Two new members have recently been added to the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board. In December 2008, Neeru Khosla joined the board. Khosla is co-founder and chair of CK-12, a non-profit based in Palo Alto, California which is pioneering the concept of "open source textbooks." In March 2008, the Wikimedia Foundation received a $500,000 donation from Vinod Khosla and Neeru Khosla.[1]
In January 2009, Roger McNamee joined the Board. McNamee is Managing Director and Co-Founder of Elevation Partners, a venture capital firm. According to the Foundation's press release, on the Advisory Board McNamee "will act as a special advisor to the Executive Director on business and strategy issues." [2]
ArbCom coordinator named, one Arbitrator leaves committee
As part of a comprehensive updating of its systems and processes, the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator. This role is to carry no additional substantive authority but will primarily involve scheduling work flow and setting target dates for completion of tasks. Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin has been offered and has accepted this assignment, effective immediately, with the title of Coordinating Arbitrator. Arbitrator Roger Davies will serve as his Deputy.
On January 15, FT2 announced in an open letter on Jimbo Wales' talk page that he was stepping down from the Arbitration Committee. In the letter, he mentioned recent controversial cases and outlined the work he has done on Wikipedia this year. A request for comment is currently ongoing regarding FT2. The seat is currently vacant, leaving a total of 16 arbitrators. According to a statement posted on behalf of the committee, "the Arbitration Committee believes that FT2's decision to leave the committee was the sensible course of action under all the circumstances, and we appreciate his having done so."
Briefly
January 15 marked the eighth anniversary of Wikipedia's founding as an independent website, or Wikipedia Day. Over the course of the day, the English Wikipedia passed 2,700,000 articles. Last year at this time the article count was 2,176,875.
The Wikimania 2009 dates were formally announced. The conference will be held from August 26–28, 2009, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The conference has its own wiki for further information.
On January 9, it was reported on the mailing list Foundation-l that the Chinese-language Wikinews was blocked in Mainland China. [3] Other language Wikinews editions are not blocked. English Wikinews covered the story.
A FAQ has been posted on Meta regarding the proposed change to allow Wikimedia content to be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well as the GFDL; this page serves as a forum to raise questions about the proposed change as well.
LifeHacker.com reviewed VisualWikipedia, a new tool for browsing Wikipedia. VisualWikipedia takes text from Wikipedia's articles and adds pop-up descriptions to the wikilinks, integrates YouTube videos, and provides relational maps of topics. Adam Pash, Lifehacker.com writer, did criticize VisualWikipedia for its lack of visual appeal.
Jimbo reflects on Nupedia for Fifty Lessons
Fifty Lessons offers informational videos and books based on the advice of today's world leaders. Jimmy Wales contributed by reflecting on his experiences with Nupedia and Wikipedia. In a piece titled Avoid Rigid Thinking, Wales concludes that the a priori thinking and rigidity that went into Nupedia were ultimately its failure, whereas Wikipedia's flexibility allowed it to succeed. The video, as well as a somewhat inaccurate transcription thereof, are available here.
Yahoo! announces Wikipedia SearchMonkey application
SearchMonkey is a customizable tool designed to enhance Yahoo!'s search results by incorporating media from reference sites such as CIA World Factbook and Merriam-Webster. On January 15, Yahoo! announced the new Wikipedia SearchMonkey application. For any search results that include Wikipedia's articles, the new application will add text, links, and pictures from that article to the relevant result.
Wikipedia celebrates its 8th birthday
January 15, 2009 marked Wikipedia's eighth year online. Various news postings celebrated the occasion, praised the progress made thus far, and discussed the future of Wikipedia. CBCNews [4] discussed the accuracy and popularity of Wikipedia with founder Jimmy Wales. ScienceBlogs poster Martin Rundkvist encouraged readers to try contributing to the encyclopedia. ReadWriteWeb claimed that "Few websites have made a bigger impact on the world than Wikipedia has."
What originally attracted you to writing for Wikipedia?
YellowMonkey. I read an article in a student newspaper in 2005 about an edit-war on Khmer Rouge, and how Wikipedia works. I guess I just looked up a few things I was interested in; they were two-liners, so I added some stuff.
David Fuchs. Boredom and sophomore Advanced Placement European History. Reading through our textbooks, I was engaged by the wondrous fountain of knowledge that was the internet for what I considered rather random topics (Pugachev's Rebellion). I was amazed by the open nature of the wiki, and the ease with which my classmates utterly trashed it.
Brianboulton. I edited a local magazine for a while; when that finished I needed an outlet so I could carry on writing and editing. In doing internet searches via Google, I noticed that the top entry on most google pages was from Wikipedia; I investigated and discovered what I wanted—the chance to expound (without deadlines) on favourite subjects, and to do constructive editing as well.
What motivated you to work on your first featured article?
YellowMonkey. Because I hadn't written anything proper before that. It was good to learn how to use the MoS and to reference my work; previously, I'd become used to just dumping a list of books at the bottom, or providing only an unformatted url link.
Brianboulton. That little bronze star, and the encouragement I got from other editors.
What has been your most difficult (or most rewarding) FAC experience?
[[:File:MystIII-mechage.png|thumb|right|An example of gameplay in Myst III: Exile, an FA nominated by David Fuchs]]
YellowMonkey. My first one, on swimmer Ian Thorpe, as I didn't know anything, and my prose got hammered, and rightly so, even for November 2006 standards. Apart from that the other FACs have been fairly smooth sailing with the standard queries that need to be fixed with ironing out bumps to make it easier for unacquainted readers to understand. Now I can get by with my own copy-editing, which helps.
Brianboulton. I've not so far experienced what I'd call a really difficult FAC (but things can change). The most rewarding experience has been the encouragement of other editors, and their preparedness to help improve the standards of my nominations by rigorous editing. It is invidious to single out these editors, but I have to say that I always await the detailed reviews of Awadewit with a mixture of dread, awe and pleasure.
David Fuchs. I suppose it's always disheartening when you think you've pre-empted a question about a source or image licensing, then realize there's a host of other issues you missed. In the end, it's best to have a difficult and thorough FAC review rather than a superficial one; you feel much better about the quality of the article.
Which of the featured articles to which you've contributed make you most proud, and why?
YellowMonkey. Probably Thich Quang Duc, because of the subject and because Vietnamese Buddhists regard him as a bodhisattva of compassion because he self-immolated and his heart refused to burn. I'd like to think I didn't turn it into a hagiography, Awadewit actually said "this sounds slightly sinister" in my description of him travelling around Vietnam expounding the dharma. Thich Quang Duc is probably the most widely read of my featured articles, so it's important to me that it be of a high standard. Aside from that one, I do think that my history articles provide information that is ultimately of more lasting importance to society than sport is.
Brianboulton. Probably Mozart family Grand Tour. I know I'm associated in most peoples' minds with polar exploration, but I do music and opera too. I'm proud of the Mozart thing because it's an article I've wanted to write for ages, long before my Wikipedia days: it's fulfilled one of my writing ambitions, and it was great fun to write, too.
David Fuchs. Bone Wars or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Like Brian, I'm probably also associated with a particular field—I'm generally known as "that video game guy", but before I started gaming I was a young kid obsessed with dinosaurs and watching taped Star Trek episodes in the living room. Writing about topics I thought I knew everything about was great fun and seeing them attain FA a distinct pleasure.
What advice do you have about the FA process for other writers?
Yellowmonkey nominated several FAs about South Vietnam during the rule of President Ngo Dinh Diem (1955–1963).
Brianboulton. Take the FA criteria very seriously; be sure you honestly believe an article meets the criteria before you nominate it. FAC should not be a development ground for inadequate or under-prepared articles. During the process, maintain total civility with your reviewers. Sometimes reviewers are ill-informed, occasionally they're rude; when that happens, shame them by your courtesy. However, most review comments are worth listening to. Don't be defensive or insist that your version is the best; give ground when necessary. Be patient with the system, and if you think it can be improved, offer suggestions rather than cynicism.
David Fuchs. I'll echo Brian in regards to listening to criticism; I was upset when a reviewer pointed out a dozen sources not in the article and opposed on those grounds; but the article is vastly improved with those sources present. As a "lone wolf" editor who typically works on obscure games or topics, it's easy to lose an objective eye and to fail to realize it's hard for outside readers to comprehend. Get fresh eyes on your article before you take it to FAC; network with others and trade reviews to improve everyone's article quality.
YellowMonkey. Apart from what has already been said, probably keeping cool, especially when the odd strategic/retaliatory oppose comes along, or when the reviewer seems to be abnormally obstructionist.
Do you think reviewing other articles at FAC helps you as you write and nominate articles yourself?
YellowMonkey. Well, you don't have to review—you can simply read the other comments that the reviewers made and learn from how they were addressed. I guess one direct benefit is that you can see an FAC from the other side of the fence. This might help when a FAC turns into a long debate and people are getting hot under the collar, although that hasn't happened in anything I've written at FAC. However, it has happened at FAR.
David Fuchs. Reviewing articles and reading other reviews on those FACs helps you understand common mistakes and how to avoid them in your own work. It's also helpful to understand how to structure your articles. In these respects, the experience has been unique training.
Brianboulton. I have learned a great deal from reviewing, gaining numerous ideas which I have fed back into my own articles. In particular, copyediting other articles helps me to keep my own prose in order.
How can more editors be encouraged to review articles at FAC?
David Fuchs. It's a volunteer project, so we'll always have issues with reviewing—it's easier to nominate and follow a "if you write it, they will come" mentality than it is to read someone else's work. I think there's an obligation that should be placed on frequent nominators (like me) to return the effort and review others' work; I try to review at least one FAC for every one I nominate these days. I think we should also encourage new users to voice their concerns about articles; early on I was hesitant about supporting or opposing, let alone reviewing FACs, because I was concerned about not really knowing the criteria and being constructive. Newcomers to featured processes should know that any comments are welcome.
Brianboulton. I echo what David says above. I like to review not only at FAC but at peer review, where a great deal of article-building can legitimately be done. I advise all those new to FAC to go through peer review first. When I started FAC reviewing I was very tentative, expecting to be slapped down all the time; but confidence comes with experience. The only reviewing rule I have is: Think before you write (and sadly, I don't always keep it). I do try to maintain an overall time balance of 50% article writing, 50% reviewing.
Have you had any difficulty maintaining the featured articles you contributed to?
Brianboulton. Not really—I keep regular checks. A couple of them are prone to repeated vandalism, so I tend to check these every couple of days or so. All my FAs are pretty new at the moment, and haven't deterioriated much. I intend to do thorough checks on each as they reach their first birthdays this year.
From the featured article Harbhajan Singh, a photo taken by Yellowmonkey
YellowMonkey. Basically no, except for Harbhajan Singh, which attracts the odd editing flurry each time he's censured for improper behaviour on the cricket field; for this reason, I also have to update his playing record after each series as he is still active. Apart from that, the other topics involve people who have stopped playing sport, while Vietnamese history is pretty empty on Wikipedia, sadly, so my articles basically never get touched.
David Fuchs. Aside from a few high-profile video games, such as Halo 3, most articles I write are on pretty obscure subjects. Aside from my attempts to improve them as my available sources have increased and my personal style matured, I'm happy to say none of them have deteriorated thus far.
Has your Wikipedia article writing had any interesting impact or effect in your personal or professional life?
YellowMonkey. Well, an Indian journalist looked up the Harbhajan page immediately after Harbhajan was suspended for racial abuse (later rescinded) and saw a stack of vandalism and borderline troll edits between Australian and Indian anons on that and related articles. So he interviewed me about Indian stuff on Wikipedia and I wrote a couple of cricket punditry pieces for that outlet. On a more amusing note, the Times of Indiaplagiarised a bunch of cricket articles from Wikipedia verbatim, some of them including mistakes and original research from when I was new.
Brianboulton. I am doing something constructive in my spare time, rather than sitting about. My chess-playing standard has regressed to what it was when I was about 16—I don't play enough games and don't study enough theory. I am watching less opera and don't do crosswords any more. That's about it: the main structure of my life hasn't changed that much, I'm glad to say.
David Fuchs. I'm a writer, but unless I've got a school assignment, my impetus to write every day is pretty low. Working on Wikipedia has probably diverted my attention from personal projects on occasion, but it has also provided me with fodder to write about as well—shortly after doing research into the themes and symbolism present in the film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, I ended up using some of the scholarly sources for a term paper about revenge as a self-destructive and counterproductive act.
Individual questions
YellowMonkey, now that you're no longer serving on ArbCom, will your article contributions change?
I think RL stuff would determine it more than that. But in any case, I have heaps of incomplete large articles around and haven't been creating anything new for while except spinoffs from overgrown articles, so there should still be a few FAs coming.
David Fuchs, you've brought many video games to featured status, and also other types of articles such as Khan Noonien Singh, Chicxulub crater and Bone Wars. What are the similarities and differences in bringing such different articles through FAC?
One of the main reasons I began working on a slew of video game articles my personal interest in the area, but also because, in all seriousness, they are easy as hell to write. Video games can be improved by using print sources like newspaper reviews or game magazine interviews, but even using all-web sources you can write a video game article that meets the featured article criteria. With historical subjects like Bone Wars, I spent weeks acquiring books via interlibrary loan and reading hundreds if not thousands of pages. Where your information can be found depends dramatically on the subject.
Brianboulton, you've been a registered user only since November 2007, first appearing at FAC within only three months with Ross Sea Party. To what do you attribute your speedy acclimation at the FA level, and how can more writers be motivated to contribute at such a high level?
Can I answer this with "I'm a sock", oh please can I Brian? :P -Fuchs
Apparently the answer I am required to give is "I'm a sock" (per D Fuchs). Since I don't know what this means, this could be true. However, besides that, I'd go back to what I said earlier about knowing the FA criteria, using the PR process, listening to reviewers' criticisms, and inviting the most thorough reviewers to comment. Nearly all my nominations owe a large thank-you to at least one other editor. Although still something of a rookie myself, I will be happy to mentor any first-time prospective FA nominator, and to help see them through the process.
In this edition of the WikiProject Report, we focus on WikiProject Pharmacology. This project has been around for just over two years, and in that time it has expanded from 195 articles to nearly 5000! Here to tell us more about the project is Fvasconcellos.
First things first, tell us a little about yourself and your history as an editor.
I am a translator (currently based in Brazil) specializing in medical/scientific literature, and particularly in scholarly work such as journal articles, theses, etc. I joined Wikipedia in March 2006 after months of lurking around and making minor edits as an unregistered user, though I've used it as a reference for years. I actually only registered so I could upload an image (an album cover) and, well, here I am now :) Most of my early edits were WikiGnome stuff such as fixing typos and piping links. I started editing medicine-related articles a couple of months after registering (this was my very first such edit) and joined WikiProject Drugs (the predecessor to WikiProject Pharmacology) a month later. I started editing more and more frequently, becoming more involved in discussions and whatnot, as well as doing quite a bit of work on creating and uploading images—especially structural formulas for chemical compounds, which was quite an underserved area of Wikipedia. I was (successfully) nominated for adminship in late May 2007 and, accordingly, shifted my focus a bit to "back-office" areas such as page protection and deletion. The tools also came in very handy for my work in the project, which had become part of WP:PHARM in February 2007.
Do you ever use your skills as a translator here on Wikipedia?
Not directly, but I constantly use several skills I learned through the practice of translation and daily exposure to scientific literature: critical reading of sources, a basic understanding of statistics and research methodology, and (perhaps most importantly) the ability to reword and condense content without changing its meaning, as well as minor things such as careful attention to referencing. All are very helpful in editing medical topics, and an excellent introduction to developing some of these skills (and how to apply them to WP editing) is available in Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles).
You've written several pharmacology-related articles, and you've helped bring various articles to GA status. However, true to your self-applied title of WikiGnome, it seems you haven't brought an article through the FAC process. Why is that?
The FAC process can be very taxing on the nominator, and rightly so (we're talking about recognizing Wikipedia's finest content here). Honestly, I've never been able to dedicate the time and resources required in taking an article to the FA level, although I would like to eventually. Some editors make it seem so easy!
According to the WikiProject Pharmacology project page, the four most popular pages related to the project are all illicit drugs, yet none of the project's featured articles are illicit drugs. Is this something you'd like to see changed, or does it seem that the project's members just aren't interested in those articles?
I would like to see that changed, not least because of the popularity of these articles, but also because their topics are surrounded by so much misinformation. Unfortunately, much of this misinformation makes its way to Wikipedia. These articles are subject to vandalism, POV-motivated edits, addition of trivia and unsourced content, etc. on an almost daily basis, which makes systematic, directed improvement quite difficult. (I would like to note that Anabolic steroid is currently an FA, although it was developed with little input from project members and has several issues which will probably lead to a Featured article review in the near future.)
Gauging the interest of project members is not an easy task. WP:PHARM is not one of Wikipedia's most active projects; only a handful of our members are active on a regular basis, and our Collaboration (first weekly, then monthly) has actually seen little activity. It's a shame, but many of our members have other interests and priorities around Wikipedia. We have nearly 5,000 articles under our scope, roughly 70% of which are stubs—we certainly need to renew our outreach efforts and engage in more wide-ranging, coordinated activity.
Do you attribute the abundance of stubs to the disinterest of the project members or to some inherent difficulty in expanding upon somewhat limited subject matter? Or perhaps WikiProject Pharmacology has simply been experiencing a period of rapid growth rather than improvement and refinement? After all, nearly 100 new pharmacology articles have been created or tagged since November 2008.
Again, our members have many interests and priorities (many are admins, for instance), so it's very difficult to attribute anything to disinterest. Limited subject matter is certainly an issue for many of our stubs—sometimes there simply isn't enough information available on, say, an investigational drug that nevertheless already merits an article. Current growth is actually a bit of a lull; compare our November statistics with those for August. We are already at a stage of maturity where we could, and should, be focusing on article improvement as well as expansion of our coverage; both do not have to be mutually exclusive.
As for outreach efforts, how can editors who are interested in pharmacology articles, but have little experience with medical journals, help out?
Start editing! Just remember to cite your sources, and don't be afraid to ask for help. Becoming acquainted with the Manual of Style is a big plus; it's not fair to ask this of every user who simply wants to start contributing, but it does make the learning curve considerably less steep.
Pin tumbler lock; this image, and the next three images, replaced the two delisted tumbler images noted above, and are part of a {{FeaturedPictureSet}}
This is a summary of recent (as in, since the last technology report was written) 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.3 (b4aac1f), 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
An expiry time of seven days has been added for temporary passwords. When a temporary password expires, the old password will still work. (r45503, bug 2242)
The categories parameter has been added to the API, to "prop=category", providing a more efficient way to check if a page is in a certain category. (r45733, bug 16844)
When patrolling new pages, the diff link for redirect pages automatically follows the redirect, but that has been changed, with "redirect=no" added to the diff link. That allows checking for other material on the redirect page, besides the redirect link. (r45781, bug 14353)
New features
Drafts extension screenshot
The ability to rename files (such as images) has been re-enabled for administrators on all Wikimedia projects.
The Drafts extension [5] has been enabled on the test wiki [6]. Right now, when you are editing a page and your computer freezes or you accidentally close the browser, you will lose what you working on. With the drafts extension, your work will be saved (every 2 minutes). When you come back to the page you were editing, and click "edit", your draft will be there. The extension also gives the option of intentionally saving a draft for later, and will save drafts for up to 30 days. The extension was developed by Trevor Parscal, who is one of the staff developers. After some testing, the extension may be enabled on the English Wikipedia and/or other Wikimedia sites.
The $wgFileExtensions configuration variable has been made accessible through the API. (r45754, bug 17025)
Configuration variables in the LocalSettings.php file, such as $wgMaxUploadSize, have been made accessible via the API. (r45810, bug 17027)
The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring a full-time system administrator, to be based in San Francisco, to monitor, maintain, and document the Wikimedia servers, running Wikipedia and the other projects. See the Wikimedia Foundation site for details.
Two new web servers have been ordered for the toolserver — one to be used as a database server, and the other to replace the current web server. The new, more powerful hardware should improve performance for the toolserver. A third server, to be located in Amsterdam, has also been ordered for storing backup, live copies of all media files. Once the new servers arrive, database replication will be back to normal.
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.
Arbitrator FT2 resigned from the committee this week; Kirill Lokshin was appointed "Arbitration Committee Coordinator", with Roger Davies as his deputy; Wizardmanreplaced FT2 as "IRC liaison"; and a new noticeboard for the Committee was created. See related notes here.
The Arbitration Committee both closed and opened one case this week, leaving four cases open.
Evidence phase
Date delinking: A case regarding the behavior of editors in the ongoing dispute relating to policy on linking dates in articles. An injunction has been issued prohibiting large-scale linking or delinking of dates until the case is resolved.
PHG: A case brought by PHG, in a follow up to a prior case against PHG, Franco-Mongol alliance. This case will review PHG's editing since the prior case, and may impose new sanctions, or repeal current sanctions, as necessary.
Voting
Fringe science: A case initially filed about the behavior of ScienceApologist, but opened to look at editing in the entire area of fringe science, and the behavior of editors who are involved in the area of dispute. In a proposed decision now being voted on by arbitrators, Coren has proposed the creation of a new type of arbitration remedy, "supervised editing", which an editor may be placed under when he or she does not "engage other editors or the editorial process appropriately". A designated supervisor would be permitted to revert or refactor the edits of the other editor at his or her discretion, ban the editor from articles, or require that the editor propose any substantial content edits to the supervisor, who will make the edits on his behalf. After the period of supervision terminates, the supervisor will submit a report to the committee who will revise the remedy that placed the editor under supervision. Other remedies include placing ScienceApologist under said supervision, restricting Martinphi from editing policy and guideline pages, admonishing Pcarbonn, and issuing general warnings to behave and seek mediation. Arbitrator voting is in progress.
Closed
G.-M. Cupertino: A case regarding the behavior of G.-M. Cupertino, accepted without significant prior dispute resolution as several arbitrators believed lower levels of dispute resolution would be fruitless. G.-M. Cupertino is banned from Wikipedia for one year, due to personal attacks, edit warring and sockpuppetry, and is restricted to one account should he return to editing after his ban ends.
Amended
Matthew Hoffman: The findings and remedies in this case were "withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as 'Vanished user.'", and the pages courtesy blanked.
Featured articles (FA) recognize Wikipedia's best work on the main page and serve as a model for Wikipedia's articles. Only one in every 1,130 Wikipedia articles has attained featured article status; 10 people nominated a fifth of the 719 FAs that were promoted in 2008.
_edit.jpg)
.jpg)
