The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
22 August 2011

News and notes
Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
In the news
Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)
WikiProject report
Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
Featured content
JJ Harrison on avian photography
Arbitration report
After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
Technology report
Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
 

2011-08-22

Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tom Morris and Skomorokh

Bristol hosts "Girl Geeks vs. Wikimeet"

The Girl Geeks had a Wikipedia globe-shaped cake...
...which was quickly consumed.

On Thursday, Bristol Girl Geek Dinners hosted a joint event at the University of Bristol with Wikimedia UK to try to encourage and help women edit Wikipedia. The session was led by Fiona Apps (User:Panyd, an administrator on English Wikipedia) and was supported by Martin Poulter (User:MartinPoulter). As with all Girl Geek Dinner events, the primary audience was women and men could attend if they accompanied a female attendee. Wikimedia UK provided food and drink including a cake decorated to look like the Wikipedia globe.

At the event, after a talk about how to edit and how to avoid the pitfalls, the audience pulled laptops out and started editing. A second presentation soon followed with discussion on some of the problems new editors (both male and female) face including unexplained reversion of their changes and the "excessive zeal" of some experienced Wikipedians in reverting, warning and deleting new content and tagging articles with cleanup tags. Fiona responded by explaining to new contributors about how to resolve disputes on the discussion page.

According to a writeup on the Bristol Wireless blog, "the Bristol Girl Geeks were almost unanimous in their criticism of the Wikipedia editing interface". The event was also written up at thefreshoutlook.com.

The Signpost spoke to Fiona about the event:

Whose idea was having a Wikipedia-related Girl Geek Dinner?

Wikimedia UK, I think it was Martin Poulter who approached the Girl Geek Dinners organisers.

In discussions of gender gap (and systemic bias) issues on Wikipedia, the overall issue often gets obscured by the examples: baseball cards vs. fashion designers, Mexican feminist writers vs. video games. These examples are always inevitably followed by someone pointing out that it is sexist to presume that women are interested in fashion designers rather than baseball cards. Was topic choice something that women attending had any strong opinions on?

The attendees were very interested in editing topics they were interested in, and agreed that general women's issues and interests should be covered more in depth and given more interest on the project. However, they were also averse to being pigeon holed. Generalisations about women and what they were interested in, and an overall sense of patronisation, were very prevalent themes of the night.

There were newbies editing at the event: how did they get on? Any new pages get created? Anyone have any particularly good experiences?

These were complete newbies. So we actually found that rather than editing during the night, we were having to familiarise them with the interface, which a lot of feedback was also focused on. However, some external links were added and a few people found WikiProjects they were interested in, so the overall impression was good. 43% of those attending said they were interested in further editing

Have you got any thoughts on how the community or the Foundation might help meet the rather modest goal Sue Gardner has set of increasing participation by women? And do you think the participation gap might extend to other groups like ethnic minorities, religious groups, LGBT people etc.?

I think it's a certainty that there are other minorities on Wikipedia, and I think we not only have to reach out to these people but also take note of our own privileges in doing so. One of the best things about this event was that we didn't tell women why they didn't edit, we asked, and more minorities need to have the opportunity to speak out on their own behalf about what keeps them from editing and any issues they face.
From the feedback we received, the online ambassadors program and more welcoming parties need to be introduced to help with the initial editing experience - many women wanted help and someone to personally assist them in their Wikipedia journey, and cited not having this as a main reason for not editing that includes helping with layout issues, learning markup and working with new editors when their edits are reverted

Do you know if there are any plans to have future Wikimedia events in the UK on women editing Wikipedia, either through the Girl Geek Dinners or independently?

We are hoping to collaborate with Girl Geek Dinners again in the future, and we are also hoping to set up editing days for those who express interest at the Girl Geek Dinners. So yes! I'd also like to thank Wikimedia UK and Bristol Girl Geek dinners for putting on such a wonderful event!

In brief

2011-08-22

Journalist regrets not checking citation; PR firms issue advice on how to survive Wikipedia (and a U.S. Congressman's office is accused of copying)

Wikipedia in the spotlight again after newspaper blunder

Ice hockey manager Mike Gillis criticised the Toronto Star this week for publishing a quotation attributed to him on Wikipedia without checking that he actually said it.

Wikipedia and its ability to be freely edited by anyone has again come under media scrutiny this week after the Toronto Star published a falsified quote attributed to Mike Gillis, the general manager of the Vancouver Canucks ice hockey team, made about former Canucks forward Rick Rypien, who died earlier this week. (The story was later corrected with an accompanying apology, after Gillis and the Canucks criticised the newspaper in a statement.) This is not the first time that journalists have made such a blunder; for example, many newspapers included an erroneous quotation attributed to Maurice Jarre after his death in 2009 (see previous Signpost coverage).

An intern at the Star had found a quote supposedly by Gillis on Wikipedia attributed to the Vancouver Sun, and did not verify its accuracy before including it in his story. His editor likewise assumed that the quote was accurate, as the story did not reference Wikipedia. As a result, Michael Cooke, the Editor of the Star, sent out an internal memo telling writers to verify the accuracy of information obtained from Wikipedia. In the memo, he noted numerous problems with his own biography in Wikipedia, including the fact that "up until a month ago it had me graduating from a university in New Zealand. I have never stepped foot in that country. Other errors remain."

In response, Kathy English, the public editor at the Star, has written an opinion piece titled "Don't trust Wikipedia". In it, she cites a Wikipedia essay, "10 things you did not know about Wikipedia", which says "we do not expect you to trust us", and ends her piece by noting that journalists must know what information to trust, in order to maintain their readers' trust.

A discussion on the administrator's noticeboard highlighted the fact that the quote had been sourced to an online reference (which the Star writer had failed to check), initially reproducing the original faithfully, but then tampered with by a vandal.

The public relations professional's guide to Wikipedia

Recently, several online publications have focused on a topic of recurring relevance to Wikipedia editors intent on policing its strict policy on neutrality: questionable editing of the encyclopaedia by public relations professionals. The search engine result prominence of Wikipedia, the apparent openness of editing, and its perceived status as a "good enough" authority of neutrality and illumination for a wide breadth of topics make direct engagement with the site perennially attractive to those tasked with improving the online profile of celebrities, products and institutions.

For example, edSocialMedia have released a guide to Wikipedia for educational institutions, advising the addition of flattering photographs, promotional Facebook links, and lists of prominent alumni, and highlighting the Worcester Academy article as a particularly well-written article in the latter regard. Ragan's PR Daily also issued guidance, but noted the potential ethical difficulties for public relations professionals seeking to engage with the encyclopaedia; the four "rules of engagement" offered were "establish notability', "be transparent", "avoid jargon", and "ask for help". In a press release for its own guide, EreviewGuide.com adopted a wary tone, with media relations consultant Oliver Thompson counselling would-be editors of the "dark side" of the project; that "Wikipedia can easily become a trap," and "If used improperly, Wikipedia can get you expelled for plagiarism, can torpedo your term paper grade, can cause professional embarrassment and all sorts of headaches. People need to use Wikipedia with proper tools." Its extensive and well-informed "Wikipedia Survival Guide" encouraged prospective contributors to "read other Wikipedia entries first", "balance opposing views", "for every assertion or claim, offer support", "keep the correct hierarchy of sources in mind", and "no anonymous edits". Notable by its omission was seeking recourse to Wikipedia's internal help network, which is undergoing revision to counter accusations of hostility towards newcomers.

Briefly

2011-08-22

Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation


WikiProject news
News in brief
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.
This animated sequence of a race horse galloping, first published in 1887, is a Featured media of WikiProject Animation.
The article on Joseph Barbera, co-founder of Hanna-Barbera, is a Featured article of WP:TOON.
WikiProject Animation has 31 Featured lists, including 16 on the popular animated sitcom, The Simpsons.
Pixar Animation Studios is an example of the 477 Good articles under the Project

This week, we turn our attention to WikiProject Animation. Started in September 2006 by Klingoncowboy4, the Project covers all articles about animation, including animation studios, animators, animation directors, animated television series, animated films, animated characters and so on. It does not cover any anime series or films. Home to more than 15,800 articles, with 44 Featured articles, 31 Featured lists, 4 Featured media, 473 Good articles, and a portal, the Project has 19 participants and 18 work groups. The Signpost interviewed Project member Jj98.

Tell us a bit about yourself, and what motivated you to become a member of WikiProject Animation?

Your Project has over 15,800 articles associated with it. How does the Project keep all these up to standard, and what are its biggest challenges?

  • Jj98: Our biggest challenge is that fans of animated series and films who come to Wikipedia, whose intimate knowledge of certain subjects are critically important and welcome, tend to treat articles as fan sites, filling them with minutiae and fictography of interest only to hardcore fans and not the general public. The goal is to acquire some of the inactive animation-related WikiProjects and convert them into work groups of WikiProject Animation, including WikiProject Cartoon Network, which was started back in 2007 by Driveus [which] I've converted into a work group after it went inactive back in 2008 and had one Mfd in March, along with the Style recommendations, including Adult Swim, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Ben 10 task forces which I also converted into work groups as well. WP:TOON was originally a shortcut for WikiProject Cartoon Network, is now a shortcut for our Project. Also, I've converted WikiProject American Animation into American animation work group, which has 4,540 articles. It was started back in 2006 by FuriousFreddy, before I converted it into a work group in November 2010. I am going to possibly convert WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject Futurama, WikiProject South Park, WikiProject Family Guy, WikiProject Machinima (although it had been very inactive and had attempts to make into a task force of WikiProject Video games), SpongeBob SquarePants task force and Avatar: The Last Airbender task force into work groups of WikiProject Animation in near future if the Project has been overlapped with our Project and [has] low activity. The problem with the Project is keeping it active like WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject United States. Many of the editors who are blocked and no longer working around any animation articles on Wikipedia are moved to the inactive list. Sadly, our founder, Klingoncowboy4 is no longer active since I've revamped the Project.

WikiProject Animation has a very respectable number of Featured content, and 477 Good articles. How did your Project achieve this and how can other Projects work toward this?

  • Jj98: We do have a nucleus of editors who are responsibly editing some animation-related articles that have achieved Good article and Featured article like Phineas and Ferb, which had been listed as a Good article since 2009, and Joseph Barbera was promoted to a Featured article back in 2008. Our goal is to reduce any fan site mentality that will reduce the fatigue of any current editors. Our Project is intended to model after WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Comics and WikiProject Anime and manga. The Project has medium activity, like WikiProject Anime and manga, which is a very active Project.

Does WP:TOON collaborate with other WikiProjects?

How does your Project manage the Animation portal?

What are the most pressing needs for WikiProject Animation? How can a new contributor help today?

  • Jj98: The former, to reduce any fancruft, ORs, copyvios and in-universe information that's been creeping around the articles. We have our own Manual of Style guidelines to guide editors who work on animation articles. In the future, I will propose a new official Manual of Style guideline for animation-related articles, similar to anime and manga, film, comics, television and fiction guidelines.

Anything else to add?

Next week, it will be 30–love with your turn to serve. Keep track of all the points, sets, games, and matches in the archive.

Reader comments

2011-08-22

JJ Harrison on avian photography




       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0