After a straw poll gained an overwhelming 96% approval, and Jimbo Wales lent his support to the issue, a new semi-protection policy is set to be enacted once the MediaWiki software is updated to allow it.
The idea for a semi-protection policy had been brought up previously. Bug 675, started by Elian in October 2004, proposed protecting pages from IP addresses only. Mysekurity first created the policy page last month, in response to vandalism on George W. Bush. The original idea was to require a minimal amount of edits in order to edit oft-vandalized pages. However, the policy as enacted would allow administrators to lock pages to the newest users, likely the newest 1% of accounts.
It was stressed that the policy is not meant to be used indefinitely. Rather, it would be used in cases such as articles linked from high-traffic sites like Slashdot, which are mostly vandalized by new users and IP addresses. Interestingly, Slashdot publicized this new policy, helping spur some premature media coverage and forcing Wales to post a notice downplaying its significance. He explained that it was part of the broader effort to add quality-related features to Wikipedia, such as article ratings and stable versions of articles.
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week, Jimbo Wales closed the straw poll he had set up to "gauge community input and feedback about the selection process." Citing the result of the poll as a 19-3-25-5 final count with the majority favoring his second proposal, Wales announced that the second proposal, a hybrid approach that requires a Requests for Adminship-like vote by the community, would be used. "The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process," Wales wrote. "The point of the process should be to generate a pool of acceptable candidates from whom I can make appointments." Wales also stated that his "role in putting forward candidates is essentially just a way for me to communicate pre-approval to the community. I don't plan to do that in this term unless it appears that we are overlooking someone particularly noteworthy."
However, no process has been started following Wales's announcement. Community feedback was mixed. "I think deciding the election procedure based on a straw poll... is [an] inherently bad idea. It's not like there was a significant majority in favour of any one of the proposals, either," commented Talrias. "The result of a straw poll is not to use the procedure with the most support, it is to find out why other people didn't like that proposal, and work on improving it so that people who didn't support the original idea will support an improved version (or at least, not oppose as much)." Wales responded to these comments by citing the need to advance the elections: "Yes, but we need to move forward. We do have the luxury of ongoing investigations as we move forward, and flexibility to analyze what works well and doesn't, for next time around."
In addition, some users also questioned the use of the 50 percent requirement. "Would it not make sense to hold ArbCom polls on the principle of consensus rather than simple majority?" questioned Radiant!. "I realize that RFA's criterion (~75%) would be rather difficult to achieve, but 60%-65% sounds workable." Wales responded by saying, "We'll see how well it all goes" and saying that the percent could be adjusted depending on the average percent.
Finally, this week Edivorce (statement), Rowlan (statement), Maywither (statement), Trilemma (statement), and Aranda56 (statement) announced their candidacies. In addition, Talrias withdrew from the race.
Taking Jimmy Wales up on his stated goal of "Britannica-or-better quality" for Wikipedia articles, the scientific journal Nature has conducted a study pitting Wikipedia against the Encyclopædia Britannica. In an article by Jim Giles, "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head", it reported that Wikipedia approaches the quality of Britannica for articles on scientific topics, but hasn't fully matched this standard yet. It was one of the first formal peer reviews that used experts to compare Wikipedia articles with those of another publication.
The results of the study found that in the sample of 42 articles, Encyclopædia Britannica had 123 errors while Wikipedia had 162 (for averages of 2.9 and 3.9 errors per article, respectively). The study was widely discussed in the media, usually interpreted as reflecting favorably on Wikipedia in the aftermath of the Seigenthaler incident, although some coverage emphasized that it showed Wikipedia to be more error-prone.
In an accompanying editorial, Nature encouraged readers to review and help improve articles on scientific topics related to their work. Based on a survey the journal conducted, it noted that relatively few scientists edit Wikipedia (less than 10% of Nature authors). However, the editorial argued that these contributions would be critical "to increase the quality of the mushrooming number of entries." A separate item profiled the efforts of two such contributors, Vaughan Bell and William M. Connolley. Meanwhile, Nobel Prize winner Barry Marshall has reportedly endorsed the Wikipedia article on Helicobacter pylori, the discovery for which he and Robin Warren received the award. (Helicobacter pylori is, in fact, a featured article.)
Although the source of each article was not identified to reviewers in the Nature study, several people commented that a reader likely would have been able to tell the difference based on the content. In media coverage about the study, Britannica officials pointed out that the focus on factual errors neglected considerations of style and writing quality, while spokesman Tom Panelas gave Wikipedia an apparently backhanded compliment for its coverage of such topics as extreme ironing.
A blog entry by a Nature staffer expressed it as a "final score" of 22-10 in favor of Britannica, based on the head-to-head results for each article (the reviews on ten articles resulted in a "draw"). Wikipedia did come out ahead in one sense, 4-2, in the number of articles deemed to have zero errors (these were Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, Lipid, Punctuated equilibrium, and Quark).
The study indicated that the articles were chosen to be of similar length, occasionally helped by trimming material like reference lists. Attempts to determine exactly which revisions of Wikipedia articles had been studied proved difficult, however. An initial reconstruction suggested that Wikipedia's articles were generally longer and therefore actually had fewer errors relative to the amount of content. But this conclusion seems to have been erroneous, as the reconstruction failed to consider all of the material on Britannica's site that is considered a single article. Nevertheless, after attempting to correct for this problem, Wikipedia editor Steven G. Johnson said he remained "mystified" by some of the apparent differences in length.
Nature indicated that they were looking into the possibility of publishing the full list of errors with an explanation of how they were counted. Reviewers may also be identified if they give permission. Preparing this material is expected to take a little time, however. In the meantime, Wikipedia articles that were found to have errors have been flagged with a new "NatureDispute" template.
Tied in with this exploration of Wikipedia from an academic perspective is a long-running debate over the practice of citing Wikipedia (see archived story). While some condone this, it is not generally accepted as good academic practice, and even the press has become more careful about citing Wikipedia since the Seigenthaler controversy. As the Nature editorial put it:
The return to this issue last week was prompted by an interview with Jimmy Wales, conducted by BusinessWeek's Burt Helm, in which Wales was quoted saying that students and researchers shouldn't cite Wikipedia in their work. This quote was picked up and repeated in a number of other places as Wikipedia's founder telling people not to cite it. Less noted was his general comment that "People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place", advice that predates the internet itself, as Jason Fry of the Wall Street Journal observed in an online column.
Voting for stewards will begin on Tuesday, 20 December. Stewards, people who can grant and remove permissions, such as adminship, bureaucratship, or CheckUser, on any Wikimedia project, are considered one of the highest levels in the Wikimedia hierarchy. Stewards are regarded as trusted people who serve all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikisource, in all languages.
The election will run until 10 January, 2006. In order to be elected, a candidate must have garnered at least 30 support votes along with a minimum of 80 percent approval. In addition, the candidate must have been active on a Wikimedia project for at least three months and have a user page there. After the elections, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees will then select between one to ten of the candidates who have met the requirements to become stewards.
Voting will consist of both for and against votes. Though no official rules regarding the suffrage of voters have been announced, last year's election enfranchised anyone with a meta account and participation in a Wikimedia project with at least three months of participation.
As of press time, ten candidates had joined the race: Jean-Christophe Chazalette, Ausir, Romihaitza, Evilphoenix, Arno Lagrange, Walter, Traroth, Klemen Kocjancic, Paginazero, and Jredmond.
A Wikimedia Foundation fundraising drive began Friday. The fundraiser, which will last for three weeks, ends on 6 January. At press time, US$54,479.66 had been raised, and the $16,285.68 raised on 18 December was the highest one-day total yet for a Wikimedia fundraiser. Although no specific goal has been set, Daniel Mayer, Wikimedia CFO, indicated he hoped it could raise at least USD $500,000.
After a series of page moves, United States was inadvertently deleted for over an hour. The cause was a move conflict by administrators trying to fix the moves. When administrators tried to undelete the article, they were unable to do so. brion finally undeleted the article. Interestingly, the deletion log shows no page deletion during this time.
Prestigious scientific journal Nature published "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" on December 14 (see related story), with accompanying podcast (December 15), editorial ("Wiki's wild world", which encourages scientists to contribute to Wikipedia), and Nascent blog entry ("Comparing Wikipedia and Britannica").
Scientific American reported the study in its own blog article ("Wiki This") on December 15, also inviting scientists to improve Wikipedia.
A segment of the American National Public Radio show All Things Considered discussed the Nature report in "Assessing Wikipedia's Accuracy" on December 15.
The favorable comparison was widely reported in the media, including BBC News and MSNBC. Many more articles were based on the Associated Press story "Science Journal: Wikipedia Pretty Accurate" by Dan Goodin. AP outlets included Forbes, The Age, CBC, Al Jazeera and more. Many contrasted the good review with the poor reflection of Wikipedia in the Seigenthaler controversy last week (see archived story).
BBC technology commentator Bill Thompson provides a balanced perspective in the editorial "What is it with Wikipedia?" on December 16, while Business Week journalist Bill Helms wrote the syndicated article "A Vote of Confidence in Wikipedia" on December 14. Popular group blog Many2Many published danah boyd's analysis "Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler" on December 17.
Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Johnson is more critical in "Wikipedia: Raising perhaps more questions than answers", published December 15, and on December 14, former Encyclopedia Britannica editor Robert McHenry wrote another critical piece about Wikipedia at TCS Daily, entitled "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks". The Guardian ran a column by Charles Arthur, "Log on and join in, but beware the web cults", on December 15 that compared Wikipedia to a cult.
British newspaper The Times reported on December 15 that "Wikipedia hit by surge in spoof articles". However, despite increased traffic and an increase in the overall number of edits due to the recent media attention, vandalism patrollers reported no unusual increase in the percentage of malicious edits. According to members at the Village pump, some of the edits pictured in the screenshots used in the Times article were available for only seconds before they were reverted.
On December 16 SmartMoney published a free copy of the Esquire article edited by Wikipedians (see archived story). Before and after versions of the article, with footnoted commentary, can be seen at "Wikiworld: The Experiment".
A new resource for reporters investigating Wikipedia has been put together by User:Beland and others at Wikipedia:Press Kit.
Satiric newspaper The Onion briefly mentioned Wikipedia in "Iraqi Insurgency on the Internet".
The web comic Penny Arcade published both a comic strip ("I Have The Power!") and a blog entry about the perils of Wikipedia's editing process.
Wikipedia was cited this week in the following publications:
Websites:
Seventeen users were granted admin status this week: Brendanconway (nom), Orioane (nom), SoLando (nom), CLW (nom), Alhutch (nom), Syrthiss (nom), The Land (nom), EvanProdromou (nom), Pablo-flores (nom), Rschen7754 (nom), Freakofnurture (nom), Shanel (nom), Mo0 (nom), Adashiel (nom), Leithp (nom), Ianbrown (nom) and Bogdangiusca (nom). Ianbrown received the most support with (62/0/1).
Fourteen articles were featured this week: The West Wing (television), Blues, Douglas Adams, Dietrich v The Queen, History of the Australian Capital Territory, White's tree frog, Fred Phelps, De Lorean DMC-12, Prostitution in the People's Republic of China, TGV, Prostate cancer, Dinosaur, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Delrina.
The following featured articles were displayed last week on the main page as Today's featured article: Isaac Newton, KaDee Strickland, Shoe polish, Canadian House of Commons, Java programming language, Herbig-Haro object and Yoweri Museveni.
One list reached featured list status this week: List of Scottish ODI cricketers.
Five pictures reached featured picture status this week:
Server-related events, problems, and changes included:
The Arbitration Committee closed one case this week, brought against Rangerdude.
A case against Rangerdude was closed on Sunday. As a result, Rangerdude has been placed on probation for one year. Both Rangerdude and Willcmw were admonished regarding their actions with respect to separate Wikipedians with their own articles. Those Wikipedians, Cberlet and Nskinsella, respectively, were cautioned to "avoid over-involvement" in their articles. Finally, Nskinsella was cautioned about making personal attacks. The Arbitration Committee found that Rangerdude had edited with "an aggressive" POV at times, and had been involved in disputes with Cberlet. Willcmw, meanwhile, had quarrelled with Nskinsella, making an inappropriate edit at least once. Nskinsella had in turn made personal attacks against Willmcw.
Cases were accepted this week against Benjamin Gatti (user page) and Sortan (user page). Both are in the evidence phase.
Other cases against Gibraltarian (user page), Carl Hewitt (user page), voters on webcomics AFDs, Reddi (user page), EffK (user page), numerous editors on Neuro-linguistic programming, Johnski (user page), and a series of editors on Winter Soldier are in the evidence phase.
Cases against Copperchair (user page), Xed (user page), editors on climate change-related articles, AndriyK (user page), Fuelwagon and Ed Poor, editors Ted Wilkes, Wyss, and Onefortyone, numerous editors on Political Research Associates, and Ultramarine are in the voting phase.
A motion to close is on the table in the case against numerous editors on Ted Kennedy.
