Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/In the media
Reducing the inefficient complexity of complicated templates has long been on the wishlists of those who design and maintain them. It is a complexity that can put a significant drain on server resources, not to mention one that makes accurate duplication of templates between wikis incredibly time consuming and error prone. This complexity is caused by a number of factors, but it has long been recognised that the introduction of certain constructions found in full programming languages (among them loops, arrays and a full range of string functions) would drastically simplify matters.
Of course, the introduction of a programming language would bring with it a number of other problems, particularly with regards to privacy, security and memory footprint. As a result, the long term consensus was that the introduction of a programming language would be a major undertaking, including time for discussing which languages would work best in a heavily sanitised environment. The project as a whole has been discussed at regular intervals, but it was only this week that a consensus seemed to emerge in favour of Lua, a lightweight but relatively unheard-of language generally regarded as being "easy to learn" (wikitech-l mailing list).
The preferred implementation at this time is via a separate namespace for scripts, perhaps augmented by the overloading of the double-curly-brace notation to incorporate both Script and Template namespaces. Work is expected to start after the release of 1.19 and could well centre around the Berlin Hackathon, held annually in May.
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/2012-01-30/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/Opinion
The Global Development team has released its midyear report for 2011–2012. The Global Development department is a part of the Wikimedia Foundation that is tasked with Mobile and Offline development, as well as the Foundation's global and regional strategy. Overall, "the global development team continues to make progress in building our team; however, we are moving more slowly than would be preferred in some areas." Highlighted in the report are the two most active sectors of development: mobile development and attempts at stimulating editor growth.
In terms of mobile development, the Foundation is making progress on meeting a target of 2 billion monthly page views and partnerships with mobile operators to reach 500 million subscribers by later this year. December 2011 saw 1.534 billion mobile page views across all Wikipedias, as compared to 802 million in June of that year (see previous Signpost coverage here, here, and here). Current prospective mobile partnerships are being developed in Latin America, Asia, Middle East and Africa, Turkey and Russia, which could affect up to 700 million mobile users. Not all deals are expected to stick, but those that will will offer, in most cases, free Wikipedia access to their subscribers. A much-improved web portal was designed and launched in September of this year, results from the Mobile Readers Survey 2011 are being analyzed, and the results of mobile research in India and Brazil have already been published. Work on an Android app for Wikipedia, a major gap in mobile coverage, was concluded this week with the publication of the new free Wikipedia App designed by the mobile team.
Progress on editor growth has been much more arduous. Active editor populations have been slipping downwards for the last few years, a trend that executive director Sue Gardner has called "the holy shit slide" (see related Signpost interview). As the report summarizes, "We are behind in getting pilot initiatives deployed to really understand the potential for direct impact on editor growth" in reference to its self-described "primary effort", the Global Education Program, whose Pune Pilot in India it deemed a failure (see next story for more). An analysis of the Portuguese Wikipedian community is also underway, as is planning, supported by the Qatar Computing Research Institute, for a program for the Arabic Wikipedia sometime in the coming months. More information on and the summation of the Pune Project proceedings can be found below.
A report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation from consultant Tory Read has been published on the India Education Program's pilot scheme. The Pune pilot project recruited over a thousand[1] university students, but ended in disrepute, having quickly ran aground on editorial inexperience and blatant disregard for copyright (as documented in the Signpost's special report). According to a quantitative analysis conducted in tandem with the report, only 21% of total content added by the students survived cleanup to date.
The Read report gives an overview and blow-by-blow history of the project's travails, chronicling early failures of project management to engage with the English Wikipedia community, the recruitment of unseasoned students as ambassadors with two days' training and a disregard for assigned tasks, and the enlisting of vast numbers of students in the scheme (the vaunted American predecessor involved a mere 200), the decision to make Wikipedia editing mandatory for all students in contravention of professors' wishes, the decision not to enlist volunteer online ambassadors from the beginning, the impact on global editors of the students' problematic missives and early efforts by the Foundation consultants to combat it, the English Wikipedia community's exasperation and decisive action after communication lapses, and the cleanup effort and fallout that resulted. The report outlined the positive experience of some of the students and their professors' frustration, and the statistical outcome of its study, which indicated that "the pilot yielded a high percentage of low-quality content being added to English Wikipedia".
In assessing the project, the report cited inadequate planning, poor communication and lack of due diligence on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation for its failure, but also declared that the "global Wikipedia community and the Wikipedia community in India must also take responsibility", for having responded in uncivil and hurtful ways; Read concluded "there is no cause for bashing and mocking people on talk pages and email lists, particularly when so many people are working hard with good intent toward a common goal". The termination of employment of those involved was judged premature. The response from the Wikimedia Foundation, which included the report's commission, was described favourably; whether this is justified may be seen in the fortunes of the nascent Cairo education program. The recommendations for the future of such initiatives covered predictable ground; including a key role for the global editing community in the planning process, capitalising on the talent which has emerged from previous initiatives, building "capacities and relationships" between pilots, a system for the early detection of copyright violations and an overhaul of the editing interface.
The reception of the report at the time of writing has been complimentary though not universally credulous, with several commenters sharing the sentiment of Hut 8.5 that it seemed "an attempt to find a way for the program to continue rather than to honestly evaluate whether it should". Much of the discussion, which involved many of the editors who bore the brunt of the cleanup efforts, has been solution-oriented, indicating the potential for reconciliation and future productive co-operation.
Over 100 people packed into New York University's Tisch School of the Arts ITP department on Saturday, January 28 for Wikipedia Day NYC, which featured panels, lightning talks, open space sessions, plenty of food and fun. The event was organized by Wikimedia NYC, Free Culture NYU, and Free Culture Alliance NYC.
The morning panel session covered Wikipedia Loves Libraries and Wikimedia library and archives outreach initiatives. Among the presentations, Dominic reflected on his 8-month long experience as Wikipedian-in-Residence at the National Archives and Records Administration, the New York Public Library's Lauren Lampasone talked about digital initiatives and Wikipedia outreach, and DGG discussed the role of libraries and how they can help Wikipedians improve sourcing. The afternoon panel session featured discussion of university outreach initiatives. During the open space sessions, Sarah Stierch talked about GLAM-Wiki collaborations and opportunities for Wikimedians and about the gender gap, and a planning session was held to discuss Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in the United States. New York Times journalist Noam Cohen gave a lightning talk about his experiences in covering Wikipedia. The day ended with Courcelles winning a game of The Price Is Right, with Mitchazenia as game show host.
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has released two audio reel recordings of conversations between Air Force One pilots and crew and personnel on the ground, following the JFK assassination in 1963. The recordings are 2 hours and 22 minutes in length. David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, explains that the audio "provides additional documentation concerning the immediate response of the U.S. Government on the day of President Kennedy’s assassination." User:Dominic was provided with a 1.4 GB raw audio file, converted it to Ogg format and had it uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, at just about the same time that NARA publicly announced this release.
The Raab Collection, a Philadelphia-area dealer of autographs, historical documents and manuscripts, discovered the audio reels. Raab had the audio "professionally digitized" and a copy donated to the National Archives. The audio was discovered among papers and materials in the collections of senior Kennedy military aide and Army General Chester "Ted" Clifton, Jr. Raab is selling the original audio reels for US$500,000.
philippe@wikimedia.org.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened one new case and closed no cases, leaving five open.
This case, originally filed by SarekOfVulcan, was opened 29 January to review alleged disruptive editing on WP:MOS and article naming pages. Arbitrators noted upon opening the case that it is a "messy dispute" and has become "protracted". The case's evidence and workshop phases will take place through February, with a proposed decision by drafters AGK, David Fuchs, and Casliber due on 26 February.
This is the first case opened by the Committee this year.
This case was opened to address user conduct over a dispute concerning which depictions of Muhammad, if any, are appropriate to display. Last week, arbitrator AGK published a proposed decision that listed a series of principles to guide editors in disputes regarding the inclusions of controversial content. A specific proposal on dealing with such disputes by arbitrator Newyorkbrad looks set to pass, with the support of 11 arbitrators. In the principle, the Committee would affirm that "A consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Along with principles to guide the community, the Committee is discussing a set of remedies. A final decision in that regard is yet to be announced.
The Betacommand 3 case remained at the proposed decision phase this week. The case was opened to address the multitude of sanctions in effect on this editor. Until this week, none of the proposed remedies had garnered enough support to pass. However, a remedy detailing that the community sanctions are 'superseded' has garnered the support of a majority of arbitrators. The text of the remedy allows for voting on specific changes to sanctions "individually" but provides a clearer foundation for what is actually being amended.
This case, which has been 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 within days.
This 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, but has now been moved to the end of this month. This case had attracted a great deal of discussion on its workshop page.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30/Humour
