See last week's Signpost for a full background report on the annual fundraiser: "November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement"
Despite being labeled as mere "technical testing" (see also this week's Tech report) before the official launch on November 15, the initial days of the Wikimedia fundraiser since November 12 have already seen a new record for the most revenue on a single day, with $517,938.57 coming in from 18,246 donations on Saturday 13th.
The fundraising "SM [social media] team" collected numerous supportive messages from donors on Twitter on their WikiContribute feed. On the other hand, it appears that the increased use of graphical banners featuring a personal appeal from Jimmy Wales (which had proven to be the most effective during testing, to the point that at least initially none of the community-submitted text banners will be used) was found too intrusive by many readers – staff member Deniz Gultekin acknowledged that "the banners are big, but they are effective", while SM team volunteer fetchcomms reported "seeing a lot of ... 'no-Jimmy-appeals-please' sentiment on Twitter" and pointed out that feedback was welcome on the design of other, upcoming graphic banners. Some readers reacted humorously to finding Wales looking at them from the top of Wikipedia pages, one juxtaposing a banner with the article Scopophobia, another interpreting a banner as "Jimmy Wales, Undead Scourge of Wikipedia".
For logged-in users on the English Wikipedia and Commons, a gadget to suppress the display of the fundraiser banner is available under Special:Preferences.
Liam Wyatt (User:Witty lama) has posted several photos from his visit to the Foundation's offices in San Francisco last week, some of them showing the fundraising team at work during the first day. The fundraiser was officially announced in a November 14 blog post by the Foundation's Community Department ("2010 Contribution Campaign launched") and a November 15 press release from its Global Development Department ("Seventh Annual Campaign to Support Wikipedia Kicks Off").
Following the discovery of Citizendium's dire financial situation by its newly appointed "Management Council" (see last week's Signpost: "Citizendium's finances running low"), the possibility of the Wikimedia Foundation throwing the wiki a lifeline has been brought up on the Foundation's mailing list. User:Geni suggested that the Foundation provide temporary support to Citizendium, in the form of "[an] offer to host Citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects." Citizendium, which aims to become "the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base," was created in 2006 by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, and went public on March 25, 2007. More recently, Sanger has been involved in several controversial conflicts with the Wikimedia Foundation, most notably accusing Commons of "knowingly distributing child pornography". Following his planned resignation from his post as editor-in-chief, the project's new leadership discovered and published details about its financial situation, most detailedly in a November 12 "Message to the Citizendium Community", which among other expenses noted Internet hosting costs including $750/month for servers "with significantly more processing power than we need", and expressed the intention "to move to a more reasonably provisioned configuration."
On Foundation-l, the proposal has been garnering some opposition but also tentative to enthusiastic support, assuming that the Foundation has the technical capacities; one editor offers his advice: "In business I have found that the most successful companies are those that reach out, build relationships with, and where possible help others that are compatible."
On the Citizendium forums, the new Managing Editor (who happens to be a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Research Committee) noted the suggestion with caution: "I think we should be attentive to that discussion, while continuing to explore other options". The Chief Constable added that "regardless of whether we have financial issues, having a healthy relationship with wikipedia is a good thing", to which other members of the Management and Editorial Councils agreed, one of them saying that "the antagonism that has been occasionally voiced is very strange to me". A tech staff member cautioned not to "get too excited about this": "Having briefly worked with some of the WMF people responsible for their systems, I think the probability of them allowing CZ to run our modified [ MediaWiki ] code on their systems is pretty low (near zero). They have too many problems of their own to take on ours". And in a comment to the Signpost on Twitter, Larry Sanger rejected the idea outright – "we aren't THAT desperate", later clarifying that he was speaking only for himself, but that "I wouldn't touch [Wikipedia]'s nest of vipers with a ten-foot pole".
In the meantime, Citizendium gained some breathing space through an internal fundraising drive that was started on November 10 ("We are in urgent and serious need of funds to pay for hosting our servers"). The drive, though hampered by the lack of an incorporated entity (donations have to be collected on the private account of a member of the Management Council and are not tax-deductible), collected $1,882 from 22 donors by November 14, among them Sanger with $250.
At the Board of Trustees meeting last month, the study on controversial content was presented and discussed, but its recommendations (Signpost coverage) were not immediately adopted, with the Board forming a workgroup instead.
The minutes for the meeting haven't been published yet, but Board member Phoebe Ayers posted an update last week, summarizing the three hours of the meeting that had been devoted to the topic, laying out further steps and inviting more community participation regarding the recommendations, e.g. by summarizing earlier discussions. On the same day, the Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner published a posting on her personal blog that started out from the same issue (noting that "we’re the only major site that doesn’t treat controversial material –e.g., sexually-explicit imagery, violent imagery, culturally offensive imagery– differently from everything else") and went on to identify "nine patterns that work" in making change at Wikimedia (the first pattern being "The person/people leading the change didn’t wait for it to happen naturally – they stepped up and took responsibility for making it happen"). She based these on an examination of three earlier cases of "successful change at Wikimedia": the Board's statement on BLPs in 2009, the Foundation's strategy project, and the license migration concluded in 2009.
These three examples, along with the controversial content study and the usability project, had already been mentioned some days earlier by Ting Chen, the Foundation's Chair, in a blog post titled "'Leadership is ...", where he saw them as reactions to changes both in the Wikimedia projects themselves and in the outside world, such as that "almost all governments, western free ones as more restrictive ones, are changing their laissez faire politic to the Internet and imposing more rigid policies for the web". He interpreted the controversial content discussion as "a result of our strategic planning (development and adaption in the nonwestern cultures) and the response of the changes in public policy and in our responsibility".
The posting was the first of several ones that Ting Chen wrote on occasion of attending a four-day intensive course at the Harvard Business School on "Governing for Nonprofit Excellence - Critical Issues for Board Leadership". The others were titled "Vision, Mission, Strategy" (interpreting the controversial content discussion in terms of the Foundation's mission statement), "Theory of Change" (considering various measures of change and success in the case of Wikimedia), and "Scale Up" (concluding that "the course was a good investment for the Foundation" – according to the HBS website, the course fee is $3,900).
Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
6 June 2011
ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
6 December 2010
Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
15 November 2010
Wikipedia books launched worldwide
10 May 2010
Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts
22 March 2010
New Book namespace created
11 January 2010
35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more
30 November 2009
Books extension enabled
2 March 2009
|
|
|
Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books |
Boing Boing [1] and The Atlantic [2] blogged about what they call "the largest image on Wikipedia", File:Georgetown_PowerPlant_interior_pano.jpg, a 27,184 × 16,995 pixels panorama with a file size of 25.79 MB, that was uploaded in 2008. Like other large images, it carries a warning that it might not display properly at full resolution in all browsers, recommending that the Toolserver-based zoom viewer be used instead. The high-resolution version (which has been criticized for being blurry at full resolution and containing "a creepy disembodied head on the left and a child's floating torso on the right", having been stitched together from around 56 photographs) is currently not used in any Wikipedia version; the English Wikipedia's article about the Georgetown Steam Plant museum uses a smaller version of the image. There are images on Commons with larger file sizes, such as the featured picture File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg, which weighs 44.68 MB at 24,726 × 5,000 pixels. The limit for files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is currently 100 MB.
This week, we looked at a new project that started just 30 days ago. WikiProject Bacon was created by admin and frequent FA contributor Cirt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. Despite the narrow focus, the project is already home to 11 active members, many of them previously contributors to the "Bacon Cabal." Several other bacon-related initiatives predate the project but now serve as support for the project's goals, including the Bacon Challenge and the Bacon WikiCup. While too new to judge the project's success (four bacon-related good articles predate the project), WikiProject Bacon offers a unique glimpse at how any group of editors with a common interest and a little motivation can build a worthwhile WikiProject. We interviewed Cirt, Drmies, and SuperHamster.
What motivated you to join/create WikiProject Bacon? Has bacon had a profound impact upon your life?
What are some of the difficulties a new project faces? How have you handled some of these hurdles in the past month?
How has the unique allure of bacon affected the project's membership? Do you have any concerns that the project's novelty may wear off over time?
The project is home to four good articles which predate the creation of the project. Did you contribute to any of these articles? Are you currently working on preparing an article for featured or good article status?
What relation does WikiProject Bacon have with the annual Bacon Challenge and the Bacon WikiCup? Does WikiProject Bacon plan to absorb any of these competitions?
What standards or recommendations does the project maintain for producing good bacon-related images?
Do bacon articles frequently run into notability issues? Has the project undertaken an effort to source or eliminate articles of questionable notability?
Some food and drink projects have remained independent (WikiProject Beer, WikiProject Spirits, and WikiProject Wine) while others have been merged into WikiProject Food and drink as task forces (Bartending, Cheeses, Cocktails/Mixed Drinks and Soft Drinks, Foodservice, Herbs and Spices, and Ice Cream/Desserts). Are you confident that bacon can sustain an independent WikiProject? What are the most important things needed to keep this project alive?
How can a new member help today?
Next week, we'll hit the gridiron with our favorite college teams. Until then, study old plays in the archive.
Reader comments
Interactive large-image-viewer (non-Flash)
The Signpost welcomes VernoWhitney (nom) as our newest admin. Verno has been with us for almost a year, during which time he has become a central part of Wikipedia’s copyright cleanup. Among his contributions, he has contributed to work on suspected copyright violations and as been a conscientious clerk at WP:Contributor copyright investigations. He is an active volunteer for the permissions queue at OTRS, and runs User:VWBot, which handles much of the manual labor at various copyright points and helps to ensure that articles tagged for problems receive appropriate review.
Choice of the week. The Signpost asked FA nominator and reviewer TonyTheTiger to select the best of the week.
Choice of the week. Avenue, a regular reviewer and occasional nominator at featured picture candidates, told The Signpost:
Information about new admins at the top is drawn from their user pages and RfA texts, and occasionally from what they tell us directly.
Reader comments
A Good article is one that has been determined to be "well written, factually accurate and verifiable; broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, and stable; and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses."[1] There are currently over 10,000 such articles on Wikipedia. All of these articles have been reviewed by at least one Wikipedian, and often more. The quality of the Good Article program relies on a body of reviewers who decide whether these articles are good enough to be listed. This article is about becoming one of those vital reviewers.
Anyone who has been involved in creating an article that they think meets the good article criteria can nominate it at the good articles nomination page. Here, editors are able to see which articles have been nominated for good article status, and choose one to review.
Over the past few months, a backlog has developed at the list of nominations, and regularly more than 300 articles are on the list waiting to be reviewed.[2] This week, The Signpost encourages editors to enhance the quality of content at Wikipedia by doing good article reviews. Below is a guide explaining how to effectively review good article nominations, and giving reasons why editors might consider reducing the backlog of nominations.
Articles submitted to the good article process must satisfy six points in order to become categorized as a good article: it must be (1) well-written, (2) factually accurate and verifiable, (3) broad in its coverage, (4) neutral, (5) stable, and (6) illustrated if possible. Reviewers compare the article to the criteria, and then either pass the article; put it on hold until issues are resolved; or fail it because it does not meet the criteria. Sometimes, reviewers might also seek a second opinion before making a decision.
Each of the six points is reviewed in its own way. To see if an article is well-written, you just need to read the article and make sure it makes sense. If you can't understand what a significant part of the article is trying to say, it likely fails this criteria. Beyond that, check for spelling errors, punctuation issues, paragraph structure, and similar possible problems. Minor copyediting problems can be fixed by the reviewer, though if you wish not to touch the article at all and note every issue on the GA review page, that is also acceptable. To see if it's factually accurate, make sure any controversial note is sourced; if something sounds odd, and it's unsourced, ask for source, and also make sure no original research is present by using the same method. The sources that are used also need to be checked to make sure they're appropriate. A book by a major author or article from the BBC would be an acceptable reference in an article, for example, while a random forum posting or blog entry would be an invalid source.
Whether the article is broad in coverage is harder to gauge unless you know the subject. Take a quick look around the web; if the subject is very important or influential, then expect a longer article, and if it's rather short, note that. For example, if the article on Abraham Lincoln was only about 1,000 words, the article would fail the broadness guideline. Conversely, if the article was 15,000 words, then that would be far too much detail for an individual article, and the article would need to be condensed (possibly by splitting off daughter articles with much of the detail).
An article's neutrality can be evaluated while reading for prose (point 1). For a biography, if it's obvious that the article is hiding good or bad points of the person, then that's a problem. The use of some adjectives can create neutrality problems. If you see "outstanding", "impressive", "terrible", and the like in the article, then those need to be removed, as they are meant to sway the reader.
To check for stability, simply glance at the edit history to make sure several users are not fighting back and forth, and make sure that the article doesn't keep drastically changing each week. If an article was written from November 3-15 and nominated on the 15th, then the article is stable, even though it was edited that day.
Images are not required for GA status, but if they are in the article, make sure that the file is in the public domain or tagged with an appropriate free license. If it's not, then make sure the fair use rationale listed is convincing as to why the image should be in the article. If there isn't a fair use rationale, ask for one.
While the above may seem daunting, this is all you need to do when reviewing a GA, and as such it is not an onerous process. If you need help with the above, there is a GA List template that can help you. Also, you can always get help on the GAN talk page, where experienced reviewers regularly make suggestions, and will respond to your questions.
In the past few months, the GA process has become mostly automated, making it much easier to nominate and review articles. Articles are placed automatically at the GAN page when the nomination template is placed on the article's talk page. The only manual work is changing the template when the article is passed or failed, and adding the name of the article to the main good article page.
Why does the Good Article review process matter? First, this is generally one of the stepping stones to getting a Featured Article, and a great review at this stage can make the FA process go much more smoothly, or even be the difference between the article passing or failing an FA review. The GA review process also greatly increases reader awareness of what constitutes quality information in Wikipedia: each good article has a green plus sign on the upper right corner, symbolizing that it's one of our better articles, and showing that it has undergone an independent review. Lastly, the GA review process improves our public reputation by showing we do quality assurance and actually check on articles.
As for you, the (potential) reviewer, helping improve articles to GA status means that you get to read some of Wikipedia's most interesting and detailed content before it becomes officially recognized as such.
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, leaving none open.
Gigs alleged that Lightmouse (talk · contribs) has engaged in "high speed semi-automated editing without BAG approval in apparent violation of the previous sanctions", and requested an amendment to the sanction, extending it to an indefinite ban on all automated and semi-automated editing.
At the time of writing, following arbitrators' request, Lightmouse has commented; comment requested from the Bot Approval Group remains outstanding.
Hipocrite requested that a new finding of fact be inserted regarding Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), a candidate for Adminship who had made an edit to a page related to Climate Change. If Sphilbrick is elected to this position, such an action would render him an involved admin. At the time of writing, four arbs responded, apparently in unanimous agreement that the proposed amendment is "unnecessary".
A motion was passed to amend the restriction that had been imposed on Piotrus at the conclusion of the case. Piotrus is now banned from topics concerning national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe (previously, this topic ban encompassed all Eastern Europe topics).
Reader comments
An idea was floated this week on the wikitech-l mailing list about converting the present MediaWiki logo (an embellished photograph of a sunflower, above right) into an SVG (i.e. converted it to a pictorial representation that can be easily scaled, below right). Whilst opinion was mixed over this colour of the bikeshed issue, Markus Krötzsch summarised the case for updating the logo:
| “ | We should be able to agree that the MediaWiki logo, while doing a good job for many years, has still a very hand-crafted, home-made look to it. This actually extends beyond the logo to the MediaWiki web site as a whole. I think saying so does in no way diminish the great work that past contributors have done in creating what we currently have -- but this must not stop us from looking into possibilities for future improvements. | ” |
The question was also raised about whether or not a revised MediaWiki logo would have to conform to WMF logo guidelines, which are based around the core colours of blue, green and red. "As for the colours", wrote developer Trevor Parscal, "I think there's no reason for MediaWiki's logo to conform to the WMF colour scheme. MediaWiki, like Wikipedia, has its own community of which some WMF staff are a part - it's totally reasonable for them to have their own identity."
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.
.jpg){kind=link}
