The two community representatives on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Angela Beesley and Florence Nibart-Devouard, were re-elected to their posts in the election that concluded last week. Detailed results are still not available, but both were apparently approved by a majority of voters.
Within a few hours of the election closing on Monday, Danny, one of the election officials, released preliminary election results indicating that Beesley and Nibart-Devouard had been re-elected. They had both been chosen in June 2004 for one-year terms and have now been elected to serve for an additional two years.
When the initial results were released, Danny indicated that the exact totals were being validated and would be completed over the next 24 hours. However, after a couple days passed and this did not happen, a few people asked about the delay. It seems now that the results will finally be available sometime this week.
In last year's election, the vote totals were also released somewhat after the identity of the trustees had been announced. This was due to uncertainty over whether the unsuccessful candidates were willing to have this information disclosed, as it had not been clear in advance that it would be.
This time the delay is reportedly due to issues with determining the validity of some votes. For example, it was pointed out that Gzornenplatz voted while subject to an indefinite ban, and it was not certain whether the vote should be counted. Several other possibly spurious votes have been identified and are being reviewed.
However, the number of questionable votes is apparently low enough that it will not affect the outcome in any case. Beesley and Nibart-Devouard were both approved by more than 50% of all voters, and Samuel Klein, who endorsed their re-election as part of his campaign statement, came in third. The order of finish for the remaining candidates was Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, Arno Lagrange, and Francis Schonken.
As the election used approval voting, majority support was not guaranteed even for the winners; last year only Beesley was elected by a majority, and only one of the current arbitrators received over 50% of the vote using the same system. Both Beesley and Nibart-Devouard increased their percentage of the overall vote from last year.
The total number of votes cast was 1,484, more than double the number of people who participated in last year's election. Although the candidate totals are not yet available, a breakdown of votes by languages is. Just under half of all votes (49%) came from English-language projects, a significant increase from about 40% the previous year.
Update: The detailed vote totals for each candidate were finally published on Monday, 18 July. Beesley received 70% of the vote and Nibart-Devouard 55%. Results for the remaining candidates were as follows: Klein 33%, Heiskanen 25%, Lagrange 21%, and Schonken 12%.
This week the picture of the day made its first appearance on Wikipedia's Main Page, replacing the Did you know feature, albeit temporarily. Also, there were 3 new admins, 10 new featured articles, 8 new featured lists, and 5 new featured pictures this week.
The possibility of replacing "Did you know" with a rotation of featured pictures had been brought up already a week ago (see archived story). On Saturday, MacGyverMagic said that due to "a lack of suggestions" for new articles he would give the Picture of the day feature a trial run in its place. Following an earlier compromise suggestion, he indicated that he planned to rotate so that "Picture of the day" would be used on weekends and "Did you know" on weekdays.
Some problems quickly cropped up, particularly technical issues with the templates involved, and further editing broke the layout of the main page on some browsers. Also, Solipsist, who helps organize the selection of the "Picture of the day", suggested that better coordination was needed to avoid repeating featured pictures on the main page, much as is already done for featured articles.
Three wikipedians received administrator status after their requests for adminship received wide support: Triddle (nom), Jredmond (nom), and Uncle G (nom).
Ten more featured article candidates were promoted this week, namely Layla, Hong Kong, Norman Borlaug, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Krill, Virtuti Militari, History of Poland (1945-1989), Augustan literature (another highly praised work by Geogre and team), Real Love (song), and USS Missouri (BB-63).
Eight featured list candidates were promoted this week: List of ISS spacewalks, List of Super Bowl champions, List of Oklahoma birds, List of U.S. Senate committees, List of elements by name, Periodic table (large version), List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by continent, and List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name. Meanwhile, on Featured picture candidates, five images were promoted.
Two of Wikipedia's rather well-known articles survived Votes for deletion this week. One article added to its record for most appearances there; the other, which is frequently cited by outside sources, had its VfD noted in several blogs.
The latter article is Folksonomy, which was nominated for deletion by an anonymous user who said, "Just because some self-proclaimed, vain 'online journalists' repeat a meme on their web-site in every post doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia." The term, a neologism for collaborative categorization that has gained considerable usage, is often defined even in other sources by reference to the Wikipedia article.
Blogger Steve Rubel noticed the debate and mentioned it in one of his posts. The article was, of course, overwhelmingly kept; the only person voting "delete" other than the nominator apparently did so in jest. Prompted by the incident, BusinessWeek blogger Rob Hof made some observations about the deletion process in general: "Dig down into why there's a debate, and you see the care with which Wikipedia and its community have set up policies to ensure entries are useful and accurate."
The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) article was submitted to votes for deletion a record sixth time this week. It was placed on VfD by Ta bu shi da yu (author of this article), in order to get a definitive decision on the issue. Critics of the ongoing debates suggested that the issue should not be revisited for at least a year.
The GNAA has been highly controversial, because many Wikipedians believe that the group does not warrant an article, either because the article is promotional or the group is simply not notable. Dislike of their activities also plays a role, as trolling is widely frowned upon and on Wikipedia may lead to a temporary block. The GNAA, however, has been restrained in its editing of Wikipedia, generally staying within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy. Various GNAA members have made many useful edits, although some have also been accused of being disruptive.
The group, originally organized on Slashdot, is marginalized by the comment moderation system there. Its article was first nominated for deletion in April 2004, kept, and nominated again three times that year. In some cases the nominators were unaware of the previous debates, and complaints about renominations rose with each incident. Finally, after waiting six months, a fifth attempt was made on 30 June by an account that was apparently created for the purpose of making the nomination. Because this nomination was interrupted and also prematurely removed from the VfD page, Ta bu shi da yu elected to resubmit it for proper consideration.
As the previous VfD nominations were known for having issues with irregular votes, Ta bu shi da yu set up the process in a manner slightly different from a normal VfD. The page was divided into separate sections for voters to choose Delete, Keep, or Redirect, and a "Comments" section was also added. Anonymous editors, and those that had fewer than 100 edits at the time of voting, were subject to having their votes discounted, and a separate section was created to which these votes could be moved. In addition, personal attacks were barred and any comments deemed a personal attack were immediately removed without comment from the vote. Fortunately, most of those participating were civil and well-behaved.
The procedure for the vote drew both praise and criticism. Who complimented Ta bu shi da yu on his work in laying out the vote. Gmaxwell, however, said that "by putting the article up again and unilaterally creating a whole new family of voting rules just for this VFD, you are in effect disrupting Wikipedia." In particular he disagreed with the ongoing process of discounting votes, arguing that this would be better left to the administrator who would close the vote.
The final result, using the rules outlined, had 55 users voting to delete against 78 who preferred to keep the article. Only three people suggested redirecting to Slashdot trolling phenomena. As with most things about this article, even the vote closure was controversial and prompted a brief edit war, but given Wikipedia practice the outcome clearly did not indicate a consensus to delete.
Concerns about this article being repeatedly submitted to VfD also prompted a proposed policy page called Wikipedia:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 (since redirected to Wikipedia:Deletion policy). The proposal stated that "the renomination of the article Gay Nigger Association of America for deletion causes unnecessary disruption every time it repeats." Accordingly, it recommended that any renominations be immediately delisted, the VfD tag removed from the GNAA article, and that the nominator be informed of the policy. If the editor "persist[s] in their attempt at renomination: kick their ass. Suggested alternate consequences include public flogging, tarring and feathering, or crushing by elephant."
The proposal also indicated that it was not a referendum on the value of having the article: "It merely means you're sick of the amount of time being wasted on the whole thing and want a reprieve." Responses suggested that the general idea has widespread support, although a few people indicated they were uncomfortable with the language being used.
Although currently understaffed, the Arbitration Committee did open a new case last week and moved quickly to take preliminary action in the matter. However, the rest of the current arbitration cases remained in limbo as the arbitrators continue to deliberate. In other dispute resolution news, the idea of another variation on the mediation process has been floated.
On Tuesday, the arbitrators accepted a case brought by Ta bu shi da yu against Alfrem, arising from a dispute over the Libertarianism article. In light of continuing revert wars, the arbitrators issued a temporary injunction the next day banning Alfrem from editing the article.
Also on Tuesday, Snowspinner, who had previously launched the now-dormant Association of Member Investigations (see archived story), proposed a system he called Wikimediation. Described as "an experimental process", the proposal mixes elements of formal mediation with aspects of the requests for comment procedure.
Snowspinner indicated that he wanted Wikimediation to be less confrontational, emphasizing instead "friendly advice and constructive criticism on how to resolve an issue." Since the proposal discouraged its use merely as "a dry run" for arbitration, some people wondered if it was meant to be entirely separate from the existing dispute resolution system. However, Wikimediation would still count as an alternative method of dispute resolution, since use of such methods is strongly encouraged before resorting to arbitration.
This is one of several recent attempts to revitalize the dispute resolution processes that come before arbitration. The Mediation Committee has stepped up its activity since the addition of MacGyverMagic in June. In addition, MacGyverMagic has replaced Jwrosenzweig, who recently took a vacation from Wikipedia, as committee chairman, although Ed Poor has also helped with organization issues. In any case, the mediators have lately been more active in responding to requests for mediation. The requests for comments process has also received some relatively recent overhauls.
With the London bombings prompting increased press coverage of Wikipedia and its sister projects, a spate of reviews appeared in the media this week ranging from the glowing to the dismissive. Also, in a change of pace from journalists pointing out errors in Wikipedia that want fixing, some are now finding Wikipedia being used to correct their own errors.
Contrasting views emerged this week from Fort Worth, Texas and Rochester, New York as columnists considered how useful and informative Wikipedia is. In the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, columnist Susan Barnes looked briefly at the history of the project, claiming that it now had 440,000 articles in the English language version [1] (the correct figure is currently almost 640,000). She noted the problems that arise through not knowing whether experts in a field have worked on articles in that field, and said that 'in some cases, a recognized expert in a subject area may not be respected or supported by the rest of the Wikipedia community'. Overall, Barnes's view was that 'for information about popular culture, the Wikipedia is a gold mine of information. However, it might not be the best source for an academic paper.'
In Texas, meanwhile, a more positive assessment emerged, with Heather Svokos of the Star-Telegram claiming to be 'infatuated' by an encyclopaedia that can tell you 'almost anything' [2]. Svokos felt that the wiki philosophy would always raise questions about credibility, but that 'as much as it's been criticized, it's also been praised for its free distribution, wide range of topics and communal spirit'. She spoke to Jimmy Wales, who said his personal favourite articles were Heavy metal umlaut and inherently funny word. He was also reported as saying that Wikipedia relies on a core community of a few hundred volunteers, who have 'tools to be able to quickly revert changes or block people from doing things that are bad'.
Finally, a predictably negative outlook from PC Magazine columnist John C. Dvorak, who took aim at wikis and Wikipedia in particular this week. Known for his editorials pooh-poohing various technology trends, Dvorak came up with this analysis: 'While the Wikipedia does have great value at the moment, it has been worked on mostly by idealists rather than vandals.' Ultimately, he concluded, the undesirable aspects of public involvement would cause wikis to deteriorate through a sort of entropy, of which he cited the article on Noam Chomsky as an example.
One of the most commonly praised aspects of Wikipedia is its ability to keep track of current events, and in the light of the 7 July 2005 London bombings this has once again attracted comment. Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail reported that 'the huge audience watching news broadcasts used the Wikipedia to focus those broadcasts back into a single, coherent story', and said that Wikipedia's coverage of the event felt like 'something of a coup' [3]. The Chronicle of Higher Education said that 'the value of all that content -- and the speed with which it made its way online -- makes a powerful case for the benefits of wikis'.
UK journalism website http://www.journalism.co.uk reported that Wikinews had seen an eight-fold increase in traffic following the bombings [4]. The site compared the different approaches to covering the event between the two Wikimedia projects, with Wikinews encouraging original reporting while Wikipedia only reporting information already available in a reliable source. Erik Moeller answered questions about the credibility of Wikinews, saying 'Media consumers should generally be critical and observant, whether they're using Time Warner-controlled media, News Corporation-controlled media or people-controlled media'.
The article pointed out that while Wikipedia has 75 times the readership of Wikinews, it only has five times the number of editors, pointing to an impressive degree of reader participation in the news project. The Guardian's director of digital publishing said he was not convinced that a wiki could ultimately deliver a reliable news source, but said that 'Everything on the internet is about acquired trust, and news sites earn their spurs with each news story'.
Czech Republic magazine Czech Business Weekly this week looked at Wikipedia, calling Wikipedians 'the crazy people who work for free' [5]. The article said that Wikipedia had recently announced the creation of its millionth article (although this mark was in fact passed nearly a year ago), and noted that the 'enormous' number of volunteers working on the site were making something that 'actually works'.
The article suggested that Wikipedia had once used a software translator to populate non-English sites - something certainly never done automatically but perhaps done for individual articles by well-meaning Wikipedians using online translation tools. Lamenting the absence of 'humorous language mutations', the article said that 'Czech readers, for example, learned that hairy legs were “hair that multiplies on legs people, generally at commencement of adulthood.” And that some people are forced to “lead the practices love wood-shaving legs.”
This week, newspapers around the world have found themselves contradicting information found in Wikipedia. In South Korea, The Korea Times found itself upbraided by a reader, who wrote in to complain about a piece which had listed South Korea as the nation with the third-highest population density in the world [6]. Complaining that he had seen the error several times in the newspaper, a reader from Donghae City in Gangwon Province noted that 'several internet resources', such as nationmaster.org and Wikipedia, gave Korea its correct ranking of 12th in the list of countries by population density.
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, The Guardian erred in a mention of the 1936 Jarrow March, a landmark in the history of the British Labour movement. The paper described the march as running from York to Aldermaston. A few days later, the paper's daily corrections and clarifications column noted that the march passed neither of these places, and noted that 'the route, with overnight stops, is fully listed on Wikipedia' [7].
The much-anticipated release of the latest Harry Potter book naturally led to a busy spell of activity as its contents were rapidly reduced to a summary for the Wikipedia article.
Last Saturday, within minutes of the book's midnight release in the UK, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was already being synthesized into Wikipedia content and the information distributed to appropriate articles. Occasional vandalism also appeared, but progress was generally smooth and managed to proceed without even requiring much discussion (the book's talk page has yet to be archived; by comparison, the talk page for the 7 July 2005 London bombings had to be archived four times in barely more than a day). As Elian noted, using the current event tag for a book is quite a rarity when that template is usually reserved for topics like elections or catastrophes.
The busiest location was of course the article dedicated to the book itself, which saw well over 1,000 edits within the first 24 hours. As a first step, the list of chapter titles was added, after which brief summaries of each chapter began to appear. The editors had only managed to get as far as Chapter 4 when somebody, apparently having skipped ahead rather than reading all the way through, revealed the ending and unveiled the answer to the book's mystery. Ultimately, the synopsis of all 30 chapters became too large for the main article and on Sunday it was split off into a separate article for the plot summary.
Meanwhile, all of the pre-publication rumours about the book's contents, which had been painstakingly chronicled in anticipation of the event, were relocated shortly before the magical hour to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball). Later the page was nominated for deletion as "speculation and original research", but most people seemed to favor keeping it for historical reasons or simply merging useful material back into the main article.
Wikipedia has dropped a notch in a familiar ranking system, although the available information suggests that the reasons for this have little to do with Wikipedia's growth trends. Also, a glance at what projects different Wikipedias are working on.
Alterego reports that Google has made a major overhaul to its PageRank system, causing Wikipedia to fall back down a notch. Wikipedia, which first reached a PageRank of 9 at the end of May (see archived story), is now again at 8 (out of a possible 10). He notes that Google appears to show a much lower number of incoming links to Wikipedia, compared with the number of links as calculated by MSN. Minh Nguyễn suggests that Google's number may be after weeding out mirror sites that have used Wikipedia content to manipulate their own rankings.
Triddle, who recently started the WikiProject help desk (not to be confused with the Wikipedia:Help desk), is launching an effort to deal with the problem of double redirects. The project is intended as a place to coordinate the use and development of software tools related to Wikipedia. In addition to looking at double redirects, it has previously worked with Dmcdevit on the transwiki process. Note that now that moves are logged, it should be much easier to track down most of the situations in which double redirects get created.
Muriel Gottrop reports that on Sunday the Portuguese Wikipedia achieved a goal of having every article placed in a category. The process was aided by a tool written by Nuno Tavares that keeps track of still-uncategorized articles in real time. An attempt to verify this by checking random articles found no articles lacking categories, although a few new articles have been created since the report and still await categorization.
Until now, the only rewards Wikipedia contributors have received have been the positive feelings that altruism generates and the admiration of their peers. That may all be changing on the German Wikipedia, which has introduced a system whereby people may offer a bounty to encourage the creation or improvement of articles.
The German word for bounty, kopfgeld, literally means 'head money', but the scheme is more likely, say its proponents, to involve the transfer of a small gift such as a CD or a book. Examples of offers so far have included drinks at a forthcoming Wikipedia meetup in return for articles on streets in Berlin, a free weekend on a South Tyrolean farm for an article on the municipality of Sexten, and the altogether less materialistic offer of a good article on the Oslo T-bane metro in return for five good pictures of the T-bane uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.
A number of German blogs and media sites have noted the appearance of this system, which has already been credited with the creation or improvement of several articles. In several cases the 'exchange' has been more in the nature of one article for another, without needing a transaction outside of Wikipedia. These share some common aspects with the game of using WikiMoney (now largely defunct), but the idea appears to be taken more seriously this time.
The scheme is enjoying something of a baptism of fire, however, and has generated strong disapproval from some Wikipedianer who feel it contravenes the wiki spirit. It was initiated on 6 July, but on 18 July Dickbauch nominated the scheme for deletion, saying that the concept was 'diametrically opposed' to the principles of a wiki.
The deletion vote has already attracted strong views on either side of the debate, with those voting delete fearing the beginning of the end of Wikipedia if the scheme continues and forecasting very negative effects of a 'commercialised' wiki. One user said that the project could do without people who would only share their knowledge in return for something.
On the other hand, supporters of the system have said that it does not go against the fundamental principles of building an open content encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view, and that anything which encourages the creation of excellent articles and the improvement of Wikipedia must be a good thing. The debate looks set to be a lengthy one, and will continue until 25 July.
