Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/In the media
Developers working on MediaWiki 1.19, the latest version of the software on which Wikimedia wikis run, are now welcoming beta testers (as announced, for example, on Wikimedia Commons' village pump). According to the release's page on MediaWiki.org, it will feature improvements to the distribution of CSS styling, block log searching, timezone recognition and diff readability (as previously reported); and increased support for different relational database management systems and different languages and scripts. Over a hundred bugs are also expected to be fixed in the release (a reasonably comprehensive list of these is available).
The lengthened testing period (and more generally, the broadness with which testing is being carried out) is designed to head off the kind of implementation problems that have marked previous deployments. Work on reviewing the 1.19 code prior to deployment slowed this week, under the burden of SOPA blackout preparations. As a result, the January 31 deadline for code review will almost certainly be missed; at time of writing, 177 revisions are still in need of review compared to the target of just 44 (full chart).
The importance of 1.19 could well extend beyond its actual deployment; it is currently slated as the final SVN release before a faster, Git-based release cycle kicks in (details). As such, how well the existing process functions is likely to significantly influence the many choices that will be made during the migration to Git.
Another problematic issue of interest to wikitech-l regulars this week was referenced in a short exchange between staff developer Timo Tijhof (better known by his alias Krinkle) and bugmeister and general development process overseer Mark Hershberger. The issue centres on the tricky matter of the correct balance between backwards compatibility and modernisation in the realm of JavaScript loading.
Since the introduction of ResourceLoader in MediaWiki 1.17, core scripts and (some) gadgets are loaded as 'modules'. One of these modules is 'mw.util', on which many user scripts now rely for proper operation. The problem has arisen because, in the past, little effort was made to economise the loading of these modules, and they were assumed to be present when another script needed them (including Common.js). For the past 18 months, however, much more time has been devoted to streamlining the loading process, allowing for faster loading times and a reduced physical footprint for each page: a boon for those on slow Internet connections.
However, this improvement makes it necessary for scripts and script writers to declare which modules their script relies on (known as 'dependencies'). Officially, this has been mandatory since the introduction of ResourceLoader, but until now, these modules were already loaded by other core scripts, allowing scripts to run without errors.
Many scripts have been, or will need to be, updated to conform to the ResourceLoader specification, however. That is ultimately where the problem of backwards compatibility comes in: how to transition to the new standard while not breaking functionality of existing scripts, particularly on smaller wikis that could have lain untouched for years. "If we upgrade MediaWiki and we know that people are going to complain because a widespread dependency (like mw.util) disappeared, let's [avoid making that happen]" wrote Hershberger, "[Nobody wants a] horribly shocking experience after we upgrade the cluster". The best way to achieve that without largely nullifying the performance gains from modernisation is still being discussed (see this bug report).
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.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Opinion
On 18 January (from 05:00 UTC) the English Wikipedia joined thousands of other web sites in protesting SOPA and PIPA by blacking out its own content for 24 hours.[1] Exceptions from the blackout were made for read-only access to pages about the protest and articles relating to SOPA and PIPA. The purpose of the blackout was twofold: to raise public awareness, and to encourage people to share their views with their elected representatives.
English Wikipedia's blackout was supported by dozens of other Wikimedia communities, typically with a blackout banner, as recorded at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Actions by other communities. Many other websites participated in the protests against SOPA and PIPA on 18 January, but English Wikipedia's blackout featured prominently in media coverage (Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Media) – see "In the News" in this issue of the Signpost.
After the blackout the Wikimedia Foundation's Brandon Harris posted a blog entry on the blackout implementation process, focussing on the blackout screen and banner design considerations.
Mobile service provider Orange has made a three-year commitment, in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, to provide access to Wikipedia without data charges to customers in 20 countries in the Middle East and Africa. The service will initially be offered in Tunisia and Cote d'Ivoire, beginning in a few months. The partnership between Orange and the Wikimedia Foundation is service-based and does not involve money.
Wikipedia access is provided via a lightweight "Wikipedia Zero", developed by the Wikimedia Foundation; however, the Orange service is not being branded as "Wikipedia Zero", as that may cause confusion with Facebook Zero. Wikipedia is provided as text-only, reducing bandwidth loads, and if a user clicks on an image, they will incur data charges (with warning).
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases this week, and closed no cases, leaving four open.
On 19 January, the Arbitration Committee announced that it will begin accepting applications for membership on the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). AUSC was established by the committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and supervision of the CheckUser and Oversight positions along with the use of the applicable tools.
There are three vacancies in non-ArbCom positions on the subcommittee, due to the election of past members to the full committee itself. Applicants for the positions will be reviewed by arbitrators in internal discussions before the community is invited to submit questions to candidates. On 29 February, the committee will announce the appointments.
More information on application requirements and submissions can be found on the AUSC appointment page. Applications must be in by 31 January.
This case was opened to address user conduct over a dispute on what depictions of Muhammad, if any, are appropriate to display. New arbitrator AGK published a proposed decision in this case on 20 January, which was his first drafted decision. While a great deal of proposals involve sanctions on disruptive editors, the largest debate among arbitrators have been over proposed principles to guide the handling of future disputes in this area. As of publication, Newyorkbrad's proposed principle on editorial decisions has attracted the greatest support in this area, with a total of eight arbitrators signing on. The principle in part explains that "reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content."
A final decision may be published within a week.
The Betacommand 3 case remained at the proposed decision phase this week. Originally the case was opened to address the multitude of sanctions in effect on this editor. None of the proposed remedies, ranging from site bans to editing restrictions, has garnered adequate support to pass. A motion to close was withdrawn yesterday as the committee continues to work towards consensus. The newest proposal again divided the Committee, so far, in a 5 to 4 vote.
This case, which is one of the most active at present, was initially opened due to the actions of several administrators in relation to a user who was blocked over perceived incivility. The evidence and workshop pages were closed after submission deadlines passed. A proposed decision is due to be posted by the end of the week.
This open case was brought to the Committee by an editor to appeal a site ban that was imposed by Jimmy Wales. The expected proposed decision, as mentioned in previous Signpost coverage, is yet to be posted. The tentative date for release had been 16 January. Nevertheless, discussion has continued on the workshop and workshop talk pages.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23/Humour
