The annual celebrations of Wikipedia Day on January 15 will be of unprecedented dimensions this year, as Wikipedia completes its first full decade. As reported earlier ("Preparations for Wikipedia's tenth anniversary gearing up"), the Wikimedia Foundation has set up a separate wiki to coordinate events – at the time of writing, it listed over 300 events in over 100 countries – and has been supporting these by offering anniversary-themed merchandise, such as buttons and T-shirts. The wiki is currently being advertised via banners on the English Wikipedia.
Considerable worldwide media coverage of the anniversary has already begun, see this week's "In the news".
The WMF's Chief Community Officer Zack Exley has announced that Swedish Wikipedian Lennart Guldbrandsson (User:SvHannibal) has become the fourth recipient of a Community fellowship. He has joined the Outreach team and during his fellowship will work on two of its projects: the Bookshelf Project (focusing on translation and dissemination of the project's instructional material about Wikipedia) and the Account Creation Improvement Project. Guldbrandsson/Hannibal is a longtime Wikipedian, founder and first chair of the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, and author of a book about Wikipedia.
In the community fellowship program, started in September, community members are employed full-time for a limited amount of time by the Foundation's Community Department to work on specific problems (Signpost coverage). The first fellow, Steven Walling (User:Steven (WMF)), is currently coordinating celebrations of Wikipedia's upcoming tenth anniversary (see above) and is also working on the Contribution Taxonomy research project (Signpost coverage). He was followed by Victoria Doronina (User:Mstislavl) and Maryana Pinchuk, who around the end of September started an eight-week research project to develop methods for writing histories of Wikimedia projects (Signpost coverage).
As Wikipedians prepare to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Wikipedia on January 15 (see this week's News and notes), numerous media outlets worldwide have already started to cover it, many by publishing interviews and opinion articles about the project.
Bloomberg Businessweek has published a historical assessment of the first ten years, produced under a loose interpretation of Wikipedia's own collaborative principles. It was drafted by journalist Drake Bennett, after which it was rewritten, corrected, and commented upon by a team of guest editors – Jonathan Zittrain, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School; Robert Dale McHenry, editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica 1992–1997; Benjamin Mako Hill, MIT Researcher, Wikipedia editor and member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board and Mike Schroepfer, Developer of the Firefox open source browser and now Vice President of Engineering at Facebook.
On January 5, Jon Stewart started his interview with Jimmy Wales on The Daily Show by wishing him a happy anniversary. (video recording, alternative link – both may not work in all geographical areas) During the program, Stewart joked about vandalizing Britannica (by drawing penises on its margins), and questioned why Wikipedia had chosen the jurisdiction of Florida for its servers ("maybe our nation's silliest state").
On January 9, The Hindu wished "Happy birthday, Wikipedia!", noting that it is going to be celebrated in 35 cities in India.
Commenting for The Independent, British comedian and writer Natalie Haynes asserted that Wikipedia shows the internet at its best, defending it against critics ("Plenty of people dislike Wiki in principle.... In my experience, those people rarely visit the site, dismissing it entirely because they once found a ropey article") despite recalling some unencyclopedic content in early revisions of the article about herself some years ago. She also mentioned Wikipedia's upcoming 10th anniversary and the recent successful fundraiser (claiming it had become known as "Operation JimboStare").
The US National Public Radio (NPR) current-affairs program All Things Considered featured a brief interview with Jimmy Wales on January 10. For the frequently asked question whether the reliability of Wikipedia suffered from Wikipedians not revealing their real names, the host interestingly chose the recent false reports that US politician Gabrielle Giffords had been killed (instead of merely being injured) in the recent 2011 Tucson shooting – a misinformation that had originated on NPR itself and made its way in the Wikipedia article briefly ("as we were getting it wrong, you were getting it wrong").
Wired UK opened a Wikipedia week on January 10 ("a series of articles, interviews, retrospective musings and podcasts about the web's most frequented encyclopaedia"), starting with one article based on an interview with Sue Gardner and one about "The battle to make Wikipedia more welcoming".
The readers of the Nashua Telegraph, a daily newspaper in New Hampshire, US, have been asked to help extending a new article about Greeley Park, a local park, to celebrate Wikipedia's upcoming anniversary. The newspaper's staff writer David Brooks (also a Wikipedia admin as User:DavidWBrooks) started the page as a 32-character stub ("Greeley Park is in Nashua."), which was quickly expanded by various registered and anonymous editors. ("Greater Nashua residents asked to help edit Wikipedia’s ‘Greeley Park’ entry")
The BBC World Service has scheduled a feature programme titled "Wikipedia at 10" to be broadcast on air and online from Friday 14 January (times here).
In an article for the The Chronicle of Higher Education, titled "Wikipedia comes of age", Casper Grathwohl, vice president and publisher of digital and reference content for Oxford University Press, offered an eloquent defense of Wikipedia's value on the occasion of its tenth anniversary, recalling how his own opinion of it "has radically evolved over time ... Not long ago, publishers like myself would groan when someone talked about how Wikipedia was effectively replacing reference publishing, especially for students". He presented a perspective of the Internet's knowledge system as being divided into "layers of information authority", and argued that Wikipedia is a "necessary layer" in this structure:
| “ | The bottom layers (the most ubiquitous, whose sources are the most ephemeral, and with the least amount of validation) lead to layers with greater dependability, all the way to the highest layers, made up mostly of academic resources maintained and validated by academic publishers that use multiple peer reviews, trained editors, and scholarly reviewers. When the system is effective, the layers serve to reinforce one another through clear pathways that allow queries to move from one layer to another with little resistance. ... Wikipedia ... is not the bottom layer of authority, nor the top, but in fact the highest layer without formal vetting. In this unique role, it therefore serves as an ideal bridge between the validated and unvalidated Web. | ” |
As an example, Grathwohl described how in 2006, "a tenfold increase in Wikipedia-referred traffic on [OUP's] music-research site Grove Music Online" had alerted him to a project that academic musicologists had started to improve Wikipedia's music coverage. "Research that began on Wikipedia led to (the more advanced and peer-validated) Grove Music, for researchers who were going on to do in-depth scholarly work."
In a 2008 interview, Grathwohl had already argued that Wikipedia was "great", as a source of a "'good enough' answer", and challenged the "myth that before user-generated web content everyone slavishly referred to trusted reference authorities for their quick information" – instead, most people would just have asked a friend, which was "absolutely not" more reliable than Wikipedia today.
A project to "create an avowedly inclusionist complement to Wikipedia, launching in 2011", codenamed Infinithree ("∞³"), was introduced at the beginning of January by Gordon Mohr (User:Gojomo, Chief Technologist at the Internet Archive's web archive projects). Mohr said that the endeavour was motivated by his belief that "deletionism erases true & useful reference knowledge, drives away contributors, and surrenders key topics to cynical spammy web content mills". He noted that "Infinithree is not a fork and won’t simply redeploy MediaWiki software with inclusionist groundrules. That’s been tried a few times, and has been moribund each time. Negative allelopathy from Wikipedia itself dooms any almost-but-not-quite-Wikipedia; a new effort must set down its roots farther afield." Mohr added that Infinitithree would differ from Deletionpedia and Everything2 by the aspiration "to be an expansive postencyclopedic reference work". Mike Linksvayer (User:Mike Linksvayer, Vice President of Creative Commons) wrote on his personal blog that he was "confident in Gordon’s ability to make [Infinithree] non-vapor and extremely interesting", having co-founded collaborative media cataloguing website Bitzi together with Mohr ten years ago. In the posting, Linksvayer also mused about inclusionism, deletionism and notability in general, on the occasion of an ongoing deletion request for the article about himself (which he "would strongly advocate deleting if I were a deletionist" – "I am either somewhat questionable as an English Wikipedia article subject [or] unquestionably non-notable").
This week, we checked out WikiProject UK Waterways which focuses on the intricate system of navigable rivers, canals, and related structures that stretch across the United Kingdom. Started in April 2007, the project has grown to include 28 editors working on over 700 pages, including 3 pieces of featured material and 11 good articles. The project is a child of WikiProject UK Geography and WikiProject Transport while also collaborating with WikiProject Rivers. WikiProject UK Waterways maintains a list of open tasks and contributes to the United Kingdom Portal.
We interviewed six contributors to WikiProject UK Waterways. Ronhjones is an admin who lives less than two miles from the Lancaster Canal and owns a narrowboat on the Llangollen Canal at Whixall. Hymers2 lives near the Thames and shares ownership of a narrowboat mored at Napton. He has been cruising the canals since 1971. Jezhotwells lives in Bristol very close to the Floating Harbour. He worked for many years as a skipper/guide on trip boats in the harbour and thus has an interest in the city docks and the River Avon. EdJogg lives within reach of the Wey Navigation and the Wey and Arun Canal. He crosses the Basingstoke Canal on his daily commute. He is interested in industrial archaeology and canal restoration, although not actively participating in either, and wanted to improve related coverage at Wikipedia. Geni is an admin who aims to make sure there is an article for every canal listed in the List of canals of the United Kingdom. Rodw never added his name to the project's membership, but has interacted with the project as he became involved in canal and river articles in Somerset. He lives near the River Chew.
Why is WikiProject UK Waterways the only project on Wikipedia devoted to regional waterways? Are rivers, canals, locks, and other waterways utilized differently in the United Kingdom than in continental Europe, the United States, Australia, or elsewhere?
What are some of the benefits and challenges of maintaining a regionally-focused WikiProject?
The project has three pieces of featured material and 11 good articles. Have you contributed to any of these articles? Are you currently working on bringing an article up to FA or GA status?
Some of the project's articles include route maps. How do these compare to the route maps for train and roadway articles? What sources of information are used to create route maps for waterways?
How are abandoned waterways and structures handled by the project? Do these tend to be more interesting than the waterways currently in use?
Does the project have any difficulties acquiring pictures of waterways? Does the project's regional focus make requested photography easier to take?
Anything else you'd like to add?
Next week, we'll watch the world's second most popular sport. Until then, stump the batsman with your superior knowledge of WikiProjects by reading through the archive.
Reader comments
"In the past year, the featured topics process has evolved significantly. The raw numbers are as follows for 2010: 21 featured topics were promoted, 65 good topics were promoted (including 18 in October, a record), 16 topics were demoted, and there were 16 supplementary additions.
The numbers have shifted from 2009, during which there were 32 promoted FTs, 50 promoted GTs, 13 demotions, and 15 supplemental additions. However, this reduction in numbers is despite a major change in the process: as of September 1, a new requirement has been that at least half of the articles in a featured topic must themselves be featured (up from a third); if this is not the case, the topic is eligible instead for good topic status. As a result, 23 topics went from featured to good, bringing the total number of featured topics to below the 100-mark (currently there are 94 FTs and 141 GTs). Beyond that, a shift in running the process was made, as I have mostly taken over from User:Rst20xx, who became inactive about halfway through 2010.
As for specifics on what areas have been strongly represented in promotions, most have come from the MILHIST project—particularly as a result of Operation Majestic Titan—and many promotions have been of music albums and discographies. In many areas, topics remain non-existent; examples are economics, math, business, and engineering, to name a few.
Of the topics promoted in 2010, what was the featured topic of the year? That was one of the first topics of 2010, the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which currently contains 42 articles, 24 featured and 18 good. It's one of the largest topics we have, and even for someone who could care less about cricket, I found it to be a great read, and enjoyed watching the progress the topic made.
As featured topics are not an oft-traveled area of wikipedia, I wanted to note about the value of the process. Namely, creating a topic allows a group of similar articles to become examples of our best work, since people interested in one article may be interested in another article in that topic. Those wishing to read about 30 Rock (season 1) and modify it, for example, would be the same people wanting to modify and read 30 Rock (season 2). Since many articles in a topic might use the same sources, it also makes it easier on one's time or on one's wallet if they already have the sources to work on a cluster of articles. Having an article featured is great; having a group of articles featured can provide a much greater benefit, especially if it's on an important topic. (If U.S. presidents or UK prime ministers were ever featured topics, that would be amazing)
If you want to contribute a topic but need ideas on one, I can always provide some help. You can find topics in anything if you look hard enough, which is one of the joys of working on them."
The Signpost asked FA regular DrKiernan to select the Choice of the week:
Three featured articles were delisted:
.jpg)
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, but closed one today, leaving one case open.
The deadline which has been set for evidence submissions in this case is 15 January 2011. The original deadline, 3 December 2010, was extended after parties made requests to have more time to present their evidence. At the time of writing, except for this, no further evidence or workshop proposals have been submitted on-wiki during the week.
This case concerns allegations about misrepresentation of sources, disruptive editing, and WikiProject Military history (the Mil-Hist WikiProject). The filer and main party of the case, Communicat (talk · contribs), made a series of accusations about the behavior of editors of the Mil-hist WikiProject. He also alleged that World War II articles rely on orthodox Western sources to the exclusion of non-Western or significant-minority Western positions. Other editors, including editors from the WikiProject, made accusations about Communicat's editing and behavior. Evidence and workshop proposals were submitted (see earlier Signpost coverage), and the drafter of the case, arbitrator Newyorkbrad, posted a proposed decision for voting on 6 January 2011 which attracted votes from 13 arbitrators. The case came to a close today.
On 5 January 2011, Piotrus (talk · contribs) requested the Committee to lift his modified topic ban which bans him from "articles about national, cultural, or ethnic disputes within Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about these topics". The ban is set to expire on 2 March 2011. On 6 January 2011, Newyorkbrad indicated that arbitrators are waiting for others to comment, including on whether the topic-ban should be lifted altogether or whether the wording of the topic ban should be clarified. The question about the wording being clarified arose after this arbitration enforcement appeal. Although an editor has supported Piotrus' request, two administrators have repeated their requests for the restriction to be amended - to better-communicate ArbCom's intent in a clearly worded editing restriction.
On 14 December 2010, Jayjg (talk · contribs) requested the Committee to lift the topic ban that was imposed on him at the conclusion of the case. The Committee accepted his request and a motion was passed; Jayjg is no longer banned from Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles.
On 30 November 2010, Koavf (talk · contribs) requested for his Community sanctions to be lifted. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad formally proposed a motion on 3 January 2011 to terminate the restrictions that were placed upon Koavf in the Koavf arbitration. 12 arbitrators supported the motion and it was adopted on 6 January 2011. On 9 January 2011, clerk NuclearWarfare pointed out that the motion does not address the community sanctions. Newyorkbrad apologized for the delay and proposed to copyedit the motion. He said that unless an arbitrator objects to the change he made to the motion ([1]), it will be considered adopted as if the Community sanctions have also been removed. As no objections were made, the motion was passed today.
Foundation developer Rob Lanphier gave an update this week on the next milestone release of the MediaWiki software, version 1.17 (wikitech-l mailing list):
| “ | The code review group continues to make headway on the backlog of outstanding checkins in "new" status. We peaked at 1400 unreviewed check-ins [updates to the software] back in September, last month we were at 800, and now we're now under 300.
We *hope* this means we can push a 1.17 version of MediaWiki to production sometime this month, with a tarball [i.e. a release to non-WMF sites] available some time after that. That still looks like a bit of a stretch goal, but more plausible now than the last time this came up. |
” |
Due to the way Wikimedia wikis are run, they already benefit from some, but not all, of the updates present in 1.17. Most external sites have not yet been able to take advantage of these changes.
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.
