster, have all been dedicated to the cause of the project and have collaborated together to build the effects we see today. An example of the work done by the project is, Manchester. Once a small article (before the founding of the project), but with months of work by many of the editors and some others, it's now featured with over 105 kilobytes of information. It gained unanimous support at it's FAC back in November and every issue that was set by some editors, was swiftly corrected. The GA reviewer, Pursey, even commented on the swiftness and dedication of all involved, and was so impressed gave a barnstar to every user that was involved.

3. Are there any ongoing discussions pertaining to project issues or articles in the project's scope?

Hmm…well there are two articles which are undergoing extensive scrutiny at the Project talk page, namely Altrincham and Pendlebury, which are receiving quite a bit of "editor reviewing" and good feedback from other users in the project. There are also quite a few cases where some users are using sandboxes or the {{Underconstruction}} template on pages which are receiving, mostly, exclusive edits by the users who instigate the notice. Apart from that, WP:GM is coming along quite nicely.

4. What is the advantage of having the project's newsletter?

The newsletter, which was set up in October (about the time as most other project’s newsletters founding) is a great way of bringing together the project’s members. I set it up to create an outreach to some of the users which may be not up to full editing activity and to inform some other users who may be active, but not necessarily involved with the project (or at least up to one post every two weeks) to inform them of project developments, and to maybe even trigger a, what I’d like to call, "SAD – sole article dedication". The acronym not pertaining to the emotion, obviously. :)

5. What are some of the project's most recent successes?

As with the response to Question 2, the project has come along way since it’s foundation and has become recognised by some outside editors as a great way of helping Greater Manchester related articles upto scratch. The example of Manchester previously, is only a small part of what’s been happening. 9 featured articles, 5 of which have been passed in the last month, in itself shows the large and wide-spread activity which has occurred. From motorways (freeways) to metropolitan boroughs (districts) we’re working on them all. And the relative portal, Portal:North West England, also recently became featured.

Six users were granted admin status via the Requests for Adminship process this week: Useight (nom), NrDg (nom), Kaiser matias (nom), SatyrTN (nom), Rkitko (nom) and Brianga (nom).

Five bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week: Muro_Bot (task request), ImageBacklogBot (task request), Detroiterbot (task request), SoxBot (task request) and Giggabot (task request).

Twenty articles were promoted to featured status last week: Tuck School of Business (nom), Chicxulub Crater (nom), Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan (nom), Brown Dog affair (nom), Pauline Fowler (nom), Asteroid belt (nom), 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl (nom), J. K. Rowling (nom), Rock Steady (album) (nom), Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami (nom), SR Merchant Navy Class (nom), Barn Swallow (nom), S.H.E (nom), Thierry Henry (nom), Battle of the Gebora (nom), Knut (polar bear) (nom), Tool (band) (nom), Tōru Takemitsu (nom), Final Fantasy (nom) and Eardwulf of Northumbria (nom).

Twelve lists were promoted to featured status last week: The Simpsons shorts (nom), List of Manchester City F.C. managers (nom), List of Doctor Who serials (nom), List of tallest buildings in Detroit (nom), List of Manchester United F.C. managers (nom), List of cities and towns in Tennessee (nom), List of Kanye West awards (nom), List of Everton F.C. managers (nom), IWGP World Tag Team Championship (nom), List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks (nom), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (nom) and Vanier Cup (nom).

No topics or sounds were promoted last week.

Two portals were featured last week: Portal:North West England (nom) and Portal:France (nom).

Four articles were de-featured last week: PaX (nom), Anno Domini (nom), The Ashes (nom) and Phonograph cylinder (nom).

No pictures, lists, portals, topics, or sounds were de-featured last week.

The following featured articles were displayed last week on the Main Page as Today's featured article: California Condor, Charles Edward Magoon, "The Raven", Uranus, Krill, Belarusian Republican Youth Union and Brown Dog affair.

The following featured pictures were displayed last week on the Main Page as picture of the day: Vietnam child soldier, Krikby's Dropwing, Parachute jump, SS Thistlegorm, Casting tin soldiers, Drone fly, and Robert William Thomson.

Six pictures were promoted to featured status last week and are shown below.

• 
  Blackface (nom)
• 
  United States Naval Gun (nom)
• 
  Horehound bug (nom)
• 
  Notre Dame de Paris (nom)
• 
  Caterpillar (nom)
• 
  Panicle (nom)

This is a summary of recent technology and site configuration changes that affect the English Wikipedia. Note that not all changes described here are necessarily live as of press time; the English Wikipedia is currently running version 1.44.0-wmf.4 (a8dd895), and changes to the software with a version number higher than that will not yet be active. Configuration changes and changes to interface messages, however, become active immediately.

• A bug that accidentally caused an extraneous colon and space to show up on the deletion confirmation screen when a default deletion reason was given was fixed. (r28073, bug 12178)
• It seems that the tentative fix for the UNIQ bug that was still being tested at press time last week did work (see related story). (r28004, bug 12154)
• The history display for a page no longer says "Revision history" as a subtitle, because that information is already present in the main title. (r28137, bug 11993)
• A fix was added that speeds up loading times by several minutes on Internet Explorer 5 on Mac OS 9. (r28192, bug 12055)
• The paging (next 50/previous 50) links on Special:Linksearch now work in some situations where they failed before (for instance, if "mailto:" is used as the search term). (r28208, bug 12107)

• The 'Related changes' option (Special:Recentchangeslinked) now has an RSS feed; in particular, if a page is being used as a public watchlist, this provides a way to get an RSS feed for that watchlist. (r28274, bug 943)

• The Gadgets extension (mw:Extension:Gadgets) was enabled on the English Wikipedia. The extension allows administrators to add JavaScript and CSS (user scripts and user styles) as preferences on Special:Preferences, in a new 'Gadgets' section. (The procedure for administrators to add new gadgets is somewhat complicated, and explained on the extension page.) Currently, the gadgets that have been added are navigation popups, a gadget to disable access keys, and a gadget to open external links in a new tab or window. (bug 12190)

• The messages MediaWiki:Searchsize and MediaWiki:Searchscore have been replaced with MediaWiki:Lucene-resultsize and MediaWiki:Lucene-searchscore, to allow for better control over localisation (the message is given a number formatted according to the relevant language rather than a plain number), so any customisations there need to be repeated. (r28141/r28181, bug 10869)

• A change was scheduled to the software that would allow use of rollback to all users, not just administrators. There are new rate limits in the software to limit the rate at which non-administrators can use rollback, although they are currently irrelevant because non-administrators can't use rollback anyway. Following some discussion about the change (both supporting and opposing the change), this change was reverted; the limits are still present but non-admin rollback will not now be enabled without consensus on an individual wiki. A discussion about the matter here on the English Wikipedia is being held at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators. (change made in r28193, reverted in r28248)

• Internationalisation has been continuing as normal; help is always appreciated! See mw:Localisation statistics for how complete the translations of languages you know are, and post any updates to bugzilla or use Betawiki.

The Arbitration Committee opened four new cases this week, and closed one.

• RodentofDeath: Users allege that RodentofDeath has engaged in a variety of policy violations. RodentofDeath make similar accusations against Susanbryce.

• Physchim62: A case revolving around a block of fellow administrator Hesperian by Physchim62. Other users assert that Physchim62 has misused his administrative tools in the past.

• John Buscema: A case involving Tenebrae's action on the John Buscema article.

• Dbachmann: A case mainly involving alleged misconduct on the part of administrator Dbachmann on several race-related articles.

• Episodes and characters: A case involving alleged misconduct with regard to the notability of episodes and characters from television series. Remedies admonishing TTN and urging the parties to collaborate on the issue have the support of four arbitrators.

• Matthew Hoffman: A case involving a controversial block of MatthewHoffman as a sockpuppet by a vanished user. Arbitrator UninvitedCompany has proposed a remedy calling for Hoffman's block log to be annotated to show that the blocks were unjustified, which has support from three other arbitrators, but is opposed by Fred Bauder. Another remedy, proposed by Bauder, cautions the vanished user to avoid taking significant administrative action where he has strong opinions.

• Anonimu: A case involving revert warring and incivility by Anonimu. If closed, Anonimu's community ban would be confirmed and he would be concurrently banned for a year.