Editor's note: The Wikipedia Signpost is an independent, community newspaper, and is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. The contents of this page are that of their authors alone, and may not reflect the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A relationship between Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales and Canadian political columnist Rachel Marsden became public this week. The revelation of this relationship raised allegations of impropriety on Marsden's article, which has been the subject of OTRS requests, and an arbitration case decided in November 2006.
The relationship was first rumored on Friday by Valleywag, a self-described "tech gossip rag" that focuses on Silicon Valley news.[1] Valleywag reported that Wales had been separated from his wife since August, and had dated Marsden since "last fall". The story spread quickly, and soon reached the mainstream media, fueled by his admission of a brief relationship, and the publication of a series of chats released by Marsden, purported to have occurred between the two. One set of extracts discuss in graphic terms their personal relationship, while another purports to show Wales using his influence to have her article changed on her behalf.
Among the allegations made by Valleywag was that, according to an anonymous tip, Wales had "sent a mass email to a 'special' Wikipedia list of admins at the beginning of February, right before he was set to spend the weekend with Marsden in DC. Said he wanted her page cleaned up."[2] This allegation, backed by purported extracts from chats intended to prove the matter, was seen by many as the most severe, as it implied that Wales ordered changes to her Wikipedia biography with an ulterior motive.
Wales said that he had been in consultation with the OTRS team, a group of Wikipedians that handle e-mails from the public, including concerns from article subjects regarding potential violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. He said that before meeting with Marsden for the first time, "I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography."
The Wikipedia Signpost contacted three separate sources on the otrs-en-l mailing list. Each user confirmed that Wales sent an e-mail to the list in early February 2008; the e-mail discussed what he saw as concerns with Marsden's article, and Wales' recusal from handling the matter due to a growing friendship:
Other than a possible followup to this email with any clarifications that Rachel might have (I will show it to her later) I am going to recuse myself for at least a while from dealing with this case. As I have mentioned before, Rachel contacted me during the most recent round of major revisions to her article via Facebook. We struck up a friendly conversation about her new website ... In the past week or so we have struck up something of a personal friendship, and I offered to meet with her and give some feedback on her website design and business model.
At the end of the e-mail, he made it a point to say,
As such, at least for the time being, I may have a sufficient COI regarding this case that I should not edit the article or do anything "official" ... so please treat any emails from me about this as emails from a friend of a BLP, not as policy or anything similar to that. (And, as I say, other than posting direct clarifications after talking to Rachel, I intend to just steer clear of it completely.) This is particularly important ... [because] I want to be particularly careful not to give anyone an excuse to make up bizarre allegations.
After the e-mail was sent, two edits were made to Rachel Marsden by JzG. These edits concerned an incident involving Marsden and a Canadian counterterrorism officer with whom she was having an affair. The edits changed the timeline of the events, in line with a source, added some cited information, and removed a reference to sexually-explicit photos purported to be of the officer, along with e-mails purportedly from the officer, sent by Marsden to the National Post. The National Post had said of the latter that "the photos do not show the man's face, and the newspaper could not verify the origins of the images and accompanying letters.", commenting that she also had made claims of a long term relationship in that case, which the officer had denied.[3]
Marsden's biography has been the source of much controversy, mostly involving her role in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy. An arbitration case, requested by RachelMarsden, banned Arthur Ellis for one month, and additionally instituted the following two remedies:
* Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit.
- Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied.
After the story became public, Wales issued a public response, originally published in his userspace and later moved to his personal blog:
Over the last few days, a few gossip websites have decided that my personal life is somehow of interest to people and, against my wishes, are publicizing details about a brief relationship I had with Rachel Marsden. While, typically, this would not warrant a response, because my role with Wikipedia is being dragged into it, I felt the need to set the record straight on a couple of issues.
First, while I find it hard to imagine that anyone really cares about my sex life, the facts are: I am separated from my wife. I considered myself single at the time of my one meeting with Rachel Marsden on February 9th, 2008. I am no longer involved with Rachel Marsden. Gossipy stories suggesting that I have been in a relationship with her “since last fall” are completely false.
The second, and far more important, issue is this false notion which is being peddled that I intervened inappropriately to redraft her Wikipedia biography. The facts are that, in Wikipedia, I work closely with a team called “OTRS,” which handles email complaints and works hard to address concerns relating to the biographies of living persons. Rachel Marsden first approached me via email two years ago with complaints about her bio. We had never met. I subsequently reviewed her bio and I found it not to be up to our standards. My involvement in cases like this is completely routine, and I am proud of it.
I decided to meet Rachel Marsden in person for the first time in early February of this year. Accordingly, three days before that meeting, to avoid any appearance of a potential conflict of interest, I disclosed my plans to OTRS and further disclosed that it was a personal matter. I recused myself from any further official action with respect to her biography.
I care deeply about the integrity of Wikipedia, and take very seriously my responsibilities as a Member of the Board and as a member of the Wikipedia community. I would never knowingly do anything to compromise that trust.[4]
The response emphasizes Wales' contention that their relationship began in February, after his e-mail to the OTRS list. Valleywag had claimed that the relationship began "last fall". The Signpost contacted Marsden regarding the date disparity, but she chose not to comment on the story.
Marsden did talk to The Canadian Press, however; there, she claimed that this statement was made before she was told of the breakup, and that she was first told via an instant message from Wales.[5] In response to the breakup, Marsden placed a T-shirt and sweater, which she claimed were Wales', on eBay. As of press time, bidding on the T-shirt was at US$2,025 (with earlier, discounted bids as high as $15,000), while bidding on the sweater was at $857.47.
After the story broke on Valleywag, the story did not initially gain much mainstream press coverage. The first mainstream coverage came from The Canadian Press (syndicated on the website of CBC News), which focused mainly on Marsden's involvement in the relationship.[5] Since that initial article, the issue has received coverage by various press sources:
Following the revelation of his relationship, former Foundation employee Danny Wool alleged in a blog post that Wales had had affairs previously. More controversial, however, was an allegation that Wales was careless when dealing with Foundation monies:
[Wales] was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad, but when it came to handing in receipts, he could be somewhat careless. At one point he owed the Foundation some $30,000 in receipts, and this while we were preparing for the audit. Not a bad sum, considering that many of those trips had fat honoraria, which Jimbeau kept for himself. (Florence will surely remember his explanation for one of these: "I don’t make any money, and my wife needs a washing machine." Her response was wonderful: "A gold-plated washing machine?")
So [Wales] cancelled an upcoming trip to Italy, Serbia, and Croatia, and got to work finding receipts. I helped process them. ... In the end he reached a deal with Brad — details unknown — and paid the Foundation about $7,000 in two checks. I don't know what happened with the rest, but the checks can be found in the list of donors.[6]
A later post clarified,
This questionable use of Foundation funds stopped in 2006, largely because Jimbeau's credit card was taken away [by the Board of Trustees]. I do not believe, nor do I have any reason to believe, that it is continuing.[7]
In response to the first story, Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner replied,
Over the past few days, I've been struggling a little with how to respond to this. I don't want to get drawn into a long back-and-forth in which Danny makes an ongoing series of loose insinuations, and the Foundation then needs to painstakingly reconstruct past events in order to refute him point-by-point. So I'm going to make one simple statement: Jimmy has never used Wikimedia money to subsidize his personal expenditures. Indeed, he has consistently put the Foundation's interests ahead of his own, and has erred on the side of personally paying for his own Wikimedia-related expenditures, rather than the reverse.[8]
Wales has not yet made any statement regarding Wool's allegations; the allegations received press attention in a Valleywag post, and a Wired News piece on Monday (syndicated by ABC News and published there on Tuesday).
Perhaps most public of all is a just-released Associated Press article, which has been syndicated through the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and other sources. The article mentions Wales' relationship with Marsden, but deals mainly with Wool's allegations of financial impropriety. In an interview with the Associated Press, Foundation Chair Florence Devouard defended Wales, but was quoted in a private exchange with board members as saying to Wales, "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip!"
The article also quotes Wales, in response to a question about Devouard's e-mail: "The board, the current executive director, the previous executive director, and independent auditors have reviewed our books and publicly agree that all of my expenses were appropriate and fully accounted for." Former Foundation general counsel and interim executive director Brad Patrick, meanwhile, said Wool had been "irresponsibly erroneous" and "seems interested in blogging his way straight to a lawsuit," in an exchange with the AP.
This week, after just two requests for bureaucratship in the last seven months, a record eleven users applied for bureaucratship. As of press time, six had withdrawn their requests, and as of press time, one looked likely to pass, with another RFB within discretionary range. All five remaining RFBs are scheduled to end on Thursday.
The series of nominations began after Majorly posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, asking for administrators to nominate themselves: "This is a general request for all admins: if you think you can take on the role of a bureaucrat, please nominate yourself for bureaucratship today! At the moment, there's only (I think) 3 really active bureaucrats, and I believe that a new face or two would be a good thing at this time." Many other users agreed, and on February 28, eleven users nominated themselves for bureaucratship.
As of press time, the five active RfBs were:
The following six users withdrew their nominations, as of press time:
The occurrence of multiple bureaucratship nominations is not uncommon. In July 2007, a then-record seven nominations over a few days resulted in the promotion of two bureaucrats (see archived story). However, never have so many users (eleven) nominated themselves in one day, nor have so many users (six) withdrawn RfBs in one day.
In the wake of the RfBs, users questioned what the current consensus was for RfBs. While the guide to requests for adminship's section on bureaucratship indicated a usual passing percentage of 90%, some noted that Andrevan's July 2007 RfB passed at just 86.7% support. A discussion and straw poll ensued on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, with opinions ranging from 75% support, to 80-85% support, to 90% support as suggested RfB passing percentages.
Bureaucrat WJBscribe noted his opinion on consensus within RfBs:
I'm not sure that "consensus" is the right word to describe what is being looked for at the moment in promoting bureaucrats - we could add an adjective like "strong" before consensus but I'm not sure that would be pretty meaningful. It has been clear that the English Wikipedia community expects bureaucrat candidates to have significantly more support than candidates for adminship. ...
It is hard to point definitively to when 90% became seen as the marker that had to be reached, but I think one must acknowledge that this happened at some point. Instead of consensus, the language that has been used and I think best reflects the approach today is that RfBs require "no significant opposition". That is a high bar, hard (but not impossible) for candidates to pass. Its result is obvious, few new bureaucrats are created. Wikipedia nevertheless have more active bureaucrats than any other project - 12 bureaucrats have used performed crat actions in the last 2 months. The work is however unevenly divided amongst them. The community may of course discuss promotion thresholds for bureaucrats, reach a consensus that those should be lowered and bureaucrats will of course act accordingly. I agree with those who have pointed out that it would be unwise to alter the approach while requests are live as this would create uncertainty in an area where a reasonable certainty of outcomes is desirable. I do not believe a bureaucrat could function if a sizable proportion felt they had been promoted improperly. No doubt should there be an agreement to lower the bar for successful RfBs, we will be seeing more candidates in the future.
All five remaining RfBs are scheduled to close on Thursday; the Signpost will report on the results of these next week.
On February 13, Wikimedia Foundation Chair Florence Devouard announced the appointment of two new board members: Michael Snow, and developer Domas Mituzas. Last week, the Signpost interviewed Snow (see archived story). This week, the Signpost interviews Domas Mituzas.
In her announcement, Devouard touted Mituzas's work as a developer for the foundation and MySQL:
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 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. (Recent email on foundation list). He is noticeable for being a very friendly, cheerful, and tall individual.
Wikipedia Signpost: First of all, Domas, congratulations on joining the Board of Trustees. You've worked for MySQL AB, and served as the Hardware Officer for the Wikimedia Foundation for a time. How will those experiences help you as a board member?
Over the next few years, what do you see as the greatest threat to Wikimedia's goals? How do you think the Foundation and the Board can work toward avoiding this threat?
In a recent e-mail you sent (State of technology: 2007), you mentioned a few hardware purchases in late 2006 and early 2007; since then, no major purchases have been made by the Foundation. You said that "We do plan to improve on database and storage servers soon"; is there any new information on this?
When it comes to fundraising, what do you see as the Foundation's primary strength? What do you see as its primary weakness?
As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?
Finally, your position expires in June. At this point, are you planning on running for a full two-year term?
As of February 20, 2008, in revision 31113, categories with the magic word __HIDDENCAT__ on them will not show up as a category on their member pages (see archived story). Originally, this caused parent categories to also not show up on their sub-categories' pages, but that was fixed in revision 31121. There is also an option in a user's miscellaneous preferences to show all hidden categories. Currently, the best way to hide a category is to place {{hiddencat}} (which is actually a template, unlike {{DEFAULTSORT}}, which is a magic word that includes the braces) on it, which adds not only the magic word, but also a notice informing readers that the category is not shown.
There is currently much discussion over which categories the magic word should be placed on. The current consensus seems to be that any category that categorizes the article should be hidden, whereas categories that categorize the subject need to be shown. For example, Category:Articles that need to be wikified is hidden, but Category:Percussion instruments stays visible. Category:Hidden categories (which is not, for the record, a hidden category) lists all currently hidden categories. However, consensus is not clear about whether or not stub categories need to be hidden. Some argue that they are maintenance categories and do not directly contribute to the encyclopedia, while others argue that hiding stub categories would severely hinder the processes of stub sorting and categorizing. Also, stubs tend to have few categories, and sometimes only a stub category categorizes an article.
Some users have also suggested using hidden categories as a way to crudely implement category intersections. This would basically work by adding an article to all categories that applied to it, and hiding the sub-categories. The example given in the discussion, the George Washington Bridge, would be visibly in the categories for bridges, things completed in 1931, things related to the Hudson River, suspension bridges, toll roads, etc. It would also be in categories such as bridges completed in 1931, toll suspension bridges, and toll bridges completed in 1931, but these would be hidden. Some users were concerned about the sheer number of new categories this would entail, though. In the example, the George Washington bridge would also be categorized under toll suspension bridges completed in 1931 related to the Hudson River. Each extra primary category on a page would add more and more sub-categories.
In January, the Signpost interviewed author John Broughton (see archived story). This week, we review his first book, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (ISBN 0596515162).
Though Wikipedia has entered its eighth year, few books have been written about Wikipedia, and no books have provided a guide to editing Wikipedia. John Broughton's Wikipedia: The Missing Manual is the first of its kind, showing beginners the basics of editing Wikipedia, step-by-step.
| Book Review |
| Wikipedia: The Missing Manual |
| By John Broughton |
| 477 pages, Pogue Press / O'Reilly Media |
| US$29.99 / GBP 18.50 |
"The Missing Manual" is a series first started by David Pogue, with Pogue Press and O'Reilly Media. The books purport to be "the book that should have been in the box" on various software, serving as a broad, basic explanation of the software.
This book is split up into five major parts: "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles", "Collaborating with Other Editors", "Formatting and Illustrating Articles", "Building a Stronger Encyclopedia", and "Customizing Wikipedia". Within each part are two to seven chapters, each examining a particular skill or activity.
In Part I, Broughton starts with a basic explanation of how to edit, showing readers the basics of wiki-syntax, citations, registration, watchlists, vandalism, and creating an article from scratch. Accompanying each chapter is a series of screenshots, walking the reader through each process, step by step. Nearly all of this material will be common knowledge to most experienced editors, but for new editors, and even some infrequent editors, this section will be very useful.
Part II, which may be the book's most helpful section, is that of collaborating with other editors. Broughton explains proper use of article talk pages and user talk pages, as well as the use of e-mail and IRC within Wikipedia, in Chapter 8. Chapters 9 through 12 deal with WikiProjects, dispute resolution, handling incivility and personal attacks, and giving other users a hand, respectively. Broughton's handling of dispute resolution is especially worth noting; he spends just over one page of the sixteen-page section on formal dispute resolution, devoting the rest to ways of avoiding disputes, and resolving disputes informally. I thought this was especially notable, and worth emphasizing.
Part III moves on to formatting and illustrating articles, showing users how to improve sections and headings, create and edit lists and tables, and upload and add images. The section on images emphasizes the use of free images, and makes a point of emphasizing strict policies regarding the use of non-free images.
Part IV covers various ways of building a stronger encyclopedia, including naming policies, use of redirects, categorization, deletion of problematic articles, and writing "better articles" (a chapter covering all aspects of improving articles, from sourcing to "deleting cruft"). Finally, Part V deals with "Customizing Wikipedia", through preferences and user scripts. The book ends with three useful appendixes: "A tour of the Wikipedia page", the useful "Reader's Guide to Wikipedia", and "Learning more", showing contributors how to learn more than what the book details.
I was pleased to see that Broughton emphasized many areas that might be ignored by the casual editor, but that are necessary for improving the encyclopedia. For example, the book devotes its entire second chapter to reliable sources and citations, oft overlooked by new editors, but essential to writing a quality article.
What does the book provide besides what's already on Wikipedia? While most of the information within Wikipedia: The Missing Manual is already on Wikipedia, the book's tight-knit organization is what really makes it stand out from online help. The book can be used as a reference book for certain tasks, but can also be read as a step-by-step tutorial, walking through the various issues one might experience while editing Wikipedia.
So, is this book worth buying? If you're a new editor, I think the well-organized information, combined with numerous examples, is an invaluable resource. For others, the book's utility will depend on how experienced you are.
Overall, I thought Wikipedia: The Missing Manual served its goal quite well: It explains the basics of Wikipedia to new users, diving into the important parts of Wikipedia and its culture, without overburdening them with unnecessary information. It could very well become the "Missing Manual" of choice for new Wikipedians.
The New York Review of Books also reviewed Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. While the review focuses very little of its attention on Broughton's book itself, novelist Nicholson Baker's review can be read as that of a curious Wikipedia editor (Wageless); Baker describes first discovering deletion processes, a feeling of triumph after saving his first article from deletion, and briefly becoming addicted to Wikipedia. The review, which is largely positive with regards to both Wikipedia and the book, is worth reading as well.
The February 2008 elections for coordinators of WikiProject Military history have concluded, with Roger Davies elected to a six-month term as Lead Coordinator, and eight others elected and re-elected to assistant coordinator positions.
| # | Username | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Roger Davies | 53 |
| 2 | Blnguyen | 44 |
| 3 | TomStar81 | 39 |
| T-4 | Eurocopter tigre | 36 |
| T-4 | Kyriakos | 36 |
| 6 | Nick Dowling | 35 |
| 7 | LordAmeth | 34 |
| 8 | Wandalstouring | 33 |
| 9 | Woody | 31 |
| 10 | MBK004 | 22 |
| 11 | Narson | 9 |
| 12 | R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) | 8 |
| 13 | Shibumi2 | 6 |
| 14 | Dreamafter | 4 |
| 15 | Trulystand700 | 2 |
Davies takes the role of Lead Coordinator from Kirill Lokshin, who served in the position continuously from its beginning in February 2006, and was elected to four terms as Lead Coordinator. Kirill Lokshin chose not to run for another term in these elections.
Davies, meanwhile, was first elected to the position of Assistant Coordinator in the August 2007 elections, finishing ninth, and receiving the last position available. However, Davies became well-known within the project when he played a major role in organizing the 2007 Tag & Assess Drive, which resulted in the evaluation of 69,000 articles, nearly half of which were subsequently tagged and assessed as military history-related.
Of the other seven incumbent Assistant Coordinators, four stood for re-election, and all four were re-elected: LordAmeth (re-elected to a fourth term), Kyriakos (re-elected to a third term), and TomStar81 and Eurocopter tigre (each re-elected to a second term). Wandalstouring, who was also elected as an Assistant Coordinator, previously served two terms as Assistant Coordinator, from August 2006 to August 2007, but did not seek re-election in the August 2007 elections.
Only three of the eight Assistant Coordinator positions were filled by new coordinators: Blnguyen, Nick Dowling, and Woody. Woody ran for the position of Coordinator in the August 2007 elections (as Woodym555), but finished one vote behind Davies for the final position.
Upon the retirement of Kirill Lokshin, project members discussed whether the position of a lead coordinator was necessary, with nine coordinators working together. Since its inception, the position of lead coordinator has been largely titular, with the lead coordinator developing and implementing consensus along with assistant coordinators. As part of the election, users were offered the choice of maintaining the status quo (option 2), having the lead coordinator work in more of a leadership role, delegating tasks to assistant coordinators (option 1), or eliminating the position of lead coordinator altogether, with nine equally important coordinators (option 3). Almost unanimously, project members chose option 2, maintaining the status quo, with Roger Davies as the titular lead coordinator.
The Military history WikiProject is one of the most active WikiProjects; among its many accomplishments are:
This week's WikiWorld comic uses text from "Extreme ironing". The comic is released under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
The Encyclopedia of Life, a collaborative encyclopedia devoted to cataloging all species of living organisms, opened this week. The encyclopedia is supported by a US$110.5 million grant from various organizations, including the MacArthur Foundation and the Sloan Foundation. The site started with 30,000 entries; upon its launch on 26 February, it was overrun by traffic, and reverted to a less server-intensive demonstration until 28 February.
The effort is similar to that of Wikispecies and other online projects; the initiative will apparently rely partially on existing projects, including the Catalogue of Life and Fishbase.
Website: EOL.org
This week, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees announced five new resolutions. One of the resolutions officially selected new board member Domas Mituzas as the Board's Executive Secretary, replacing Erik Möller. The other four resolutions approved new Wikimedia chapters:
English Wikipedia editor and Esperanto Wikipedia administrator William O'Ryan (Oryanw), died on February 12, 2008. O'Ryan contributed over 4,000 edits to the Esperanto Wikipedia, and 458 edits to the English Wikipedia. His last edits were in September.
A paper submitted to peer-reviewed medical journal Genetics and Molecular Research cited Wikipedia; the only claim cited to Wikipedia within the paper, however, also includes the citation of a primary source.
Raul654 discovered that 2007 science fiction film The Last Mimzy used a series of DNA-related images from Wikipedia in a classroom scene, one of which was a derivative of an image first created by Raul654. He said that the images included Image:DNA-labels.png, Image:DNA Overview.png, and Image:Thymine chemical structure.png.
It's almost that time of year. In a tradition that dates back to medieval times, on April 1 we celebrate April Fools' Day. Some media outlets follow suit by printing hoax articles – probably the best known of which was the BBC's spaghetti tree hoax.
We are again approaching April Fools. In past years at Wikipedia, there has been quite a debate as to how to handle April Fools. Raul654 first proposed an April Fools' Day featured article in March 2005, stipulating that the article must first pass FAC like any other daily featured article; because a featured article must be factually accurate, this means no made up articles. No article was written and featured in time for April Fools' Day 2005; instead, the main page was filled with hoaxes: Bishonen's infamous European toilet paper holder article as the FA, and Britannica was taking over Wikimedia in the news. A number of complaints followed, such as on wikien-l where Mav and Danny complained that as a site with credibility issues, we were doing ourselves a disservice.
On April Fools 2006 we featured Spoo as an unusual article, and in 2007 we featured George Washington (inventor) – written primarily by Pharos. The latter appeared on the main page written as if it were a hoax; everything in the description, however, was entirely true. Because of the success, and the fact that we really did have many people confused, this is the path we are going to follow in future years, if we have articles that allow it.
Ideas for an article that could be brought to featured status in time for April 1, 2008 can be culled from unusual articles, which offers a potential list including Ima Hogg, Mozart's Leck mich im Arsch (translated as "Kiss my ass"; literally: "Lick me in the ass"), Casu marzu and Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116.
In 2006 and 2007, the main page Did you know? section ran hooks for pages that were odd enough to seem like April Fools' jokes, but were actually referenced articles. In order to select these gems, the usual requirement for new material was waived. Selected articles included:
Suggestions discussed for 2008 include snail racing, Halley's Comet, and Wiener sausages.
This week, we interviewed Nanonic (talk · contribs) about his views on the Football (soccer) WikiProject. The project is one of the largest on Wikipedia, with over 400 active participants. Nanonic has been a member of the project for quite a while now, so we thought it best placed to ask him first. The scope and involvement of the project is, according to the project homepage "...to establish and organise standards for football related articles resulting in well-structured and well-written articles, and possibly also in featured articles, and also making all articles related to football easy to find". It is also one of the most acclaimed projects on Wikipedia with thirty-four featured articles, two featured topics, a featured picture, fifty-six GAs and over one hundred DYKs.
This week's tutorial explains the syntax for the ImageMap extension of the MediaWiki software, which allows images and sections thereof, of any shape and size, to link to any type of page link that can be linked to via text (any valid wikilink, interwiki link, or external link).
A basic understanding of image syntax is assumed.
An ImageMap does not behave the way a normal image does, where clicking anywhere on an image opens its image description page. Instead, with an ImageMap, clicking on the image is the equivalent of clicking on a link; different sections of the image may link to different pages, including external links. ImageMap should generally only be used with free images (that is, those that do not fall under the non-free content criteria), because creating an ImageMap can be regarded as a substantial modification of an image.
ImageMaps are generally used within templates, where it is desirable to have images or icons link to particular pages or sections of a page, and in portals, where it links icons for related portals to that portal and links the logos of various projects in the interwiki section to their respective projects. If ImageMap does not add to the presentation of a template, portal, or article, it should probably not be used, since the ideal behaviour—for transparency with image licensing—is to have the image link to the description page.
To summarize:
To create an ImageMap, one can use either the tags <imagemap> and </imagemap>, or the magic word (and ParserFunction) {{#tag:imagemap| }}. The <tag> format is generally preferable (a good practice) for simple ImageMaps, but does not (currently) function properly with template parameters, magic words, or ParserFunctions. In this case, the {{#tag}} format is a simple and effective workaround, which replaced older, usability-troublesome CSS workarounds for templates that created images linked to alternate pages, such as {{click}}.
To summarize:
<imagemap> and </imagemap>, or {{#tag:imagemap| and }}.The first line of any ImageMap must be a line specifying the image being used. If no image is specified, or the image that is specified does not exist, then the ImageMap will produce the following error message:
Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.
Note, however, that there must be a linebreak after the imagemap tag (of either form) and before this line. This image code is identical in syntax to normal image syntax, albeit without the surrounding square brackets ([[ ]]). All of the basic image syntax and extended image syntax applies, though options such as thumb may not be fully supported by ImageMap. The text provided as a comment in the image syntax on this line is not visible except as alternative text when the image is unavailable, except for options such as thumb which might use it.
[[Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg|100px]], the ImageMap code for the first line would beImage:WikipediaSignpostHead.svg|100pxTo summarize:
[[ and ]] from around the image syntaxAfter the first line, any valid lines are acceptable. Usually the second line, and perhaps more following it, contain the area or areas which the ImageMap uses to map to the image. An ImageMap must have at least one area, or default target, specified, or it outputs an error message like the following:
Each line that describes an area can be subdivided into three parts: the type of area, numerical parameters for that area as necessary, and a valid wikilink or external link. These parts are separated on the line by spaces. When hovering over an area, the link destination, or the alternate text (if provided), is displayed as the tooltip when applicable.
Numerical parameters often take the form of coordinates; these coordinates are the number of pixels from the upper-left-hand corner given the default size of the image. When a 150px-wide image is scaled to 50px, the upper-right-hand corner will be designated 150 0 despite the image as rendered only being 50px wide.
When two or more areas overlap, the area specified first in the code takes precedence.
There are four types of area that can be used. For the more complex areas, it is easiest to use the visual ImageMap editor on the toolserver:
default and the link. It specifies a default target for the image where no areas are specified which overrides the default behaviour of no link for otherwise unlinked areas. Most simple ImageMaps with a single target should use only this type for simplicity. This type should only be specified once, and should be the last type specified by order.default [[Wikilink|Tooltip text]]rect should be specified, and then two points are specified using four numbers separated only by spaces. The first two numbers correspond to the top-left corner of the rectangle, and the second pair correspond to its bottom-right corner. The number pairs are distances, in pixels, first horizontally and then vertically from the top-left pixel of the image, relative to its default size. For example, the top-left pixel of the image has the coordinates 0 0, while the pixel two to the right and one downwards from it would be 2 1. After these coordinates are specified, any valid link, in normal wiki syntax, is used.rect 0 0 150 150 [[Wikilink|Tooltip text]]circle. After specifying the coordinates for the centre of the circle as for the corner of a rectangle, a third single number specifies the radius of the circle, in pixels. After this is specified, any valid link, as for the rectangle, is used.circle 100 100 50 [[Wikilink|Tooltip text]]poly allows one to specify a polygon as an area by specifying the coordinates for each point of the polygon in turn, using the same method used to define points for the rectangle. Irregular shapes may therefore be properly mapped. When polygons are defined, they must be placed before any other shapes in the code. The number of points used should be kept to a minimum, especially as polygons with many points sometimes do not work. Polygons with fewer than 20 points should always work. For more complex shapes, using multiple overlapping polygons is an effective workaround and helps simplify each shape. After the last point, any valid link can be used.poly 0 0 0 150 150 0 [[Wikilink|Tooltip text]]Since images should, as a good practice, include a link to the image description page, ImageMap includes, by default, an information icon on the image linking to the image description page. This by default displays on the bottom-right of an image, but can be changed by using desc and a location: any of top-right, bottom-right, bottom-left, top-left, or none to disable it completely.
desc parameter allows you to change the location of the information icon, or disable it.
desc noneOnce all of the elements have been determined, they can be placed within the container of choice, separated by linebreaks. The following ImageMap demonstrates valid syntax:
<imagemap> File:Bad Title Example.png|275px|border|This is used as alternate text. #Note that in the above line, the border style is invoked. # Polygons appear first in the code, always. poly 14 186 25 219 52 219 63 186 [http://www.wikipedia.org This link is polygon-shaped, and uses an external link.] rect 107 32 256 182 [[Earth|This rectangle links to the Earth article.]] circle 85 135 12 [[Circle|This area is a circle.]] desc none </imagemap>
The code produces the following:
The following are helpful tools related to ImageMap:
Six users were granted admin status via the Requests for Adminship process this week: Alex.muller (nom), Ckatz (nom), Seicer (nom), 52 Pickup (nom), Blueboy96 (nom), and Tiptoety (nom).
Eight bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week: HBC AIV helperbot5 (task request), AWeenieBot (task request), VeblenBot (task request), Eubot (task request), 718 Bot (task request), MelonBot (task request), AndreasJSbot (task request), and MonoBot (task request)
Seventeen articles were promoted to featured status last week: William Hillcourt (nom), Mana (series) (nom), Triton (moon) (nom), Hurricane John (2006) (nom), Metroid Prime (nom), Alanya (nom), Portal (video game) (nom), Ganymede (moon) (nom), Tropical cyclone (nom), Amanita ocreata (nom), ANAK Society (nom), Carlson's patrol (nom), Smallville (season 1) (nom), Just like Heaven (song) (nom), Sea otter (nom), The Beginning of the End (Lost) (nom), and Princess Helena of the United Kingdom (nom).
Six lists were promoted to featured status last week: List of York City F.C. statistics and records (nom), Alice in Chains discography (nom), List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records (nom), List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania (nom), Slipknot discography (nom) and List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950-1979) (nom).
Two topics were promoted to featured status last week: Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (nom) and Ipswich Town F.C. (nom).
One portal was promoted to featured status last week: Portal:Minnesota (nom).
The following featured articles were displayed last week on the Main Page as Today's featured article: Kinetoscope, Europa, Axis naval activity in Australian waters, M62 motorway, Hamilton, Joseph Priestley and Josquin des Prez.
Two articles were delisted recently: History of erotic depictions (nom) and Blackface (nom).
The following featured pictures were displayed last week on the Main Page as picture of the day: Quadriga, Vinland map, US Brig Niagara, Iapetus moon and Emperor Penguin. One featured picture was demoted: Cerro de la Silla
No sounds were featured last week.
Eleven pictures and one video were promoted to featured status last week and are shown below.
a.jpg)
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.
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases this week, and closed one case, leaving five currently open.
