Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/In the media
Using the "secure server" protocol, https, to communicate with a website (web server) has long been considered a must when editing from unsecured networks and from locations considered insecure. Using https encrypts communications between a user's computer and the Wikimedia servers (for example), preventing the interception of plaintext username-password combinations during a browsing session. In the fallout from the release of the Firesheep Firefox extension (see previous Signpost coverage), however, it became clear that many felt this solution alone to be insufficient, since editors often forgot to switch from http to https when the need arose. As a result, there were calls to make https the default for all editors and, in preparation for such a switch, the process of making Wikimedia more https-friendly began.
This week, work on switching to https took a leap forward with the introduction of "protocol-relative" URLs onto a test wiki. This means that instead of internal links (both hyperlinks and file references, for example for images) pointing to locations prefixed with specific protocols, they will now not specify a protocol. The user's browser is then expected to fulfil the request using the same protocol it used for the originating page: links on a page loaded using the https protocol will point to the https (secure) site, while links on an http page will point to the http (insecure) site. According to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, the benefits are obvious:
| “ |
|
” |
Of eight students selected earlier this year to receive funding from Internet giant Google to work on MediaWiki, seven are still with the project. This week their progress so far was published on the Wikimedia blog, including links to the project pages maintained by each student. Projects this year include Ajax login screens, citation archives and user script customisation.
In addition to factual information, the post also disclosed thoughts from the students about what they had learned so far. "True learning can happen only in an open environment and with a highly supportive community", noted Akshay Agarwal, whilst fellow student Devayon Das commented that "A 30 second chat with a community member can save you 30 minutes of scratching your head in frustration". Salvatore Ingala chose to highlight the importance of unit tests (see previous Signpost coverage): "unit testing is boooooring, but ends up saving you a lot of time!", he wrote.
LWN.net, a news site for Linux and other open source projects, recently carried a post addressing Semantic MediaWiki (for more information about SMW, see previous Signpost coverage). Its final paragraph concluded that:
| “ | Some academics have already proposed using SMW on Wikipedia to tackle the problem of the many lists that have to be created manually, but according to Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller it's still unclear whether SMW is up to the task of supporting a web site on the scale of Wikipedia. So while Semantic MediaWiki already powers a lot of web sites and is quite user-friendly, it remains to be seen whether it will eventually bring semantics to the ultimate wiki, Wikipedia. | ” |
However, volunteer developer Simetrical used the opportunity to clarify that SMW's adoption by Wikimedia projects was not just unclear, but impossible:
| “ | The problem with deploying SMW on Wikimedia sites like Wikipedia has always been that it's a big codebase (tens of thousands of lines), which shares few to no active developers with MediaWiki proper, and which has never had thorough review by core MediaWiki developers for security or performance. ... it's an awesome project, and its functionality is absolutely make-or-break for countless small to medium MediaWiki installs. But it's not possible for a project of this scale to be usable on a site as large as Wikipedia unless it was written that way to begin with, and (like almost all software) it wasn't. | ” |
In unrelated news, those interested in SMW can now follow the project on Twitter or open-source alternative identi.ca (more information).
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.
<math>This week, developers appealed for views on the rendering options available for <math>-tags. Does it affect you? Comment now!
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Opinion
Verifiability and No original research are two of Wikipedia's core content policies. The core idea is that noteworthy information will have at least some source that Wikipedia articles can cite, and if not, then the information isn't noteworthy. While this might hold for the Western world, local information is rarely written down in areas like India and South Africa; there, knowledge exists predominantly as the spoken word. In the UK, for example, one book is published for every 372 citizens each year; but the ratio in South Africa is roughly 20 times smaller, and in India as much as 30 times smaller, with one book per 11,000 citizens each year. This raises an important question: how can there be a balance between local knowledge and global knowledge in Wikipedia if local knowledge is all but non-existent in the written world?
People are Knowledge, a CC-BY-SA film published a few days ago, offers an answer: instead of written citations, Wikipedia language versions like Hindi, Malayalam and Sepedi could use oral citations. Interviews and recordings could serve as a source of knowledge for Wikipedia. The team which tried this did experience problems early on, as documented in the 45-minute film: two residents of a small village described a local children's game differently. The team's solution seems to fit the mindset at Wikipedia: present both sides in the Wikipedia article.
People are Knowledge has been supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the Centre for Internet and Society in India (blog post). It is part of a Wikimedia research project on oral citations. (Cf. earlier Signpost coverage "New Wikimedia fellow to research sourcing problems in local languages")
One year into his role as Chief Global Development Officer, Barry Newstead published a report on his experiences and those of his colleagues in the Global Development team, which is tasked with expanding Wikimedia's reach in parts of the world where the editor community is underdeveloped. Highlights of this initial year have included the first global and systematic survey of the editor community, the India catalyst initiative, and the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebrations. However, there were disappointments for Newstead, including the postponement of the launch of an online merchandising store and the slow pace of progress in mobile development.
Initiatives for the coming year include a search for partnerships with mobile operators (particularly those willing to provide free access to Wikipedia for their customers), the doubling of the grants scheme to $600,000, and the expansion of the pioneering Public Policy Initiative into a Global Education program to promote university outreach worldwide. Newstead emphasised that reversing the decline in editors and expanding the movement's mobile presence are the key priorities for the year ahead.
As part of a continuing analysis of the April 2011 editors' survey (see previous Signpost coverage), Newstead's colleague, Head of Global Development Research Mani Pande has written a report on what the results reveal about female editors of the project. A mere 8.5% of the participants in the global survey identified as female, and these editors were found to be significantly less likely than their male counterparts to make large numbers (5,000+) of edits during their lifetime as an editor. The Foundation aspires to increase the project's female editor count from 9,000 (as of spring 2011) to 11,700 by spring 2012, through initiatives such as simplifying the editing interface and engaging in outreach programs.
The following Wikipedia projects reached milestones in the past fortnight:
In other news, the Incubator wiki celebrates its 10,000th registered editor. This site is where potential Wikimedia project wikis in new language versions of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikiquote and Wiktionary can be arranged, written, tested, and proven worthy of being hosted by the Foundation. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/In focus
On Sunday the Arbitration Committee opened one new case. Two cases are currently open.
Following a request for arbitration, the Committee passed a motion to accept two separate cases. This case, the first of the two, was opened to examine the conduct of Cirt (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) – including articles about new religious movements (broadly construed) and BLPs, as well as interpersonal conduct issues arising between Cirt and Jayen466. The Committee determined that for this case, those two users will be the only parties and that evidence in relation to broader issues or other editors is not permitted – instead, such evidence will be allowed in the second of the two cases ("Manipulation of BLPs"), which is to be opened at a later date.
No further on-wiki progress was made on this case. See previous Signpost coverage for its background.
The moratorium reported in earlier Signpost coverage is no longer in effect. Yesterday, arbitrator Casliber announced on behalf of the Committee, that following the conclusion of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dash draft, he had updated the Manual of Style accordingly. Casliber also unprotected the Manual of Style page, and warned that "any further edit warring will be taken very badly". Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-25/Humour
