Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/In the media
For some time, visitors to Wikimedia Commons have been able to access "timed text" (a system of time references and accompanying text, better known by its applications as subtitles and closed captions) via the mwEmbed gadget. The subtitling effort has been hampered, however, by the lack of a useful editor for the timed text. "Universal Subtitles", a Mozilla Drumbeat project, aims to fill the void for all websites, but Wikimedia had not been able to integrate it. That changed this week, when developer Michael Dale announced that (Wikimedia Techblog):
| “ | Today, I am happy to share our first pass at integrating our open subtitle efforts. Please keep in mind this integration is still very early on in development, but the basic milestone of being able to use the tool on commons to create and sync up subtitle tracks is an important first step. Even without helpful tools in place, the Wikimedia community has been creating subtitles and translations. We hope this new subtitle edit tool will broaden the number of participants and enable the Wikimedia community to set a new standard for high quality multilingual accessibility in online video content. | ” |
An example is available, and it is also possible to leave feedback.
This week saw a revitalised drive towards reaching an understanding between WMF staff decision-makers, WMF paid developers, and the volunteer development community. For a long time the creation of the MediaWiki software, which Wikimedia, Wikia and a number of other sites rely on, had a development cycle that operated like a wiki, for better or worse. It included a large number of volunteer developers and only a handful of paid employees (for example, Brion Vibber); their contributions were checked and deployed in sequential order. With its budget expanding in recent years, the Foundation has been able to hire more developers, who are now involved in a large number of projects some would perceive as being nearly impossible for a volunteer to complete in their spare time. Likewise, the review system has been updated to allow important fixes to be deployed out-of-cycle without first reviewing other more minor edits. Staff and developers, both paid and volunteer, are now concerned that a tension is growing between the various parts of the jigsaw, an "us vs. them dynamic" (Erik Möller, Deputy Director), similar to the conflict that had flared up earlier this year between the User Experience team and volunteer developers over a seemingly minor issue (the display of interwiki links, see Signpost coverage), where Möller had likewise observed "a widening gap between staff and volunteer contributions". Paid developer Roan Kattouw put his thoughts down (Wikitech-l mailing list):
| “ | Since the discussion about staff collaboration with volunteers started a few weeks ago, actions and statements by staff members have undergone an increasing amount of scrutiny and criticism. That in itself is not a bad thing... in recent weeks, however, posts on this mailing list [i.e. from volunteers] have gone way beyond 'some' scrutiny and criticism, instead suggesting something closer to distrust and paranoia. | ” |
Volunteer Aryeh Gregor responded:
| “ | This is a symptom of the tension between staff and volunteers. Naturally, volunteers are more likely to express their frustration here, because they don't have to act professional and because they're the ones who feel wronged in this case. | ” |
More optimistically, the discussion turned to possible solutions. There was general agreement that getting back to more regular updates was the solution (Roan Kattouw):
| “ | I whole-heartedly agree with the analysis that deploy backlog is at the hear[t] of this. I have some gut feelings I can't word very well right now that say the "solely because they're not WMF" isn't completely fair, but what you've stated multiple times in various guises is true: what matters is perception, fair or not. If volunteers *feel* ignored, that's bad. ... We need to come up with a plan that takes us back to regular (weekly?) deployments. I think cleaning up the CR [Code Review] backlog is an uncontroversial first step. | ” |
This sentiment was mirrored by Aryeh Gregor:
| “ | To reiterate, I think most of the problem will disappear when we have regular code deployment again. At this point, it's best to focus solely on that and forget about all other complaints. If problems linger for long after everyone's code is getting deployed on a regular basis, we can talk about that then, and I think everyone will be talking on much more amicable basis. | ” |
There was continuing disagreement, however, about whether or not the Foundation was doing enough to achieve this goal, and how quickly it needed to be achieved. Discussion included the expansion of the code review base - including the rehiring of Brion Vibber, for example - which unfortunately coincided with the paternity leave of head code reviewer Tim Starling.
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.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Opinion
As reported by Steven Ma, the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Associate, "more than one hundred Wikipedia editors, donors, and readers" attended an event titled Inside the Globe in New York on 7 October. The evening was both a fundraiser and an opportunity to introduce major donors to the people and culture of the projects. Roughly a dozen editors were present, including Wikimedia New York City board members and other local Wikimedians. Hosted by the Harnisch Foundation (a patron of Wikimedia) in the Metropolitan Tower, the evening saw presentations by Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia fellow Steven Walling. Steven spoke about "the identity and culture of the most involved editors, highlighting the motivations and methods behind their amazing accomplishments within the project". After the event, Ruth Ann Harnisch, the president of the Harnisch Foundation, expressed her pleasure to have introduced "so many people to the workings of their favorite online resource." In an August blog post, she had invited donors to attend the Wikimedia fundraising event, noting that she had added the WMF to her list of grantees several years ago (as a "tiny part of the support system for Wikipedia"); in the posting, she also expressed her support for the Wikimedia Foundation in its then ongoing conflict with the FBI over the reproduction of the Bureau's seal (see Signpost coverage).
The copyright situation in Argentina is considered particularly restrictive. In a 2010 Consumers International study of 34 countries, it came out sixth-worst for consumer rights. Argentina provides no fair use or library exceptions, and does not even permit the free use of public domain works in all cases (for some uses, a fee has to be paid to a fund supporting artists). The book argues that this is detrimental for education and culture. Wikimedia Argentina has engaged in various lobbying efforts regarding the copyright situation, such as signing a letter to parliament protesting last year's extension of copyright in phonograms (sound recordings) from 50 to 70 years after creation, and opposing ongoing lobbying by photographers to extend the monopoly on photographs from 25 to 50 years after creation, which would affect commons:Template:PD-AR-Photo.
Edited by Busaniche, the book collects contributions by various authors to the copyright debate in Argentina. One chapter, by Wikipedian and founding member of Wikimedia Argentina Roberto Fiadone, presents Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects as examples of communities that generate free knowledge. Another chapter, on ebooks, was reprinted by the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit. The Heinrich Böll Foundation funded a translation into German and organized a presentation of the book in Berlin, in addition to the panel at the Frankfurt event. The book is available as a PDF under a CC-BY-SA license. The Spanish version was downloaded more than 20,000 times during the first week. Busaniche also gave a podcast interview (in English) about the book to German blog Netzpolitik.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, but closed one, leaving one open.
This case concerns accusations of wiki-hounding and disruptive editing, and was filed by Stevertigo, a Wikipedia editor since 2002. He alleges that several editors deem his editing to be "disruptive" or "in need of banning" because they "still hold the grudge that previous cases did not find in their favor regarding [Stevertigo]". He also alleges that he "largely won" an argument against two editors in relation to the Time article, and that those two editors began editing the Punishment article due to an undue interest in Stevertigo's editing rather than due to an interest in the article. The case is currently in the evidence and workshop phase. Drafting arbitrators Kirill Lokshin and SirFozzie have placed proposals on the workshop page which have attracted limited input, mostly from a couple of parties and arbitrators. At the time of writing, no uninvolved users from the Community have commented on the proposals.
This case was opened after several requests for arbitration were filed on the same topic. Innovations were introduced for this case, including special rules of conduct that were put in place at the start. The case generated a number of concerns and criticisms, particularly in relation to its handling; a common concern was that arbitrators failed to sufficiently engage with participants, adversely affecting the ability of many participants to provide meaningful evidence in support of their (or in response to others) claims (see coverage by Signpost: last week, earlier).
The evidence and workshop pages were closed for an extended period; however, no proposals were posted on the proposed decision page and participants were prevented from further discussing the case on the case pages. A month after the workshop pages were closed, a proposed decision was posted; this sparked a large amount of unstructured discussion, mostly comprising concerns about the proposed decision (see earlier Signpost coverage). A number of users, including participants and arbitrators, made the discussion more structured, but the quantity of discussion continued to increase significantly. Arbitrators closed or archived discussions more frequently, particularly in the final weeks of the arbitration. The highly anticipated decision was enacted during the week; it attracted several responses.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-18/Humour
