Almost 30% of Wikipedia articles are "orphans", with few or no incoming links from other articles, according to WikiProject Orphanage. Based on an analysis by JaGa from January 24, 2009, that includes 133,515 articles with zero links from other articles and another 92,031 linked only from lists or chronology pages. A total of 533,411 articles have links from only one or two articles (excluding lists and chronology pages); these are also classified as orphans according to WikiProject Orphanage. Only 42,936 articles have been tagged with the {{orphan}} template. By JaGa's count there are 2,575,308 articles when disambiguation pages are excluded (compared to 2,700,000+ counted by Special:Statistics).
Distribution of incoming links per article, including links from lists and chronology pages but excluding links from redirects and disambiguation pages. There are 521,323 more articles with 50 or more incoming links (not shown).
The long tail distribution of links is consistent with a 2008 academic study of the network structure of Wikipedia, which showed that—like networks of scientific publications—Wikipedia linkage demonstrates preferential attachment and appears to be a scale-free network (see earlier story). That study focused on red links and the creation of new articles, and followup work showed a troubling trend that may also help explain the large magnitude of the orphan problem revealed by JaGa's data. Computer scientist Diomidis Spinellis showed that while Wikipedia was growing exponentially from 2003 to 2006 there was a stable average rate of 1.8 links to "incomplete" articles (red links and stubs) per non-stub article, but that rate had declined to 1.4 by early 2008. This indicates that linkage patterns became more "top-heavy" and articles were relatively less likely to point to undeveloped articles. Orphaned articles tend to be stubs, and because they have few related articles linking to them, they are likely to remain underdeveloped for longer than well-linked stubs.
Partly to blame may be a pernicious trend noted by User:Raul654, James F. and others: contrary to the red links guideline, red links are frequently being removed for aesthetic reasons. The 2008 linkage study showed that new articles tend to be created soon after the first link pointing to them. Red links thus drive growth and allow new articles to avoid orphan status right from the start.
Mozilla gives WMF $100,000 for audio and video support
Mozilla has awarded the Wikimedia Foundation $100,000 to coordinate efforts to improve the quality, performance, and implementation of the OggTheora open video format. The aim is to make Theora a more popular alternative to proprietary streaming video technologies, such as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight and RealVideo. According to Erik Moeller, Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, "The $100,000 grant will be used to support the work of long-time contributors to the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codebase and related tools, such as libraries for network seeking. The improvements will be made over a 6 month period." Built-in support for Ogg media will feature in the next release of Mozilla's open-sourceinternet browser project, Firefox 3.1.
Wikipedia Loves Art is "a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest among museums and cultural institutions worldwide, aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles." The event is scheduled at various institutions throughout the month of February, starting at London's Victoria and Albert Museum on February 1. Editors are also encouraged to go on their own any time throughout the month of February. Participating groups of Wikipedians and institutions are located worldwide. For more information on participating, see the project page.
Jimmy Wales is "character approved"
The USA Network has honored Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, as "Character Approved". The awards are a new program to recognize those who are seen as "positively influencing American culture". Others honored include Charles Best, David Chang, Jennifer Siegal, Lupe Fiasco, Patrick Robinson, and Shepard Fairey. Along with the award, the USA Network is donating $10,000 to each recipient's charity of choice; in this case, the Wikimedia Foundation.
In regards to the recent Byrd/Kennedy incident (see archived story), NJ.com commented on the potential usefulness of flagged revisions. Because more and more people tend to find news and information online, "a Wikipedia that goes the extra step to ensure accuracy would be a much more trustworthy and valuable resource." Ars Technica discussed the ongoing discussion regarding flagged revisions and Jimbo's appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation to implement the software. The article pointed out the passionate and somewhat uncivil arguments made by opponents of flagged revisions, particularly those directed to Jimbo himself.
Wikipedia Visual Search in top 10 IE8 add-ons
PC Magazine reviewed their top 10 favorite Internet Explorer 8 add-ons. Various search add-ons, such as those for eBay and Amazon, provide previews and links to relevant search results on the respective web pages. Wikipedia Visual Search made it into PC Magazine's top 10. In the words of user wai277 on the add-on's gallery page, "No matter what to search, Wikipedia is need."
Briefly
The Washington Post Company has launched WhoRunsGov.com, a wiki for up-to-date profiles of American government officials based primarily on Washington Post journalism. It will go from a closed wiki edited only by staff to a moderated wiki where edits and new profiles can be submitted by users, subject to review before publication.
In the news (ITN) is the section on the Main Page that highlights Wikipedia's best new and expanded articles regarding topics of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items. It is sometimes misunderstood that ITN does not act as a newspaper; it is not a news ticker, nor does it link to news articles at Wikinews. All links are to Wikipedia content, encouraging readers to help update the article, point out potential errors and encourage further participation.
Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and does not accept original works of journalism or first-hand reports, although many Wikipedians are motivated to create and update encyclopedic articles of timely interest, with references to the aforementioned reports. Because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, such entries are created much faster than a "dead tree" encyclopedia. ITN originated from the September 11 attacks, when entries were created and posted on the Main Page minutes after the first reports. The entries led to an infusion of interest by editors in creating a new section on the Main Page, which linked to articles that provided readers with the context and significance behind the news.
Eligibility
ITN does not have rules set in stone; rather, its guidelines are just general, subjective suggestions for good items. ITN candidates are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. A common complaint is that the posted story is too local in scope in comparison to a more international story that is happening at the same time; however, this is often simply due to one article being created or updated more quickly by (an) editor(s) with a special interest in the story. There may be a significant delay between an event's duration, its article's update, and the item being posted on ITN.
Each blurb on ITN contains an emboldened link to an article for which cited updates have been provided. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are deemed insufficient. A five-sentence update has generally been considered sufficient, while a one-sentence update is questionable. In the case of new event-specific articles, the traditional cut-off for 'enough' has been around three complete, thoroughly referenced and well-formed paragraphs. While articles in topics such as sporting events and economics lend themselves to tables of numbers, updates must be at least in part written in prose to qualify for ITN consideration.
Unlike the Today's Featured Article (TFA) and Did you know (DYK) sections of the Main Page, ITN will reject some items because their interest is confined to a relatively small region; this standard is subjective and is often the focus of disagreement over particular ITN candidates.
Suggesting an article
Nominations are submitted at the ITN suggestions page. The page is organised by the date which the event occurred, and pages from Portal:Current events are listed above to automatically provide possible suggestions. In addition to writing a nomination (writing a suggested wording), the item should be added to the corresponding Portal:Current events subpage. Items are discussed, and notability, quality/quantity of the update, and the wording are evaluated on the submissions page, until a consensus on the item is achieved. Due to low contributor count, consensus frequently consists of one or two people's support, unless there are serious issues with the article.
On average, two new ITN items are added each day, and ITN usually shows between four and seven items at any given point. ITN is used to balance space on the Main Page; based on the length of other sections of the page, the oldest items are added or removed. The administrators announce on the article's talk page that the article was displayed on the Main Page, and credit the nominators and major contributors.
There is no head ITN administrator, and lack of administrative help has sometimes been an issue at ITN. However, there are a number of dedicated contributors who keep the page running and updated.
ITN has two significant special cases to its normal procedures: recurring items and deaths. Wikipedia:Recurring items on ITN is a list of items, such as sporting events, that occur at regular intervals and are deemed to be significant enough to skip the full discussion at each recurrence. Discussion on including deaths of individuals at one time grew so heated that an entire discussion subpage was created. More recently, ITN candidates for death have been subject to full discussions on the candidates' page.
While lost early page revisions make it difficult to confirm, the first article on a current event to be linked from the Main Page was likely the September 11, 2001 attacks, which was created minutes after the events described. A section on the Main Page was created titled "Current Events and Breaking News", which linked to Current events, a precursor to Portal:Current events, as well as directly to relevant articles. By late 2002, the Main Page included a bullet item titled "Ongoing events", linked to "Background articles for ongoing events", which was in turn eventually redirected to Portal:Current events. There was also a bullet item for "In the news", linked to Portal:Current events, and "Recent deaths", linked to what is now Deaths in 2024. These three types of articles—background articles to topical situations, newly created articles on breaking news and deaths of prominent individuals—are now merged into Template:In the news, though there continue to be occasional sharp disagreement on how to best represent these topics.
The formation of Wikinews in 2004 resulted in the moving of particularly "news-y" content from the encyclopedia to the new sister project. ITN now includes a link to Wikinews, though there are occasional proposals, in particular by Wikinews editors, to link the bolded links from ITN directly to Wikinews articles.
This image of Lugo has an ITN meme associated with stagnation of the template.
A new development in a particularly important current event, reflected in an update to its associated article, sometimes results in resetting an ITN bullet point back to the top of the template. The precedent for this appears to be set by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article, which was placed on ITN on 26 December and was kept at the top of the template until 9 January 2005. Less flatteringly, ITN has been known to stagnate when editors do not suggest new updated articles or suggested items do not reach at least a point of "no consensus", allowing an admin to exercise discretion in posting. One infamous period of particularly low turnover led to an ITN picture of Fernando Lugo, President of Paraguay, staying up for well over a week. Since then, complaints about low turnover rates on ITN tend to prompt gleeful inside jokes about "Lugo" by ITN and Main Page regulars.
During a recent discussion about diversity of topics on ITN, some users informally categorized previous ITN items over a chosen time span. The results were:
A continental breakdown for the most recent month—January 2009. Note: 1 internet-related ITN and 1 computer-virus-related ITN, attributed to the United States, i.e. North America. (Compiled by Candlewicke)
Perhaps not the most conventional WikiProject, but Motto of the Day has been around Wikipedia since 2006—the first motto used was "Hair today, gone tomorrow!" on 11 April that year. The project has undergone many changes since then, and despite occasional lulls in activity is still going strong to this day. The Signpost interviewed six active contributors to MOTD, Hersfold, La Pianista, Nutiketaiel, Queenie, SimonKSK and Simply south, to learn more.
I think it was just the idea of having a "just for fun" Wikiproject that still had some useful purpose. MOTD's mottos are used on hundreds of userpages, and often illustrate how our policies and procedures work in witty or otherwise eye-catching ways. It's an interesting way to educate both new and old users about those policies in a casual manner. There have been multiple times I've hovered over a motto link and found a essay or a guideline I'd never seen before, and if I'm finding myself doing that as an administrator I'm certain that other users are doing the same thing. It's just a nice way to relax after the daily Wikipedia dramaz while still contributing in an indirect way.
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
I mainly comment on proposals and sometimes schedule them for usage (although lately User:Simply South has been acting like a robot in the latter regard, leaving little actual work for us to do.). I was also largely responsible for one of the more recent revivals of the project. Since MOTD isn't a particularly important project, contributors tend to wander off on a regular basis, and the activity level drops to almost zero repeatedly. Several times we've gotten close to the end of the schedule, and for about a week over the summer I found myself scheduling "reruns" from 2006 since none of the proposed mottos had enough comments to use. When that happens, someone has to kick everyone who says they contribute and get them to actually do so, as well as bring in more recruits. When I did such a revival a few months ago, we went from doing reruns to having two month's worth of mottos all scheduled in advance.
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
Mottos can be serious or funny, but they have to be eye-catching in some way. We try not to make them too long, although some really good mottos tend to be a bit longer or even mimic templates. They also have to relate to Wikipedia in some way; usually this is done through the use of links, as the mottos often don't have any sort of direct relation by themselves. I tend to prefer the inspirational type mottos more myself; they're more interesting and encourage people to edit more. The quotes are often fun to read as well, though.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
I'd say our scheduling process is the most efficient - we have a template system set up to automatically load each motto on the new day. If there is no motto for a given day (for example, if we forget about February 29th on a leap year, which has happened), it will continue to use the motto from the previous day, or use a backup motto if we've really messed up. The thing that needs the most work would probably be our membership levels - as I said, we're continually having problems keeping people around and getting new members.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
Not a whole lot - lately I've been more inactive than usual, unfortunately, but I still drop by the project when I need to relax for a bit.
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
I'm a bit biased, as this is one of the ones I nominated, but this motto comes from a favorite quote of mine that has become a trademark of my university's president.
At first, I noticed the little clever mottoes on userpages here and there, and, interested, I added a little MOTD template to mine. But that was only the beginning. I was fascinated with the idea of writing inspiring messages that could be broadcast wiki-wide (and, hence, worldwide), anytime. Since then, it has played a double-role in my Wikipedia experience - as a fun way to pass my free time and a method of letting important, sometimes long-forgotten messages about the true value of Wikipedia, be remembered.
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
I'm involved in !voting and nominating new mottoes, or, occasionally, offering suggestions to ones currently being discussed. The reason for the former is quite obvious (!voting, that is), but I find creating and linking new mottoes to be like writing little tidbits of rhetorical art, another way to express what I see in Wikipedia and what I want others to see. It really is a form of poetry, in its own way, with its own life, flow, and rhythm, even if it stems from a centuries-old quote. Think about it: we could write a five-page-long essay about the values of WP:COOL, or we could sum it up in a five-word motto that hits it home dramatically and memorably. It's that idea in particular that makes me want to continue creating new mottoes, hands-on.
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
I look for a motto that is fresh and has lasting impact. Like a grenade (excuse the metaphor), it's small and compact. But once readers hover over the links, the meaning explodes, perhaps not always fortissimo and with an "Aha" moment, but like a silent song that is sung into the ears of the reader and spoken to the heart of your average Wikipedian. Perhaps that's too sentimental - and I do detest sentimentalists - but that is the kind of effect I look for in a good motto.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
It's hard to say, especially seeing as the status of MOTD fluctuates constantly. Just a few weeks ago, the project almost resorted to archived mottoes due to a decrease in the input of new ones. But now, there are new ones being submitted almost every day. Overall, however, I think MOTD is most developed in its collaboration - the community experience isn't lost. But I would advocate a more organized numerical voting system, perhaps based on the pH system (on a whim here) since !voting "strong support" and "weak oppose" is like saying "strong acid" or "weak base" instead of giving tangible value to a !vote.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
Hm. I'd say about 10% of my time. Again, that fluctuates - on a motto-rich day, I could spend about 25% of my time there, but when times are dearth, I'd spend about 5% at MOTD.
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
Another hard question! If I was forced to select an area in general, I'd say some of the 2006 mottoes were the most original and some of the 2008/09 mottoes are the most deep. Looking back into the archives brings us ones like "Brought to you by the letters 'W' and 'P' and the number 42" (a reference to Sesame Street and the ultimate answer) and "How many Wikipedia editors does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but anyone can change it back." In contrast, some of our more recent mottoes are lengthier and deeper, like "...I'm exhausted, barely breathing,holding on to what I believe in, and no matter what, you'll never take that from me. My reign is as far as your eyes can see.It's amazing, so amazing..." It's hard to single out the favorite, but those are just a few. :)
It was primarily its utility to its readers- MOTD serves a number of important functions in an informal and fun manner. It reminds users of various policies, it draws their attention to many essays or other portions of Wikipedia that they might not otherwise see and it helps remind everybody of what we are doing here. Every motto has some kind of positive or otherwise meaningful message about Wikipedia, Wikipedians, our values or our purpose here, and I think they serve as a great reminder to people of why we all do this and, sometimes, a little pick-me-up. Sorry, after working at MOTD for a while, I sometimes link compulsively. :-)
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
I primarily make comments on the proposed mottos, and occasionally suggest one for myself. One of the great joys in working with this project is when a couple of us make comments together on a motto and shepherd it from an initial proposal to its final form. Of course, many mottos are just fine or even exemplary in their original form, but just as many need a little help to get from their initial idea to their finished form. One user suggests a new link here, another suggests a slight rephrasing, and we come to a consensus on a finished product. I also like that, unlike some of my experiences editing articles or working with other wikiprojects, there is almost never any acrimony in the discussions over mottos. Everyone is respectful of the opinions and contributions of others and we all work harmoniously together to bring the motto to its best possible form. In that way, the commenting and approval process for MOTD is like a microcosm of how Wikipedia as a whole is supposed to work- multiple editors from multiple points of view working together harmoniously to create something of use to us all. (Incidentally, for an excellent example of this process going on right now, check out Wikipedia:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/In_review#.E2.86.92_Regulation_is_of_little_effect.2C_while_persuasion_has_much_more_effect.)
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
Well, as I stated above, every motto has some kind of positive or otherwise meaningful message about Wikipedia, Wikipedians, our values or our purpose here. Many of them are funny, but humor is not the real goal- the message is what is important. I am especially fond of mottos that highlight or bring attention to areas of Wikipedia or Wikiprojects that are not well known, or that deserve greater attention or recognition. For example, I am always fond of mottos that remind us about the Kindness Campaign or Wikipedia Awards (you know, Barnstars), both of which are (in my opinion) somewhat underutilized means of recognizing our fellow Wikipedians for the great work they do. You know, now that I think about it, I think a motto pointing the way to the Signpost might be a good thing as well. But, I digress. Highlighting a less well known aspect of Wikipedia is important, but the positive or otherwise meaningful message is the most important thing. Lets look at today's motto, for example. →Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. It is a reminder to everybody that hard to recognize POV violations often do more harm than easily recognized and often accidental nonsense added to the wiki. In other words, when you're contributing, remember the Wikipedia's neutral point of view and keep your own bias out of the encyclopedia. It also reminds editors to assume good faith, even when reading through patent nonsense. This is less of a positive message than it is a meaningful one. Yesterday's motto was → Little strokes fell great oaks. That is a reminder to us all that it is the little, everyday civilities that help prevent edit wars- a positive message reminding editors to be civil, friendly and cooperative with each other and praising them for doing so. The message that the motto is getting across is the most important part, even for the funny ones. I would never offer my support to a motto that is funny, but lacks a positive or meaningful message about Wikipedia, or one that is deep and meaningful, but has no relevance to the work we do in this great human wiki-endeavor. I hope that answers your question.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
The most developed portion is the proposal of the mottos and the consensus reaching, since that is where we spend most of our time. I really can't single out any section of the process that needs alot of work, except perhaps that we need to work harder to maintain the high levels of participation that we currently enjoy.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
On average, I'd say about 15%, though that can fluctuate as high as 30% when we have alot of new mottos to go through. I tend to spend the most time there on Mondays, as I rarely work on Wikipedia over the weekends; it tends to be more of a diversion while I'm at work (don't tell my boss).
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
Wow. You think this question is fun? Now I'm going to have to go through all those mottos and look for one that is my favorite. I really don't think of them in these terms, normally. OK, hang on, I'll go check.
OK, I'm back. I was surprised. After looking through all the mottos since I joined up, I think the other day's, "→Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." , was my favorite. It's short and has impact, and says an important message about the nature of our work here at Wikipedia. Though, I have to admit that the funniest one and the one I most enjoyed was the Russian Reversal- "→ In Soviet Wikipedia, you don't own article... ...Article own you!"
I know its silly and I know its been done to death, but I just can't help but laugh every time I see it. Oh, and by the by, reporter-man, you got me. This WAS fun. :-)
I saw a userbox on La Pianista's user page which read "this user is a frequent contributor to Motto of the day." Interested, I clicked the link and ended up on the MOTD main page. I liked the idea of all the different opinions and ideas coming together and joined up.
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
The closing/reopening/approving process, because I noticed that nearly 100% of the decisions were made by Simply South. When I found out from him (or her) that you don't need any special qualifications to close mottos, I joined in. I do vote for mottos occasionally, when I feel that a good motto is not getting enough support.
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
Something out of the ordinary, not just the usual "blah blah". There are a lot of FA- and admin-related mottos, which become wearing after a while. However, I do like to see famous quotes interpreted in a clever way, mottos that highlight little-known but still important areas and clever, humourous linkage.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
That's a hard one. There could be more decision makers/archivists (the last 24 mottos have been closed by only 3 different people), and the voting system gets sticky sometimes (there may be 1 support vote, 1 oppose vote and oodles of comments or replies that have absolutely no bearing on what the consensus will be). The voting numbers have perked up though. Before, at least 60% of all mottos were closed as "no consensus", but now there are always plenty of opinions. There are always plenty of new mottos, too. Yes, I'd say that the voting/decision making systems need more development and the voting numbers/motto numbers are the most developed.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
Going through yesterday's contribs, I'd say I spend around 15% of my time on MOTD. I edit articles and revert vandalism during the day, and then at around 8 p.m. I go to MOTD and spend a merry hour there.
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
→ Little strokes fell great oaks, off the top of my head. Also, → Alone we can do so little. Together, we can do so much, a motto which I was afraid would not pass, much to my dismay, because it's a great motto. As I said earlier, there are so many tedious mottos saying how FAs are the greatest, but this one shows that in the end, it's about Wikipedia.
A lot of things attracted me to MOTD, but the main thing was seeing all of the different userboxes and templates on people's user pages. I checked it out, and I loved the clever mottoes and I loved hearing all of these user's opinions. I also loved how they remind us of our policies and community in a fun and clever way.
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
The support/oppose process. It's the most important part, in my opinion. I like to let my voice be heard. There are never any fights and every one is respectful. My secret is the famous fortune cookie. They always give you cheesy, but perfect mottoes for MOTD. I also take part in the approve/reopen/decline process.
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
The best kind of motto is one that makes you think, or something that reaches out to little known projects. For example, one motto that was approved was "Listen up!." This is what I call a perfect motto because it reaches out to a project that doesn't get much views. I also love humorous mottoes because it shows the kind of community we are.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
The support/oppose process is the most developed, in my opinion. I also think that more special nominations are needed, as there has not been one for a while.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
I spent about 10% on MOTD when I'm bored or if I have a motto I want to nominate. Usually, I just come in and check the new nominations. If I see something I like, I will support it.
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
I don't really have one until a few days ago. This motto: These aren't even oranges, they're yellows. Still, that doesn't mean we should throw them out, since there's no reason not to eat them, was excellent and it really speaks for itself. That is what a MOTD should be.
I'm not quite sure what did attract me first. I saw this on many users' userpages and that and thought it would be a fun place to do it. I did not start on it straight away but after seeing it a few times thought i would try it out i think.
Which part of the process are you most involved in? Why?
I am involved in multiple processes throughout this project, particularly the decision making and the archiving, although i do contribute new ideas every now and then. From some point in the past onwards i have helped with reshaping some of the project, as well as Hersfold, although most of the core has remained the same. This was partially discussed at User:Qae/MOTD. I think as many people have pointed out, my main area seems to be the decision making. I must point out that it seems more that the making of dicisions seems to be different according to different people. Btw, when referring to archiving, this simply means mottos in which decisions have been made are archived, not the decision making process. These I have done since nearly a year after my start in this project. As noted above i am also involved in the scheduling. Why? On the first few bacause i enjoy contributing to this project, simple. The scheduling because it needs to be done and forms the final and integral part of the project so when the day comes up, other people are able to see the final result. I would also like to point out that i'm not the only one involved in these processes.
What do you aim for or look for in a great motto for Wikipedia?
I look for anything that is funny and inspirational, or just have links that make sense. I do not have particularly high expectations just as long as it says something meaningful about the different processes and acts as a guide to both new and common users (editors and readers alike). The mottos themselves are interesting to read at times if you have never heard them before.
What area of MOTD is the most developed, and which needs most work, in your opinion?
Probably the nominations area although there are still cases of people proposing mottos elsewhere. Places that could do with improvement are FUI (a common abbreviation for Frequently Used Idea, an area noting where mottos have been done notable times before) which could do with updating, and the Approved page with which due to the reshaping has virually made that page obsolete.
How much of your Wikipedia time do you spend on MOTD, percentage-wise?
Without giving away too much, it really depends on the day ... guess 10–25% but it varies
And, just for fun, what is your favourite motto of all time?
A difficult question. There have been many that i have liked in the past and sometimes a simplistic (at least in links) one is very good e.g. →And now for something completely different.... I doubt i would be able to say about one i liked which i promoted which was recent involving a teapot. There are many i like out there. I do remember that at one point there was one involving a red button or red link ...
ProcseeBot is a bot with an administrator flag. The bot collects lists of public open proxies, checks that they are world-usable, and if they are, it blocks them.
This is a summary of recent technology and site configuration changes that affect the English Wikipedia. Note that some changes described here have not yet gone live as of press time; the English Wikipedia is currently running version 1.44.0-wmf.8 (f08e6b3), 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.
Earlier this week, the developers rolled out an update of MediaWiki, to r46424. Rollback links on watchlists, the PROTECTIONLEVEL parser function, and other changes are now live. There are "fixes" [1] that users can use in personal css files (e.g. monobook.css), in order to hide the watchlist rollback links.
Fixed bugs
When uploading files as a "new version" of an existing file, the upload form is now simplified, giving only a field for "File changes" and filenames. (r46465, bug 15811)
User pages and talk pages of blocked users are now automatically no-indexed, to keep the pages from being indexed by search engines. (r45712, bug 11443)
User preferences now include the option to specify gender. This feature is most relevant to Wikipedia versions in other languages, including Polish and Russian, where system messages should vary based on gender. For example, the user namespace in Russian should display "Участник" for male and "Участница" for female users. (r46246, bug 13040)
The variable {{GENDER}} was also implemented, to allow the system messages to specific what text should be shown for which gender. It can also be used to view a user's gender.
When adjusting blocks, the block form fields are now pre-filled with the existing values. (r45862, bug 17045)
The undo function is now accessible via the API. (r46260, bug 15949)
Other news
The AbuseFilter extension [2] is enabled on test.wikipedia.org. The extension will allow admins to specify editing patterns to screen for and take some action, ranging from tagging edits for admin attention to blocking users and even emergency desysopping. The filter-triggered blocks and other serious actions are not currently enabled on the test wiki.
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 closed their poll on Checkuser and Oversight Appointments; no resulting announcements have been made.
The Arbitration Committee closed no cases this week, and opened one, leaving a total of six cases open. Two motions were passed.
Evidence phase
SemBubenny: A case about the communication behavior of SemBubenny (formerly Mikkalai), and his use of administrator tools in disputed deletions.
Ayn Rand: A case about editorial behavior, such as alleged POV-pushing and bad faith, in relation to the Ayn Rand article. The Arbitration Committee accepted the case as they found that all other avenues of dispute resolution had failed to resolve the dispute.
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. Proposed remedies that will extend and narrow PHG's current topic ban have the unanimous support of ten and twelve arbitrators, respectively.
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.
Motions
Motion re Slimvirgin: This motion was amended, in two parts, by this motion. Pending the outcome of the current RfC on Arbitration Enforcement, the restriction provided in the first motion is clarified to apply only to restrictions placed by administrators on specific editors. The second amendment states that the general expectation of administrators to explain their actions and be available for discussion is not waived when performing administrator actions as Arbitration Enforcement.
Motion re Bishzilla: This motion "strongly admonished Bishzilla for her conduct in the matter". Bishzilla is an alternate account of Bishonen, who had held for several months the administrator flag previously held by Bishonen; the flag has since been transferred back to the Bishonen account. Bishzilla had blocked then Arbitrator FT2 to force the issue on removing FT2 from the committee. FT2 later resigned from the committee.
In the news (ITN) is the section on the Main Page that highlights Wikipedia's best new and expanded articles regarding topics of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items. It is sometimes misunderstood that ITN does not act as a newspaper; it is not a news ticker, nor does it link to news articles at Wikinews. All links are to Wikipedia content, encouraging readers to help update the article, point out potential errors and encourage further participation.
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
.svg){kind=small}
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
