The results are unlikely to calm the rhetoric on either side of the debate. With mild support shown overall—the most general question had a median result of 6 (on a scale from 0–10, where 5 was "neutral")—there is probably enough encouragement to ensure that the proposal is not abandoned altogether, and some useful results were gathered with regard to priorities. On the other hand, about 3750 respondents (16% of the sample) gave a score of zero to the broadest question, "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers", the clearest indication yet that a significant body of editors would oppose the implementation proposed by the Foundation regardless of its features. (This result looks set to be endorsed by a poll run in parallel on the German Wikipedia which currently indicates that about fourth-fifths of Wikipedians there are opposed to the measure as stated.) A third group consider the referendum to have been badly mismanaged in a way that would render the result meaningless.
As British Wikimedian Michael Peel commented, the poll probably points towards a "no consensus" result. As a result, the next move of the Foundation is unclear. In all likelihood it will choose to alter the proposed implementation to build a new consensus, since it is dubious as to whether the Foundation could now meaningfully proceed without convincing at least a small proportion of those currently skeptical to the idea. One possible compromise would be on whether or not there was a single global implementation of the filter. User:FT2 added that "enabling on some wikis and not on others" may yet be a good way to "leave more people feeling fairly satisfied".
Mani Pande, Wikimedia Head of Global Development Research, has revealed on the Foundation's blog a new metric as a tool for analysing community health: the Wikipedia editor satisfaction index (WESI). The WESI is based on the answers to two questions.
The two options from Question 1 are scored for one point each: +1 if the response was a positive adjective, and −1 for a negative. The response to Question 2 is scored as +2 for helpful, and −2 for feedback having been "a bad experience". Added together, they span a range from +4 to −4, which is normalized to a 0–10 scale.
The initial results of compiling the index were greeted by Pande as "encouraging": around 47% of respondents gave a score of 10/10, and about 77% of the editors surveyed scored 7.5 or higher, which she took to indicate that "the majority of our editing community is very satisfied with their experience" of the project and have "a healthy assessment of fellow editors". Delving deeper into the breakdown of the findings, Pande isolated three factors critical to determining an editor's satisfaction with their contributing experience: being offered help, enjoying the respect and recognition of their peers, and receiving adequate explanations for when their contributions are reverted. It is expected that the WESI will be established as an ongoing metric for measuring satisfaction, to yield further insights into the self-reported experiences of Wikimedians in the future.
The last week saw the following milestones among WMF-supported projects:
In a column for the Wall Street Journal, "numbers guy" Carl Bialik examined the issue of the slowing growth in the number of Wikipedia contributors in recent quarters. Analysing activity levels for June, Bialik found that fewer than 36,000 registered editors had contributed during the month, a decline of more than a third from the peak of March 2007. Perhaps forebodingly, this peak came only a month after the essay Wikipedia is failing caused consternation within the community (see previous Signpost coverage). Bialik chose however to highlight a more narrow metric as cause for concern: the health of the core community. Approximately 3% of editors account for 85% of contributions to the project, according to the statistician, and participation among this group has declined "even more sharply" than the active registered userbase in toto. Bialik focused not on the trend of decline but the intuition of a "magic number" of contributors at which community health and thus encyclopaedic quality would flourish, echoing the sentiments of Wikimedia Foundation officials in saying that "it isn't clear how many more editors are needed to sustain the critical mass" of the project.
Elaborating on the subjects examined in the column for the online edition of the newspaper, Bialik delved further into the issue of the encyclopaedia's flagging participation rates. Bialik commented on the Article Feedback Tool, noting that Wikipedia readers seemed to be more critical than many users of sites with rating features (granting an average rating of 3.7 compared to 4.17 on websites in the Power Reviews network). The tool was initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation in part as an exercise in encouraging a greater conversion rate of readers to editors and the foundation's spokesman Jay Walsh was quoted enthusiastically on this point: "[d]uring the feedback tool trial phase over 90% of the raters had never edited before". Bialik also sought to compare Wikipedia's 3.7 million articles and almost 40,000 editors (June 2011) with the comparable figures for arch-rival Encyclopaedia Britannica; officials for that project disclosed their article count at 140,000 (with more than 75 million words), but not before taking issue with the notion that it was competing with Wikipedia for market share. In a departure in tone from notorious comments from the company comparing Wikipedia to a public restroom, spokeswoman Orly Telisman was keen to amicably distance the two encyclopaedias:
| “ | Comparing the Encyclopaedia Britannica to Wikipedia is not comparing apples to apples — it’s more like comparing apples to chairs... We’re just different. Both companies come from very different beginnings, our products and values are different — we are editorially based, they are open-sourced (again, nothing wrong with either execution, but it seems difficult to me to make a one-on-one comparison). | ” |
Forbes contributor Brandon Mendelson, in an unyielding critique entitled "Wikipedia sucks (but not for the reasons anyone ever talks about)", took aim at the encyclopaedia from an angle unusual in the press, arguing that Wikipedia does not deserve its high visitor levels because it lacks comprehensiveness (thus contrasting the typical critique that Wikipedia includes a vast quantity of irrelevant, often inaccurate "trivia" as covered, for example, in The Times). Whilst previous commentators have nonetheless suggested that perfectly useful articles should not be ruthlessly discarded (as in the case of the German Wikipedia controversy of 2009 and last year's deletion of the article on "naturoids"), few have openly taken a stance similar to that suggested by Mendelson: namely, that any person who "[has] an impact on other people's lives" should be entitled to an entry, reducing the barrier for inclusion to zero in practical terms.
In doing so, Mendelson takes his side in a long standing debate among Wikipedia contributors about which topics deserve standalone articles (the so-called "deletionist-inclusionist divide"). Where inclusionists see a value in every article, deletionists tend to stress the importance of a minimum quality standard for articles, a stance which is only possible if the inflow of articles is limited. Despite an observable balance, it should be noted that the stance which the English Wikipedia takes, although more inclusionist than that of the German Wikipedia, is still fundamentally incompatible with that outlined by Mendelson (his examples of articles Wikipedia should have may yet be created, however). Nonetheless, a number of more inclusionist wikis do exist, although they are not WMF-supported.
September 7 marks the fifth anniversary of WikiProject London Transport. Started in September 2006 by Unisouth, the Project covers all aspects of transportation in London, including transport for London and its sectors, as well as articles on the London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground, National Rail, London Buses, taxis, roads, rivers, bridges and so on. Home to over 2,800 articles, with 26 Featured articles, 4 Featured lists, 26 Good articles and a Featured portal, the Project has 79 participants. The Project originally started off dedicated to the UK metro systems with a main focus on the London Underground, before shifting its focus to cover the whole of London's transport a year later. It was originally called WikiProject Underground. The Signpost interviews project members DavidCane and Simply south.
David, a Londoner for most of his life, has been on Wikipedia since March 2005. A Chartered quantity surveyor, his main interests are history, architecture, transport (specifically London Underground), genealogy, music and literature. A Wikipedian since March 2006, Simply south is from Hertfordshire, and is interested in rail, geographical, other forms of travel and transportation.
Tell us a bit about yourself, and what motivated you to become a member of WikiProject London Transport?
Your Project has over 2,800 articles associated with it. How does the Project keep all these up to standard, and what are its biggest challenges?
WikiProject London Transport has 26 Featured articles, 4 Featured lists, 26 Good articles and a Featured Portal. How did your Project achieve this and how can other Projects work toward this?
Your Project overlaps with WikiProjects UK Railways, Trains, UK Roads, UK Waterways and UK Trams. Have there been any problems with this? Does WP:LT collaborate with any other WikiProjects?
How does your Project manage the London Transport portal?
What are the most pressing needs for WikiProject London Transport? How can a new contributor help today?
Anything else to add?
Next week we'll see the effects of proportional representation on the Senators in the upper house of parliament. Until then, head south to our overseas archive.
Reader comments
Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 is a photo contest on National Heritage Sites in Europe, which runs throughout the month of September. There is a central European website for participants, with separate websites for each participating country, and a comprehensive project portal on Commons. There are currently 16 participating countries, and over 10,000 images have already been uploaded so far. The Signpost spoke with Lodewijk (user:Effeietsanders), Jane, Maarten (User:Multichill) and Romaine regarding the project.
A chemistry student from the Netherlands, Lodewijk is mainly active on the Dutch Wikipedia, and is a former steward on Meta-Wiki. Jane has been a Wikipedian since May 2006, and is interested in historical museums and reading local history. Both Maarten and Romaine also contribute to the Dutch Wikipedia, and Maarten is an administrator on Commons.
.JPG)
Drymoreomys (nom), an unusual rice rat found close to the massive city São Paulo in Brazil, and named only this year. (Nominated by Ucucha)
Brunette Coleman (nom), a pseudonym used by the English poet and writer Philip Larkin (1922–85). As an Oxford undergraduate he assumed the persona of a woman, "Brunette Coleman", to write risqué stories and verses about schoolgirls. Some critics think of it as worthless Peeping Tom drivel; some think it provides important clues to the mature Larkin's poems; others think it is merely funny, even charming. (Brianboulton)
Liverpool F.C. (nom), founded in 1892, is the second most successful club in the history of English football. (NapHit)Calgary Stampede (nom), a ten-day annual rodeo, exhibition, and festival every July in Alberta, Canada, attracting more than a million visitors each year. (Resolute) picture at right
Nine lists were promoted:
Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Female (nom). (Nominated by Another Believer.)
List of accolades received by Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (nom). (Ruby2010.)
List of Auburn Tigers head football coaches (nom). (Patriarca12.)
List of Faroe Islands national football team results (nom). (Argyle 4 Life.)
Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O) (nom). (Killervogel5.)
List of 1956 Winter Olympics medal winners (nom). (Courcelles.)
List of Israeli football champions (nom). (Cliftonian.)
List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports) (nom). (NThomas.)
List of accolades received by Black Swan (nom). (Aquila89, Bruce Campbell and Crystal Clear x3.)
Lists of Grand Tour general classification winners (nom), with four featured lists. The Grand Tours are the three most prestigious multi-week stage races in professional road bicycle racing. The competitions are the Giro d'Italia, Tour de France and Vuelta a España, contested annually in that order. Cyclists are ranked on the basis of their total wins in the three Grand Tours. (nominator NapHit). Picture at right
Portal:Michigan Highways (nom) was promoted, with more than 110 articles. There are 9,716 miles (15,636 km) of state-maintained highways in Michigan that run through all 83 counties of the 11th largest state in the US. Picture at right
Three images were promoted. Medium-sized images can be viewed by clicking on "nom":
Panorama La Défense (nom; related article), the Paris business district of La Défense (cities of Puteaux, Courbevoie and Nanterre) as seen from the Tower Défense 2000 (created by User:Dimitri Destugues).
Matanuska Glacier mouth (nom; related article), a valley glacier in Alaska. The mouth is pictured of this largest glacier accessible by car in the US. The glacier measures 27 × 4 miles (43 × 6.4 km), and it lies near the Glenn Highway about 100 miles (160 km) northeast of Anchorage. It flows about 1 foot (30 cm) per day (created by User:Sbork). Picture at top
Governor's Mansion, Richmond, Virginia (1905) (nom; related article), by an unknown photographer for the Detroit Publishing Company, edited by User:Jbarta. Picture below
Moonriddengirl has been a Wikipedian since the first half of 2007, becoming an administrator for the English Wikipedia later that year. In that capacity, she dedicates much of her volunteer time to dealing with copyright concerns at the English Wikipedia's copyright problems board and contributor copyright cleanup, attempting to implement Wikimedia's zero tolerance policy on copyright infringements. In addition, she works for the Wikimedia Foundation in community liaison. Below, Moonriddengirl outlines her view that all contributors need to pull together to manage copyright concerns on the English Wikipedia.
The views expressed are those of the author only. Other editors will often leave opposing views and potential corrections in the comments section. The Signpost welcomes proposals for op-eds. If you have one in mind, please leave a message at the opinion desk.
We have a copyright crisis. Wikipedia is full of copyright problems. How full, I don't know.
I do know that CorenSearchBot (before it became inoperable due to a catastrophic change in Yahoo's terms) routinely found several dozen new articles every day built on content copied from other websites. I know that every day more articles and images are tagged by human contributors for speedy deletion for copyright concerns or listed for the slower processes of the copyright problems board or possibly unfree files. I know that there are more tens of thousands of articles and images awaiting copyright review at WP:CCI than I want to tally; this is content placed by people we know have repeatedly violated copyright. Odds are good that a substantial portion of this content is a problem, too. In spite of policies prohibiting it—and in spite of prominent reminders of those policies on every edit page—more copyrighted content finds its way into our project every day.
People place copyrighted content on Wikipedia because they can, because it's easier to copy somebody else's words than write your own, because it's hard to resist using somebody else's picture when the only other alternative is that an article has no pictures at all. Some people do it accidentally, attempting to change content but not changing it enough. Some people do it defiantly, using Wikipedia as part of their own statements against copyright laws.
Most people do it with good intentions, I believe. I've talked to hundreds of people about this over the last few years. Few of them seem to be out to deliberately cause trouble, even the ones who wind up being blocked because we can't get them to stop. The fact is that many of them just don't see the harm, and some have trouble even understanding what the issue is.
In some cultures, copyright is no big deal—even reputable sources copy without obvious concern. (No kidding: I've seen books by evidently respected academicians that have baldly copied from Wikipedia without credit and government websites that have done the same.) In a way, it's not much of a deal to the international Internet culture we all share. People paste news articles into their blogs or appropriate copyrighted cartoon characters as their avatars all the time, without a thought as to whether the content is copyrighted and what that might mean.
This may be why even some of the contributors who don't cause the problems and who plainly do understand the concept of copyright simply don't think about whether or not it's happening here. Blatant violations may pass right in front of them, and they don't notice. They simply don't seem keyed in to the issue. It happens everywhere, and, after all, if a copyright holder objects, all we have to do is take it down.
While technically true, this is an attitude Wikipedia can't afford. For whatever reasons people place the content, and however we ourselves may feel about copyright, keeping it is not only potentially damaging to copyright holders, it's bad for us. It's bad for our reusers; it's bad for Wikipedia; it's bad for our volunteers.
I'm not going to discuss the question of whether intellectual property laws are a good thing or a bad thing. (Although as a published writer who receives small royalty checks every year, I have a certain interest in the question.) It's a passionately debated subject, and, in my opinion, it's not necessary to go into it to settle the important point. It's a simple matter of fact that we are subject to intellectual property laws, and we need to recognize how working within that reality is in our best interests. While we have the option to swiftly address copyright concerns by simply pulling material from publication—indeed, we have a legal obligation to have a designated agent to answer takedown notices sent to us by copyright holders and their representatives—our content reusers may not have the option of responding so simply. If a video documentarian uses images that were hosted on Wikipedia under the mistaken belief that the free license label on them is accurate, he may have to recut his documentary to remove them or replace them with something else. If a publisher places some of our featured articles on animals in a textbook, she may have to pull it from distribution.
This is a major problem. We like content reusers (if not all of them). We really do. We encourage them to do it—to use our material online, in books, newspapers, video documentaries; to use it and modify it whenever and however they like, so long as they follow the licensing terms. Indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." We've made it as easy for them as we can. But how many times would a reuser encounter the trouble or expense of withdrawing problematic content before deciding to avoid our work? If the content we bill as "free" is not, we risk damage to our reputation and discouraging the global dissemination of our work.
Beyond that, I have personally observed the inconvenience and expense (at least in terms of time) to our volunteers when copyright problems created by others are encountered too late. "Too late" in this context would be after they have themselves engaged with the content. Too often, somebody creates an article or expands it with copyrighted content placed without permission of the copyright holder. Others come behind to improve the article, sometimes putting a great amount of time into polishing prose, locating sources, adding text. Their work is tainted, too. The time they've spent polishing copyrighted content is lost when that content must be removed. The hours they've put in could have been better spent building usable content or creating an article we can retain. Then there is the cost to their motivation. I've spoken multiple times to people in this situation who are heartsick and discouraged by the experience. I hate the thought that we've wasted their time, that we might lose them, because of a problem that was not promptly detected or resolved.
There's also a cost to the volunteers who create the problems in the first place. As I said, I believe most of these people are working in good faith. Those who have trouble grasping the issue may require more guidance than those who simply didn't think it mattered, but copyright problems can be corrected. If the issue is discovered early in a Wikipedian's career, we may be able to more easily clean up any outstanding issues and help them avoid creating more, enabling them to move forward as constructive and valuable contributors. If problems linger, more articles may be tainted and fall-out greater in terms of both collateral damage to others and loss of the contributor themselves.
We need to care; we need to take action.
While copyright cleanup can use all the active contributors it can get, you can help with the problem simply by being conscious of the potential so that you recognize copyright issues when they appear. Does an image look unlikely to be original to the uploader? Text too polished or disjointed in tone? Even if you don't feel that you can help with cleanup, you can tag a suspicious text or image copyright concern for others to evaluate. You can save reusers potential time and expense, save your fellow volunteers wasted effort, perhaps a reparable contributor issue from devolving into an unsalvageable one. The simple act of identifying the problem is the first, crucial step to resolving it. Swift handling is the best service we can provide to our reusers, to the project and to our contributors (as well as, in my opinion, to the copyright holders). By recognizing the problem and resolving it when it first appears, we can keep it contained.
One case has closed and three remain ongoing.
In the case, opened to examine the meta issues involved in biographies of living persons, all proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies have passed. All but one (Manipulation of search engine results) passed without opposition.
Among the findings, the Arbitration Committee reaffirmed that "all editing of articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy", but did not find any specific editors at fault. "The subject-matters of the evidence and workshop proposals in this case have been wide-ranging, including evidence of some troublesome edits and problematic interactions between editors, but not to a level that the Committee believes necessitates any findings or remedies against specific editors at the present time."
Drafting arbitrator Newyorkbrad acknowledged that some may "feel that the decision comprises a series of generalities and does not discuss or resolve the specific BLP and user-conduct disputes raised in the evidence", but explained that he did not "find this case to be a suitable vehicle for proposing findings and remedies aimed at specific editors".
This dispute, between Cirt and Jayen466, is also nearing completion.
The committee passed relatively standard principles on collegiality, maintaining a neutral point of view, undue weight, biographies of living people, and fair criticism and personal attacks. A more atypical principle on "bias and prejudice", which passed only 6–4, argues that editors should avoid "engaging in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes[, bias or prejudice]." Concerns that the new principle judges "outcome rather than methodology" were raised by one arbitrator who argued "NPOV contributions that use RS'es" should not be rejected merely because of the subject matter of their edit, writing that "if one is to observe that in America, Asians tend to be better educated than whites, is that promoting a stereotype against white people?". Concerns were also raised about the principle applying to religious groups; some anti-religious editors, particularly those focusing on fringe groups, arguably do very necessary work fighting bias, but yet could be said to be evincing their own "bias and prejudice against the members of the group". Another arbitrator wrote that "there are plenty of hypersensitive people on Wikipedia floating around any topic of high emotional content. What such editors sincerely believe to be [so] may [in fact] be dispassionate, NPOV editing." Another arbitrator, clarifying the wording, said, "Work done by the words 'gratuitously' and 'invidious' should not be underestimated; legitimate criticism of any group or individual, consistent with applicable policies, is not proscribed."
Both proposed findings of fact are in the process of passing. Cirt was found to have placed undue weight on negative issues in BLPs and articles on new religious movements using poor sources, which he had previously admitted. Jayen466 was found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct in respect of Cirt, primarily by being over-focused on Cirt's editing and by being indiscriminate in his accusations about Cirt.
Remedies that have passed so far include a topic ban prohibiting Cirt from making any edit to articles relating to new religious movements or their adherents, and another restriction prohibiting Cirt from editing any article that is substantially the biography of a living person where (1) the notability of the BLP subject relates to politics, religion, or social controversy, or (2) the subject of the edit relates to politics, religion, or social controversy. A proposed remedy to desysop Cirt, introduced late in the process, is being voted on. Interaction between Cirt and Jayen466 will be restricted. Administrators have been authorized to enforce the restrictions with blocks starting at up to one month in length and the committee has reserved the right to desysop with a simple motion in the future.
Work concluded this week on this year's MediaWiki-related Google Summer of Code projects. Of the seven projects that made it to the half-way stage, all passed their end of term assessments and will now submit their work to Google for auditing. (Google will then issue a final monetary reward to contributors for their volunteer development efforts over the summer.)
Of the seven projects, then, a number are likely to have an impact on Wikimedia wikis, including student Salvatore Ingala's project to make gadgets more easily customisable. One of his two mentors, Max Semenik, stressed that the project had been designed to make it compatible with the Foundation's own work to improve the usability of gadgets, and so it was unlikely to be discarded. He was also pleased with his student's progress in general, adding that constant intervention to keep the project on track and up-to-standard had not been necessary, with advice focussed only on small bursts at the beginning, middle, and end of the timeline. Yuvi Panda's attempt to make the compilation of large article subsets easier via a new extension also seems to fill a need onwiki. Other potentially Wikimedia-related projects include Kevin Brown's experimental ArchiveLinks extension and Aigerim Karabekova's work on Extension management. Also of interest is Akshay Agarwal's progress on separating the logic of logging in and registration from its presentation, with a view to allowing new ways to log in in future.
Other projects included work on the Semantic MediaWiki variant and on a Facebook-esque "status update" feature.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Engineering Report for August was published last week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (because of the discrepancy of Wikimania, the August report was published approximately two weeks after July's). Many of the projects mentioned have been covered in The Signpost, including the Wikimania and Developer Days, progress on HTTPS support, major work on customized campaigns for the Wiki Loves Monuments event, and the increasing readiness of both MediaWiki 1.18 and a new mobile platform for Wikipedia.
Nonetheless, the report also contained developments, which, although classified as major, have not yet received external coverage. In particular, a new team was set up within Wikimedia engineering to support a renewed effort at making Wikimedia-related software both readable and in particular more writeable in other languages (localisation and internationalisation). Comprising four staff members, its primary aim is to provide "a set of tools to facilitate editing in languages using a non-Roman alphabet". Also of note was a significant operations team meeting, focussed on improving its workflow and re-prioritising outstanding projects. Other projects which saw progress include data dumps (improved ability to restart failed processes without having to throw away previous progress) and the visual editor project, where the possibility of having a transaction-based edit system is being looked at. Such a system would allow for edits to be more easily merged in the event of edit conflicts.
Also included in the report was news that, after new users began to use the WikiLove extension as an easy way to send messages to other users, a new tool will be developed to provide a more consistent framework for this action. Meanwhile, developer Neil Kandalgaonkar "continued to work on real-time collaboration and is close to presenting a [working] demo" while Ian Baker "investigated and started to work on a chat system to be integrated to the concurrent editing interface, for collaboration and live help". Another project to look out for in the future is a renewed effort to allow a safe subset of arbitrary code to be included in pages to simplify template syntax.
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.
Hackathons try to convert potential developers and technical contributors into full-time members of the development community. This relies on publicising the events to local technology interest groups, which requires volunteer help via social media such as Twitter and Facebook. (For example, the hackathons scheduled for New Orleans and Brighton are currently in the publicity-generating stage.)
https://commons.wikimedia.org as a second, (albeit still buggy) secure alternative to the http:// address. By incorporating developments regarding protocol relative links, the new site should provide a more integrated and secure browsing experiencing than the existing https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ site when fully complete.
index.php?title=Foo&action=Bar), suggesting that they should become redirects to a uniform system of special pages (which are already in use for some actions such as blocking users). http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/247348
