Six administrators were briefly blocked on April Fools' Day, after various joke edits that were considered unconstructive or vandalous by some.
Eventually, cooler heads prevailed in the various issues. Discussion on what to do for April Fools' Day 2009 is underway at Wikipedia talk:Pranking, and while no clear policy has been worked out, Newyorkbrad found an interesting way to suggest a series of guidelines for next year at Wikipedia talk:Pranking#Some thoughts.
Administrators' pranks were not the only April Fools' jokes last week; Wikipedia also continued its long-running tradition of factual jokes on the main page for that annual comedy festival, known colloquially as April Fools' Day. The featured article blurb was written in a way that looked like a hoax, but was entirely accurate factually, and the "Did You Know" snips were also written in this way. In fact, the only portions of the main page almost untouched were the Featured Picture and In the News—however, the image chosen was an interesting sight, and had no description.
Nevertheless, the page design and accuracy was still questioned by some—many merely victims of the practical joke, like user Jcmo:
Has anyone even noticed the text on the main page? It's protected now, so I can't revert it. Is there an administrator out there?
There were however some doubters of the whole joke, claiming it was damaging Wikipedia's reputation and simply heightening criticism of its accuracy which has been flying around the media in recent years. For instance, one anonymous IP said the following about the tongue-in-cheek rendition:
This is an encyclopedia, People come here for accurate information, not jokes. All this April Fools bullshit has no place on Wikipedia. It is not funny so the entire gag is a miserable failure. But more importantly, the goal of an encyclopedia does not include releasing information once each year. No real encyclopedia worth its salt would do such nonsense.
Some users also pointed out the American bias of the page, claiming that the majority of the content was US-based rather than a world-wide view. A few users asked why Gmail was more important than the Royal Air Force—both of which had anniversaries on April 1. Also, the choice of Ima Hogg—a Texan, which was also condemned, was defended by SandyGeorgia:
For those worried about bias, none of the following (mentioned in the Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches) are US-centric (but no one wrote them): Lick me in the ass, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and Casu marzu. Now's the time to get on them.
However, the whole joke went down relatively well. More than you may think were fooled by the "mis"information, which is always a good thing on April Fools' Day. But perhaps the best comment and compliment to all involved came from Kevin Myers:
The April 1st main page was a thing of beauty. Congratulations to all who obviously did a lot of work on it. The criticism was per usual, from the confused to the wet blankets to the self-proclaimed comedic experts who could do better if they ever got around to being funny. I do agree with [Nil Einne], however: next year be sure to make more fun of foreigners. They talk funny.
This week's WikiWorld comic uses text from "Apples and oranges". The comic is released under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
After Wikipedia reached 10,000,000 global articles on March 27 (see archived story), the Kapampangan Wikipedia became the 100th Wikipedia to reach 5,000 articles on April 2.
Showing the growth of smaller-language Wikipedias, the 100th Wikipedia to reach 100 articles was the Nahuatl Wikipedia in June 2005 (see archived story); June 2006 saw the 100th to reach 1,000 articles, the Venetian Wikipedia (see archived story). In April 2006, about 73.4% of existing articles were located on the Top 10 Wikipedias; since then, only 59.4% of the new articles created over the last two years were on Top 10 Wikipedias.
QR code scarf – A new generation of scarves are being developed that will contain QR codes, a small, bar code-esque block of pixels that, when photographed with a properly equipped camera phone, will show messages, or even websites. The idea of this code being woven into scarves came to Roger Fischer, chief of an internet and mobile phone converging company. He knows people who make scarves with "retro" game symbols – for instance, the Invaders alien – who thought the QR code would match the pattern. Since then, the scarves have sold incredibly well in Japan, as well as the United Kingdom and the United States – surprising considering the usual lag when it comes to mobile phone releases. A side project to this – Semapedia – features a different sort of code, rather originally called Semacode, on stickers which can link to Wikipedia pages to whatever it is stuck to. For example, one stuck to a pole on Gravelly Hill Interchange might take you to the Wikipedia page for Spaghetti Junction. One person even made a needlepoint pattern that took you to Pillow.
What to Do With Wikipedia – Wikipedia is now used by everyone, including many educated people, and this article ponders why Wikipedia is not recommended for use in an academic setting, yet it contains most of the information that you would be seeking. One of Wikipedia's advantages lies in its currency, but its method of producing content is antithetical to the academic tradition of peer reviewed articles written by trained people. The two extremes are not ideal: banning Wikipedia from the academic world will simply cause students to dismiss academics as being old-fashioned, while using Wikipedia only excludes students from better sources. The article argues that academia needs to embrace Wikipedia because it is part of the world in which students live: professors could participate in the generation of content, students could be taught about other online sources, and Wikipedia could be a tool to improve information literacy.
Other recent mentions in the online press include:
.png)
Featured articles (FA) show off our best work to the world and serve as a powerful model for all of Wikipedia's articles. The featured article process (FAC) is vital to setting and maintaining our standards of verification, writing and formatting. To complement the FA nominations/archiving process, the featured article review process (FAR) enables the review and updating of articles that already have the bronze star. Both FAC and FAR pages are dynamic places where you'll meet and work with talented Wikipedia editors. It's a role on Wikipedia that people tend to notice; it involves a significant responsibility in setting and maintaining our high standards, and involves interacting with highly motivated people.
Some nominations are not promoted simply because not enough reviewers look at the article. The solution to this problem? More reviewers! All Wikipedians are welcome to review articles at FAC and FAR; reviews that are well grounded in an understanding of the featured article standards are most helpful. We've put together a list of frequently asked questions:
Featured articles are reviewed against the featured article criteria. Many reviewers choose to specialize in just a few criteria, or even one criterion. For example, some reviewers write critical appraisals solely of whether an article:
Even more specialized, some reviewers become experienced at checking important issues such as:
Other reviewers, when they approach a featured article that is close to their field of expertise, turn into content reviewers, judging whether the material is factually accurate and/or neutral. This is, of course, an extremely valuable part of the process.
Some of the criteria may seem subjective to new reviewers; it's helpful to read some recently promoted and not promoted candidate pages and articles to see how the criteria were applied, and then to watch the FAC and FAR pages for a time to see how other reviewers apply the standards. Comments from editors who may not yet understand the standards can still be helpful and are welcome. It's often best to start by reviewing an article that is well down on the list, so you can benefit from seeing other reviewers' comments.
Relax, you don't have to review all the articles at FAC or FAR. Some people review only one article; others are FAC or FAR "regulars" and review several dozen each month. At any given moment a wide variety of topics are represented at FAC and FAR; you might choose to review only articles about a topic that particularly interests you, like cricket, popular culture, or bird species, or you might choose to specialize in reviewing articles for a specific criterion, like MOS compliance, reliable sources or compelling prose.
At FAC, a reviewer is expected to leave comments, prefaced by Oppose, Support, or Comments. New reviewers are encouraged to leave only Comments until they are sure they understand the criteria. Some reviewers enter Fixes needed and return in a few days to see if the issues were addressed, and may then switch to Oppose or Support.
All comments and opposes should be actionable, giving the nominator enough information to understand and fix the issues you have outlined. For example, "Oppose, too short", is not an actionable oppose, but if you demonstrate the article is not comprehensive, that is actionable. Give examples, where appropriate, and link to the appropriate WP guideline or policy. For example, if you find that an article's prose is not compelling and brilliant, it's not necessary to analyze the entire article, but rather to give enough examples to demonstrate that additional copyedit attention is needed. Any comments that are not actionable will not be considered by the FA director or his delegate(s) when they archive or promote the nominated article.
Supports should also follow the featured article criteria. "Support because this is an awesome topic" is not a valid support reason. If you were a major contributor to the article, please note that when you support.
If you evaluated only a subset of the criteria, please note that with your comments. That way other reviewers will see what gaps they need to try to fill.
The featured article review page runs at a more measured pace than FAC; nominations are at FAR for at least a month. Declarations to Keep or Remove an article's featured status are not made during the review phase; during the first two weeks (the review phase), reviewers discuss deficiencies. If deficiencies are not addressed, the article may move to the featured article removal candidate phase, where reviewers declare Keep or Remove, also based on the FA standards.
Three users were granted admin status via the Requests for Adminship process this week: Martijn Hoekstra (nom), BirgitteSB (nom), and KnightLago (nom).
Two bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week: GargoyleBot (task request) and Mr.Z-bot (task request)
Eleven articles were promoted to featured status last week: Don Tallon (nom), Blue Iguana (nom), Robert Falcon Scott (nom), To Kill a Mockingbird (nom), Retiarius (nom), Paul Stastny (nom), Catherine de' Medici's building projects (nom), Augustine of Canterbury (nom), Emperor Penguin (nom), Nahuatl (nom), and Hanford Site (nom).
Seventeen lists were promoted to featured status last week: KT Tunstall discography (nom), List of Columbus Blue Jackets players (nom), The Office (U.S. season 1) (nom), List of Washington Redskins head coaches (nom), List of New York hurricanes (nom), List of acquisitions made by Google (nom), Carrie Underwood discography (nom), PFA Players' Player of the Year (nom), Carolina Panthers seasons (nom), Castles in Greater Manchester (nom), List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games (nom), List of Chicago Bears head coaches (nom), List of Seinfeld episodes (nom), List of songs in Guitar Hero (nom), List of Rental Magica episodes (nom), Orlando Magic draft history (nom), List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire (nom), Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island (nom), FWA Footballer of the Year (nom), PFA Young Player of the Year (nom), List of speakers who have spoken to both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament (nom), Colleges of the University of Cambridge (nom), and List of Masters Tournament champions (nom).
No topic was promoted to featured status last week.
No portal was promoted to featured status last week.
The following featured articles were displayed last week on the Main Page as Today's featured article: Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ima Hogg, Neilston, Celine Dion, Oliver Typewriter Company, Bette Davis and Tomb of Antipope John XXIII.
No articles were delisted recently.
One list was delisted recently: English national cricket captains (nom).
The following featured pictures were displayed last week on the Main Page as picture of the day: California Condor, Grenville Diptych's Coat of Arm, Sceliodes cordalis, Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, Geology of the Moon, Anatomy of snail and Great Blue Heron.
No sounds were featured last week.
One featured picture was demoted recently: Image:Grapes05.jpg.
Five pictures were promoted to featured status last week and are shown below.
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 one new case this week and closed two cases, leaving four cases currently open.
