This week, I'd like to congratulate and thank Michael Snow, who officially leaves the Signpost this week with his appointment to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation (see related story). Michael was, of course, the original founder of the Signpost, serving as editor-in-chief from January 2005 through August 2005, and as a regular contributing writer since then. Over more than three years of writing, Michael contributed more than 300 articles, making him, by far, the most active writer we've had. Michael also helped me adjust into the role as editor-in-chief, and I'll always be grateful for that.
With Michael's departure, our usual need for writers is amplified. For example, due to lack of staffing, we were unable to write an article about press coverage of Wikipedia's usage of images of Muhammad, although coverage was mentioned in the "In the news" report. Those interested in helping out, please contact me.
The members of the board of trustees of Wikimedia Foundation have recently agreed to add two new board members, both being members of our community, for a term which will expire at next board elections (June-July 2008). The first is Michael Snow, long time editor of Wikipedia, and twice
candidate to the board. Rather than presenting him, I recommend that you go read into detail his candidate statements, back in 2004 or in 2007. Michael is an American lawyer, has been the founder of the Signpost and is currently the Chair of the Communication Committee. He is noticeable (somehow) for being very calm and wise.
The second is Domas Mituzas, long time developer in our tech team. He is from Lithuania and works for MySQL. He has been a member of the core tech team for... ever, and is the Foundation hardware volunteer officer. He is noticeable for being a very friendly, cheerful, and tall individual.
Snow finished 5th in the 2007 Board elections, just 25 votes behind Frieda Brioschi, who received the final spot in those elections. In selecting Snow, former Board member Oscar van Dillen was not selected; van Dillen received just 5 more votes than Snow in the 2007 elections, and as a result, did not hold onto the spot which he had been appointed to in December 2006.
Mituzas' selection, meanwhile, was the first time the Board appointed a community representative who had not stood in prior elections. While Mituzas has been a long-time community member, and has served as Hardware Officer, a volunteer position, since May 2005 (see archived story), he has never been a candidate for the Board of Trustees.
Both users' terms will come up for re-election in June or July, in the next series of Board elections. It is not clear whether either of the two replace Michael Davis as Treasurer of the Foundation, or whether that position will be appointed as well. It is possible that the Board will again expand to nine members, adding a new Treasurer and another representative, either elected or appointed.
The Arbitration Committee desysopped Archtransit on Tuesday, February 19, after concerns about the user's administrative actions led to a checkuser, the results of which showed that Archtransit likely controlled many sockpuppets, some of which he had blocked and unblocked previously (possibly to remove the "autoblock" setting that might have revealed his sockpuppet network). A discussion regarding the situation is underway at the administrators' noticeboard.
The English Wikisource has reached 100,000 pages (excluding sub-pages, chapters of various works, etc., GrafZahl has estimated that there are about 24,000 independent works).
The English Wikipedia has reached 2,222,222 articles, and 200,000,000 edits.
Top papers reference Wikipedia and raise question of website’s credibility as source - The rise of Wikipedia has given much food for thought for media outlets in considering what they consider acceptable as sources. For example, Agence France Presse has banned the use of Wikipedia and Facebook as sources, and other organisations write Wikipedia off as false. However, the Wall Street Journal has used Wikipedia for information about the turducken, information that might be difficult to find elsewhere. Jimbo Wales recommends that journalists use Wikipedia for background research as opposed to the single source of information.
Other mentions
Other recent mentions in the online press include:
U. of Texas Professor Praises Wikipedia - Bans on using Wikipedia have been labelled as irresponsible, because students should be trained in the use of future mediums.
A featured article is considered to be one of the best articles in Wikipedia. Featured status is determined by Wikipedia's editors, who review articles nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (WP:FAC) for prose quality, accuracy, neutrality, completeness, stability and style according to Wikipedia's featured article criteria. A small bronze star () on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured.
As of February 18, there were 1,899 featured articles, of a total (as of today) of 6,914,147 articles on Wikipedia. Thus, only about one in 1,040 articles at Wikipedia have been assessed as meeting featured article criteria. From that you might conclude that it is very difficult to write a FA. No, it isn't! Just focus on your efforts, do not be disappointed by any (temporary) setbacks, do not be discouraged by the many myths that surround FAs, and read the following advice!
Is it worth writing a FA?
Why should any Wikipedian strive to create FAs? Is it worth writing a FA? The answer is definitely yes, because in this way Wikipedia is enriched with more articles of high quality that every person around the planet can read for free. It is not an exaggeration to say that by writing FAs you spread your knowledge, and you thus make the world a better place!
How do you write an FA?
First, you must commit yourself to the goal! Hopefully, you'll find the following advice to be helpful. The ten steps that follow will guide you from the beginning of your effort (what subject are you going to choose?) until the successful (what should you do after you nominate the article?) closing of your nomination by the FA Director or his delegates.
Before you nominate the article
1.Choose the right article. Choose an article that you'd really like to improve and its subject excites you so much that researching it becomes pleasurable. A non-controversial article is better to avoid frustration, as well as distractions from other editors with a strong (and different) point of view.
2. Conduct thorough research. Gather some basic sources before you start editing. While writing the article, never stop researching! Look on the Web, in Google, Google Book Search and Google Scholar, in the local library and in your own library! Look everywhere! Printed sources are highly desirable. Compared to online sources, they're more stable and often more credible. Whenever you do an edit, always add a citation so it's clear where the information came from, and so that other editors can also help if they have access to the references you list.
3. Cite everything. A list of references at the bottom of an article is not good enough for a FA anymore; inline citations have now become one of the basic FA criteria. There is no specific rule about how many citations each paragraph should contain. According to the Military History Project, for example, "an article should have copious inline citations." At minimum, you should have at least one citation per paragraph. If you cite everything sentence, you'll avoid the annoying {{citationneeded}} template, and you'll demonstrate to everyone the high level of your research. Assertions, assessments, direct quotes, and hard data absolutely should have definitive cites. Try for a large number of sources, and cite them in such a way that that it doesn't look like you're using one or two sources for everything.
4. Make your prose "compelling, even brilliant". For many contributors, this is the most problematic aspect of preparing a FA candidate (FAC). When you are writing, you should try to make articles tell a story, with clear, logical reasons for why each section comes where it does. The prose shouldn't be too dense or poorly written. If you are not a native English speaker don't be discouraged. These are some things you can do:
Network with other Wikipedians who are interested in the topic and who are skilled at editing prose, and request input from them (before nomination).
Politely ask a highly experienced copy-editor to go through your article. You can always try the League of Copyeditors.
Ask for one or more peer reviews within appropriate Wikiprojects, in order to network with native English speakers who can help you.
Improve your article in direct response to the comments of FAC reviewers (after FAC nomination).
Improve your own writing/editing skills (before and after FAC nomination and continually).
Some further prose suggestions:
If you're stumped or your writing isn't flowing well, take a break and do something else with your free time for a day or so.
The prose can be sentimental but not unencyclopedic or POV. Sentimentalism is a great weapon, if you know how to use it. If you don't know this "art", don't try it!
5. Layout and style. Various things you should check:
Carefully read and follow the instructions of WP:MoS.
Concerning the use of quotations, italics and the way titles of works should be mentioned, check MOS:ITALICS.
The lead needs to summarize the article; it must be neither too long or too short. Two to three paragraphs are usually OK for an article over 30Kb.
The whole article must not be too lengthy. Try to keep its size under 100 Kbs with not more than half of it being prose (that is, not more than about 50 to 55 kbs of text in the main body of the article). If the article is getting too long, a nice solution is to create sub-articles, which you'll summarize in the sections of your article (read carefully WP:Summary style).
Find or create pictures and maps with an acceptable copyright status (check carefully when the use of copyrighted material is acceptable). Place the pictures properly so that they do not overwhelm the screen or squeeze the text, and try to have informative captions.
Quotes and inboxes sometimes offer the "human element". But, again, don't overdo it! Have in mind that the article should not look like Wikiquote and that huge quotes interrupt its flow.
6. Submit for more than one peer review. The peer review is the last but not least step before nomination! The obvious choice is Wikipedia:Peer review. But you'll find peer-review procedures in a number of WikiProjects; these are usually better than the general peer-review forum, because the reviewers there are more experienced and check the peer-reviews more systematically. Try to address the concerns of the reviewers and then elaborate on your improvements in the peer-review page of the article. Don't be indifferent and don't give the impression that you are indifferent to the reviewers' suggestions.
7. Prepare yourself for the FAC nomination. After the peer-reviews are over, take some time to prepare yourself for the usually tough FAC process. Take a look at the WP:FAC page to see what criticisms FACs normally face and what changes reviewers usually suggest or ask about.
After you nominate the article
8. Be there, active. After you nominate the article, devote some time to the nomination; show the reviewers that you are ready to address any concerns they may have. FAC nominations are often demanding; as a nominator, you should follow discussions closely, so that you don't miss something.
9. Be polite and avoid fighting with the FA reviewers. Always be polite. Don't forget to thank the reviewers for their comments, even if they are negative. They have given their time to your reviewing your article and they deserve some praise for that. Believe me: A polite attitude can bring more support. Assume that the comments or criticism that comes from the FA candidate reviewers are being made in good faith. Respond constructively and try to correct whatever they point out. If what they point out seems absurd to you, remain polite. Just explain thoroughly why you think the comments of the reviewer are not on point. Have in mind that if a review unreasonably objects to something, another reviewer will usually come to your defense. In any case, avoid any personal attacks, insults or emotional outbursts. If you are provoked, do not respond.
10. Don't be disappointed. If the nomination fails, do not give up. Keep improving the article. Success will eventually come!
In closing
Remember you are not here for thanks and praise; you are here to share and spread your knowledge. So, when you efforts are crowned with success, remain humble and go for your second FA! Good luck!
Happyme22 successfully brought both Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan (the subject of his first Wikipedia edit in February 2007) to Featured Article status in 2007. Happyme22 was an inexperienced user when he first nominated Ronald Reagan in March 2007, but through its record five FA nominations, he was accepting of all feedback, and kept a positive attitude. Happyme22 worked diligently both to grow as an editor and improve the articles, culminating in the promotion of Ronald Reagan in August 2007. Learning from his mistakes, Happyme22 brought Nancy Reagan through peer review and a successful WikiProject Biography A-class review before nominating it for FA status in October 2007. This nomination remained active for over three weeks as there was a great deal of comment from FA reviewers. One of the most heated issues was how to refer to the subject. She had achieved some degree of fame under her maiden name, and there was concern that readers would be confused that a reference to "Reagan" meant Ronald Reagan, instead of her. The discussion resulted in a consensus update to the Manual of Style for Biographies to provide further guidance for similar articles. The article was promoted on its next nomination in November 2007 with no users opposing.
DrKiernan had an equally exciting journey to FA with Mumia Abu-Jamal. The article was repeatedly brought to FAC by various sockpuppets of banned user DavidYork71, who used the sockpuppets to attack any reviewers who opposed the nomination. DrKiernan took charge of the article and rewrote it almost completely, despite the banned user's continued disruption attempts. The article was promoted to FA status in February 2008, adding to DrKiernan's featured article contributions and Featured article review "saves", mostly in the area of royalty and nobility.
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.
Fixed bugs
The combination of parameters action=raw&templates=expand§ion=section number to a page (meaning 'show wikitext for section section number with templates expanded') now actually works; previously templates were incorrectly not expanded in this case. (r30895, bug 12938)
{{DISPLAYTITLE}}, which is used by templates like {{lowercase}} to change the appearance of an article's title, now works during previews. (r30920, bug 13005)
Image maps (<imagemap>/{{#tag:imagemap|}}) can now link to external URLs that contain ampersands. (bug 11504)
New features
Links to redirects are now marked with class='mw-redirect'; this does not cause any change in their appearance by default, but allows the appearance of links to redirects to be customized in user CSS. (r30876, bug 12968)
Ongoing news
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 one new case this week, and closed two cases, leaving five currently open.
Closed cases
Waterboarding: A case involving a dispute between a large number of editors on Waterboarding, relating to the question as to whether the technique should be described as torture. As a result of the case, the article was placed on article probation and a "general restriction" imposed.
Matthew Hoffman: A case involving controversial blocks of MatthewHoffman by Vanished user. As a result of the case, Vanished user was "provisionally" desysopped for six months, and Matthew Hoffman's block log was annotated to reflect the arbitrators' view that the blocks were unjustified.
Episodes and characters 2: A case involving alleged continuing disruption of articles concerning television series episodes and characters, following on from a prior case. An injunction has been enacted halting certain editing activities on these articles until the case is resolved. Kirill Lokshin has proposed remedies prohibiting TTN from requesting merges, redirections or deletions of these articles, and instructing all parties to "cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question".
Ehud Lesar: A case involving a dispute involving Ehud Lesar, with alleged sockpuppetry on his part and alleged harassment by Fedayee, Eupator and others. Sam Blacketer has proposed a remedy, with the support of Kirill Lokshin, finding that there is insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry and overturning the block.
Highways 2: A case involving editing by NE2 on articles relating to WikiProject U.S. Roads, allegedly against consensus of other editors involved with that wikiproject. A remedy has been proposed counselling editors to consider contributing outside of disputed articles.
) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is featured.
