Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/In the media
Wikimedia's Chief Technical Officer Danese Cooper last week took part in an "office hours" discussion on IRC. Speaking about her own role, the state of Wikimedia's technical departments, and answering questions from the community, she gave insights into what the future might hold for Wikimedia (public logs). Although discussion was fragmented, a number of important points were touched on:
Michael Dale, a Kaltura employee working with the Wikimedia Foundation to build easier ways of using the power of video in Wikimedia projects, this week announced the creation of a free "video sequencer" for Commons (Wikimedia techblog). The sequencer, which allows users to remix existing and new video, audio, text and images into single video sections (see example, right), was described by Kaltura as "a stepping stone in the world of online media". It requires a modern browser to use, with the best performance by the Firefox 4 betas. It is hoped the sequencer will bridge the gap between images, which are relatively common on Wikimedia projects, and videos, which are relatively rare, to create overview, documentary-style introductions to topics on Wikipedia, among other uses.
As the capabilities around video are refined and expanded, a worry has been that increased usage of video would impose a significant additional cost on the Foundation, especially due to bandwith usage. Michael Dale announced a cooperation with P2P-Next, who presented at Wikimania this year. Their technology makes it possible to use peer-to-peer technology for downloading the videos and all you need is to enter the mwEmbed video pilot and install the P2P-Next Swarmplayer Firefox plugin (a plugin for Internet Explorer and a MacOS version of Swarmplayer are still in development). After viewing the video, your browser will share the video for you with other viewers and thus alleviate the strain on the resources of the Foundation. It is claimed that the sharing is configurable and will not get in the way of your browsing experience.
We conclude a series of articles about this year's Google Summer of Code (GSoC) with Stephen LaPorte, a law school student, who describes his project to creating a tool to format judicial decisions, legal scholarship, and statutes for Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource:
“ | WikiSource should be a repository of statutory law, judicial decisions, and legal scholarship. Prof. Timothy K. Armstrong identified Wikisource as solution to the architectural limitations of existing repositories for judicial decisions and legal scholarship. Prof. Armstrong listed three obstacles for Wikisource--legal, content, and cultural issues. The legal and cultural issues can be address through education and outreach. This project addresses the problem of content.
A tool to format judicial decisions and statutes will help users move text that is already electronically available and in the public domain to Wikisource, solving the "chicken-and-egg" problem that Wikisource currently faces. Once Wikisource has a substantial body of legal sources, users will gain value from and improve the coverage of those legal sources. |
” |
Stephen worked on four such tools: importing U.S. Supreme Court cases (example), importing the current U.S. legal code (example), wikifying legal citations (tool) and helping categorise U.S. Supreme Court cases (tool).
Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.
action=parse
" module was briefly deactivated over performance concerns stemming from the Extension:ImageAnnotator gadget, before being re-enabled.<!-- interwiki at top -->
to a page will now prevent bots running on the popular pywikipedia framework from moving interwikis to the bottom of the page (as is the norm for the vast majority of pages).Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Opinion
The French-language Wikipedia celebrated its millionth article with the creation of the article Louis Babel on September 21. The French-language Wikipedia is the third to cross this threshold, after the German (with 1.1 million) and English Wikipedias (with 3.4), having grown at a steady rate since its formation in 2001. It has more than 60 million individual edits and 300,000 active contributors; article creation at WP.fr spiked in 2005–06, driven by the addition of some 36,000 geographical stubs, then stabilized to a present rate of 300–400 new articles a day, as well as 800 active contributor registrations per month.
The milestone was also announced on Wikimedia France's Twitter feed. Because of lag on the Wikipedia page lists, the milestone was expected to be hit two days later, on September 23; following a flurry of page creations, the developers revealed that the milestone had been hit with the creation of Louis Babel, two days prior to the expected date.
The next Wikipedias likely to break the threshold are the Polish (now at 729,000 articles) and the Italian (728,000).
Part Two of three installments of the 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content has been released (see earlier Signpost coverage: "Board resolution on offensive content", "Study on controversial content"). Authored by consultants Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris, it sets out 11 recommendations for discussion, to be presented to the Board in October, among them that:
Part Three will contain a "rough catalogue" of existing sexual images on Commons.
After a deliberation process lasting more than a year, the free wiki-based online encyclopedia Citizendium has adopted a charter (consisting of 55 articles laying a constitution-like foundation for the project's governance). This was announced last week by its founder Larry Sanger, whose role as editor-in-chief ended with the charter's ratification.
Plans for a charter had already been mentioned in Citizendium's initial press release in October 2006, but the drafting process did not start until a July 2009 statement by Sanger, in which he announced his intention to step down as editor-in-chief, partly to fulfill his pledge to do so two or three years after Citizendium's inception, and partly due to his inactivity on the project.
The charter's 55 articles are in seven sections ("Citizenship and editorship", "Content and style", "Organization and offices", "Community policy", "Behavior and dispute resolution", "Administrative matters", and "Transitional measures"). A nomination process has now begun to fill governance roles set out in the charter: A five-member Management Council, a seven-member Editorial Council, a Managing Editor, and an Ombudsman. The preamble to the charter describes Citizendium as "a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free", without mentioning the word "encyclopedia". There were concerns about ambiguous statements and a lack of copy-editing in the final version (there are typos such as "Managament Council"). Sanger himself, who was not directly involved in the drafting process, had objected to the wording of several articles, including those mentioning original research and advertising, and to the absence from the charter of "anything like a bill of rights enumerating the rights of Citizens against unfair procedures and punishments". In last week's announcement, Sanger also criticized the charter's "lack of any requirement that articles be family-friendly" (as in Citizendium's current family-friendly policy), and added that "there is some seriously twisted stuff on Wikipedia that has no business in a resource calling itself an 'encyclopedia'" (cf. Signpost coverage of his earlier allegations against Wikimedia Commons). On the other hand, he expressed hope that the charter would make it easier to exclude problematic contributors from Citizendium, which he said suffered from the presence of "ideologues" and "cranks" (the project has been criticized for being over-lenient towards advocates of topics such as homeopathy or chiropractic).
Despite the criticism of the final version, it was overwhelmingly approved, by 65 of 72 participating members. (In each of the past two months, there were around 100 active Citizendium users, i.e. accounts that had made at least one edit, according to Citizendium's statistics.) Half of the eight-member Charter Drafting Committee had "dropped out" before the vote, and one of the remaining committee members (also the Secretary of Citizendium's Editorial Council) justified the decision not to delay the process further: "Citizendium is on intensive care life support. I think it has a chance to recover with an imperfect charter".
In his announcement, Sanger dismissed "hopeful, mean-spirited reports of our impending demise", observing that "our traffic has been steadily growing, and I've observed new people continuing to get involved". However, he warned that "the funds available to pay for the Citizendium servers are running low" and advised the community to think about funding options and cheaper hosting (see also July 26 Signpost coverage).
The interim poll on the use of Pending changes on Wikipedia has closed. After the two-month Pending changes trial, an earlier straw poll had produced 407 in favor, 217 opposed, plus 44 other responses. Jimbo Wales then asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep the tool running until there had been further discourse (see Signpost story).
The interim poll, from September 20–27, was run to decide whether the system should be kept in place until the release of a new version, projected for November 9, that is expected to address some concerns. It closed with 289 votes for temporary continuation and 199 for temporary removal.
A trial that would apply Pending changes to WP:MEDS articles has been proposed, to gather additional data. Testing has been centralized, and the poll has received a large amount of debate on its talk page.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases, leaving one open.
This case resulted from the merging of several Arbitration requests on the same topic into a single case, and the failure of a related request for comment to make headway. Innovations have been introduced for this case, including special rules of conduct that were put in place at the start. However, the handling of the case has been criticized by some participants; for example, although the evidence and workshop pages were closed for about five weeks, during this time, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing their case on the case pages (see earlier Signpost coverage).
The proposed decision, drafted by Newyorkbrad, Risker, and Rlevse, sparked a large quantity of unstructured discussion, much of it comprising concerns about the proposed decision (see earlier Signpost coverage). A number of users, including participants and arbitrator Carcharoth, made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion has continued to increase significantly. Rlevse had said that arbitrators were trying to complete the proposed decision before September 6, but it was later made clear that he will no longer be voting on this decision. This week, arbitrators made further additions to the proposed decision.
Earlier this week, arbitrators provided their first responses to the request to reimpose an Eastern European topic ban on Radeksz. As reported earlier, the proposed topic ban was originally imposed at the conclusion of the case, but was lifted three months ago by the Committee. Arbitrator SirFozzie warned that most “drastic action” may result if there is no improvement in the topic area, and echoed this in response to the Piotrus request (see below). Arbitrator KnightLago stated that there was a “growing tiredness within the Arbitration Committee for all things EEML related” which "confused" an editor a bit. Other arbitrators asked participants to read and consider both arbitrator's comments.
Earlier this week, Piotrus filed a request for his Eastern Europe topic ban to be lifted. This amendment request is identical to the request which was filed in July (see earlier Signpost coverage) – in that request, this statement (by former arbitrator Charles Matthews), and this statement, persuaded the majority of the Committee to oppose modifying the restrictions. However, arbitrator Newyorkbrad is again considering a motion to partially lift the effect of the restriction.
At the time of writing, no further progress has been made on this clarification request since last week’s Signpost coverage concerning discretionary sanctions. In response to arbitrator Newyorkbrad's question of whether anything further is being requested, the filer confirmed that arbitrators have not responded to, or not answered multiple questions that the filer asked.
At the time of writing, no further progress has been made on this amendment request - to impose a topic ban on Ferahgo the Assassin from race and intelligence related articles. Although an arbitrator stated that he would support a topic ban, no arbitrator has cast formal on-wiki votes for the proposal yet.
The Community has been invited to comment on the Wikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC); in particular, the preferred methods of selecting community representatives, and the duration of time they would serve. “The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.” AUSC is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee which should review and act upon concerns received by the community about CheckUser and Oversight activities. Currently, AUSC consist of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms, and three arbitrators who rotate every six months or so. A summary of AUSC’s activity has also been posted for comment. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-27/Humour