Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/In the media
Historically, the links for editing individual sections of a page have been aligned to the right hand side of the page, distancing them from the sections to which they refer. At the same time, having left-aligned edit links next to each header has been an available gadget on the English Wikipedia. In 2009, the Wikimedia Usability Initiative suggested making the left-aligned variant the default for all users, but although Wikia switched over and reported an increase in section editing the change was never implemented on WMF wikis.
In renewed efforts to increase the number of editors on Wikimedia projects, on 9 March the Foundation's usability and engineering departments began a joint week-long study of the editing impact of any switch to left-aligned edit links. To achieve this, they began to collect anonymous click data from readers, some of whom will be temporarily switched to the left-aligned style. If successful, this test could prove to be the first of many such experiments (Wikimedia Techblog). Developer on the project Trevor Parscal added that the current tests would be strictly quantitative and would be "followed up with additional research that will better assess the more subtle effects of such a change... these are experiments... just guidance as we explore ways to improve the usefulness of the site."
In response to privacy concerns, the blog post also added that "if any editor would like to abstain from participating in this and other experiments in the future, they can select the 'Exclude me from feature experiments' option in their user preferences."
After numerous bugs were found in the wake of the deployment of MediaWiki 1.17 almost a month ago, developer Robert Lanphier chose to highlight some of the issues that had recently been resolved (Wikimedia Techblog).
| “ | We're still in the middle of cleaning up some lingering issues from the 1.17 deployment, and despite our best efforts, you may see a little bit of quirkiness in the site. One problem with the site since the deployment was a problem with our job queue, which meant that emails that were supposed to be sent from the site weren’t. This backlog was removed last night, and a lot of pent-up email was sent. Additionally, there were some HTML cache invalidations that caused parts of the site to get overloaded for a few minutes [causing intermittent slowness and/or unavailability], and yesterday [8 March], we started the deployment of the category sorting improvements. We deployed some modifications to the database today. This resulted in a few hiccups on the site that we've since mostly recovered from. | ” |
When the category sorting changes come into effect, they should enable non-English wikis to have their categories sorted in a more logical order, rather than have letters with diacritics sorted after Z.
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. Users interested in the "tarball" release of MW1.17 should follow bug #26676.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Opinion
The Wikimedia Foundation's "Editor Trends Study" (commissioned in October "to help better understand the internal dynamics of our communities") was published last week. The summary lists five "early conclusions:":
| “ |
|
” |
In a letter to Wikimedians ("March 2011 Update", advertised via CentralNotice – the English version has so far received over 18000 views), the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director Sue Gardner presented the study's results, interpreting them as follows:
| “ | "Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble successfully joining the Wikimedia community. ... Here’s what we think is happening: As successful communities get really big, they naturally suffer growing pains. New people flood in, creating an Eternal September effect, in which the existing community struggles to integrate the newbies while at the same time striving to preserve the ability to do its work. It does that by developing self-repair and defense mechanisms – which in our case, turned out to be things like bot- and script-supported reverts, deletions, user warnings, and complex policies. All those mechanisms are obviously helpful ... But they’ve also made it harder and harder for new people to join us, which in turn seems to have made experienced editors' work harder as well. | ” |
She then went on to name "Openness Begets Participation" as a strategy to solve the problem ("I believe we need to make editing fun again for everybody: both new editors and experienced editors. ... Quality and openness go hand in hand"), and outlined "The Year Ahead", based on the Foundation's "Product Whitepaper" (Signpost coverage, "a comprehensive analysis of our product priorities" based on its 2010–15 strategic plan (with "product" being defined as "technology through which people receive and develop Wikimedia content"). The following priorities were named, some of them comprising already ongoing efforts:
In related news, Kevin Rutherford recently analyzed the edit numbers of the most active editors on the English Wikipedia (by edit count), concluding that 27% of all edits have been done by a core group of 4,000 editors. In the last three years the number of edits needed to get onto List of 4,000 Wikipedians who have done the most edits rose from 5,000 edits to 11,426. Since the start of last year the number of editors breaking the 100,000 barrier has jumped by more than half, from 68 to 109, whilst the number of editors who have contributed over 200,000 edits has doubled from ten to twenty. This prompted a proposal to broaden the list from the 4,000 editors with the highest edit count to 5,000. So as of 9 March 2011, all editors with 9,168 edits or more are on the latest list (though some have opted out of being named).
Last week, the Wikimedia Foundation posted a job opening for a Movement Communications Manager, a new position (reporting to the Head of Communications, currently Jay Walsh), whose purpose will be to "serve the Wikimedia community and Wikimedia Foundation staff by increasing the quantity and quality of communications between and among the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia community." The list of job duties, apart from those concerning the communication of the achievements of Wikimedia projects to an external audience, also indicates planned changes to the interaction between the Foundation and volunteers:
| “ |
|
” |
Another job opening was posted for a Data Analyst and Researcher who "on a day-to-day basis ... will create, mine and analyze data to help understand readers and editors of different Wikimedia projects, especially Wikipedia, across different geographies", and based on them create "reports, charts, graphs, maps and tables" to "concisely, clearly and meaningfully convey information for a lay audience, Wikimedia community and the foundation."
In other staff news, Veronique Kessler, who has been the Foundation's Chief Financial and Operating Officer (CFOO) since February 2008, announced she will leave for family reasons at the end of June, after completing the development of the 2011–12 business plan.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/In focus
The Committee opened one new case during the week. Four cases are currently open.
This case will review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). The case will also examine concerns about the conduct of certain editors in the pseudoscience topic area - a topic area which was subject to an arbitration case in 2006. During the week, 61 kilobytes was submitted as on-wiki evidence by 11 editors.
During the week, another 28 kilobytes of content was submitted as on-wiki evidence, while proposals were also submitted in the workshop.
During the week, another 5 kilobytes of content was submitted as on-wiki evidence, while several comments were also submitted in the workshop. Yesterday, drafter Elen of the Roads submitted a proposed decision on-wiki for arbitrators to vote on. Proposals being considered include rulings concerning four editors, as well as a discretionary sanctions scheme.
During the week, drafter David Fuchs submitted a proposed decision on-wiki for arbitrators to vote on. Proposals being considered include a ruling concerning a single editor.
An interim motion was passed: a case which was accepted and titled as "Ebionites 2" has been put on hold to permit mediation to proceed. On 5 April 2011, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case should be opened or dismissed.
Seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Wikipedia:Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) (cf. Signpost coverage), the Committee released the names of the candidates being considered for these positions.
The six candidates being actively considered for these positions are:
The Community may pose questions to the candidates, and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages (or privately via email to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org) until 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC). The Community has been invited to review the candidates' nomination statements, the questions that have been posed to the candidates, as well as the answers (if any) that the candidates have provided. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-14/Humour
