Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/In the media
After a long and difficult week for developers, all Wikimedia wikis except Wikipedias are now running MediaWiki 1.19. Unfortunately, every deployment uncovered new problems that required fixing. Some deployments had to be reversed just minutes after they went live.
Wikimedia Commons was the highest-profile wiki to switch over in the past seven days, but required three deployment attempts (wikitech-l mailing list). The first two attempts, both on February 21, encountered such severe problems in performance, thumbnailing and JavaScript that developers reverted to the prior version. On February 22, the third deployment attempt was successful, despite several reported problems reported on the Commons village pump. Fortunately, these did not require a third reversion to 1.18; instead, developers pushed through a series of bug fixes that allowed the wiki function well enough, although not perfectly.
The hustle and bustle of the 1.19 deployment did not end at Commons. Spanning February 23–24, the Wikinews wikis were switched over to the new version, then switched back, then switched over again. Wikisources suffered a similar fate. Finally, all other non-Wikipedia wikis (Wikiquotes, Wiktionaries, Wikiversities, and the others) installed the version new later on February 24.
The deployment of 1.19 is likely to yield many useful lessons. Given the proximity of the deployment to fundamental changes in the MediaWiki release cycle, these lessons are likely to have an immediate impact. Most strikingly, several new and important bugs came to light at every turn over the past week, a stress no one will want to repeat during the more rapid future deployments planned for later in the year. Nor is the stressful period over yet: at the time of writing, 14 bug reports and one tracking bug are set to require fixing before the final deployment to the English Wikipedia, currently scheduled to finish in the early hours of March 1[nb 1] The list includes problems with the Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard, Oversight-related issues, and a serious bug in the ProofreadPage functionality upon which a number of Wikisources depend. Given the importance of the March 1[nb 1] date, it will be another intense week for developers.
Corrections
A discussion was started this week on Meta regarding the current implementation of the SUL ("single user login") system used to prevent cross-wiki confusion or imitation. The system, in use across Wikimedia wikis and also known by its extension name of "CentralAuth", permits users to "call dibs" on their chosen username on all wikis simultaneously rather than just the wiki(s) where they officially register. The duplicate accounts themselves are only registered if and when the user visits the foreign wiki whilst logged in.
SUL itself has been around since late 2006 but despite this, username "conflicts" – where different users have registered the same username on different projects – still persist. To ease the problem, in 2009 the SUL configuration was changed so that any username registration automatically detected as conflict-free was automatically made a globally unified login. However, usernames that had been registered already were not retrospectively made global even if they were conflict-free at the time—a decision the proposal on Meta seeks to overturn.
One potential problem in the pipeline is that no system for global renames has yet been devised, making it tricky for users who do visit numerous other wikis to change their username whilst preserving their contribution history. Proposers say that despite the downsides, the move is justified because of its potential to spur the development of global watchlists and other much-requested technical improvements of a global nature. The proposal, which had garnered a small but significant amount of support as the Signpost went to print, has not received much comment on technical feasibility thus far.
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.
/wiki/Foo can be used interchangeably with URLs of the default format (/w/index.php?title=Foo), is one of the features most demanded by technicians installing MediaWiki for the first time and yet defies a single general solution, a problem the new tool is aimed at resolving (wikitech-l mailing list). In unrelated news, Wikimedia India announced this week the creation of http://live.wikimedia.in, an "instant search" provider for Wikimedia wikis (also wikitech-l).Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Opinion
According to the unofficial collaborative statement the Finance meeting 2012 in Paris on fundraising and Wikimedia Foundation–Chapters relations (Signpost coverage: Feb 13, Feb 20) delivered no substantial progress in regard to the ongoing debate on financial relations between the foundation and Wikimedia chapters. On the other hand the conference was seen as a step to improve the communication climate in the run up to the annual Wikimedia conference in Berlin at the end of March, and the Board of Trustees also clarified its interpretation of the Haifa letter (Signpost coverage).
However, the summit revived the Haifa debate about the chapters council proposal. Proponents of the basic concept argue that establishing some sort of international permanent body to represent chapter interests will both improve the cooperation among the participating organizations and strengthen the position of the chapter system as a whole in negotiations with the foundation. That represents a shift from the stance taken at Haifa, where the idea was mainly seen as a defensive move by some chapters in response to what was interpreted as aggressive action by the WMF. Neither the notes nor the unofficial statement made clear how this body would help to resolve the short term debates on finance or fit into the ongoing wider movement roles debate.
Instead, discussions about the council in Paris revolved around better coordination and the possibility of improving accountability standards among chapters through self-assessment and inter-organizational peer reviews. There are two models, called B and KISS, in early stages of discussion. Both reflect the largely continental European composition of the chapter communities and are nicknamed Bismarck (B) and Metternich respectively. While KISS focuses on a simple three stage structure with equal representation of all involved chapters, B includes significantly more paid employees to keep up with the capacity of WMF staff.
The board of the Austrian chapter took a lead by formally declaring its preference for KISS, and empowered its responsible board members to enter further negotiations. The outlined global debate timeline is hoped to lead to results in the run up to or at the Berlin conference between March 30 and April 1.
According to a note on Meta, Sue Gardner is to present her final recommendations on fundraising and the dissemination of those funds to the Board of Trustees on March 9. She welcomes further discussion right up until that deadline, according to community liaison Maggie Dennis' note on the page; as long as the report is marked "draft", she is open to making changes.
It is unclear how aware individual editors on the English Wikipedia are that to provide input on WMF decisions such as the current proposals relating to fundraising and the distribution of funds, they must participate actively on the Meta website (although recent controversy surrounding a Meta-based request for comment on an English Wikipedia administrator will have heightened the site's profile locally). Judging from the amount of discussion of Sue Gardner's draft proposal, there is very little awareness among editors.
Gardner stated in her draft report that she had hoped that her finalized recommendations on fundraising and funds dissemination would receive consensus support, but at this point she doubts this will happen, as the many past proposals and suggestions on how to move forward have historically not been supported and the problems remain unsolved. However, she warns that the status quo cannot continue:
| “ | And yet, the current situation is not sustainable: it’s damaging to individual and organizational relationships in the movement, it's not very efficient, and it isn't effectively safeguarding against various risks. | ” |
In the draft, Gardner criticizes the current Wikimedia structure that "enshrines" chapters based on geography. The chapters have no common mission. As they are considered "key" participants, the foundation has given the chapters two board seats on the Board of Trustees, whereas none of the Board members are selected specifically by ArbCom members, stewards, administrators or general members of the editing communities.
| “ | By extending special consideration to chapters and not to other groups or individuals, Wikimedia Foundation is privileging chapters at the expense of others: saying that chapters are more important, more central, more core. | ” |
The 160 countries of the world that do not have chapters do not benefit from special privileges dispensed by the foundation, nor does any editor not active in a chapter, regardless of their status in the community (including the en.wp community), such as ArbCom members, stewards or those in any other community-elected position.
| “ | The Wikimedia Foundation makes special efforts to recruit chapters representatives to our other lists such as ComCom and the treasurers list. The Wikimedia Foundation has been encouraging chapters to payment process in the annual campaign, and is encouraging them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually – in some cases, millions of dollars. It has been encouraging them to create permanent staff and infrastructure supporting their work. It is signing agreements that effectively give chapters "exclusivity" in their geography, and committing to consulting with chapters before the Wikimedia Foundation takes any action – even meetings! – inside their country. | ” |
Gardner is convinced that the "enshrining" of the chapters as key is the wrong approach for the foundation, as it violates the basic principles of the movement:
| “ | Essentially: I believe that a model that privileges geography above all else is the wrong one for our movement: it doesn't really support who we are and what we do. I believe this is why the number of editors involved with their chapter is fairly small: because chapter work is specialized and particular: it isn't for everyone. I don't blame editors for not getting involved with their chapter, and I don't blame chapters for not achieving higher involvement by editors. To be clear: there's nothing wrong with chapters. What's wrong is that the Wikimedia Foundation’s actions have had the effect – to date – of enshrining the chapter model as the central organizing principle for the movement: the Wikimedia Foundation has been trying to make chapters into something they're not. | ” |
Indeed, currently a Chapters council is being proposed to centralize the organization of all the chapters as well as control their organization and activities. The Chapters council, among other activities, will "determine consensus positions on common chapter interests and represent them in relations with the Foundation, the project communities, and interested external parties". This, in effect, appears to remove individual chapter autonomy so that the chapters will speak in one voice.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases this week but closed one case, leaving one open.
This case was brought to the Committee by TimidGuy to appeal a ban that was imposed on him by Jimbo Wales. The case was closed today after a week of voting by arbitrators. Passing principles include a statement of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, which includes a broad ability to hear the "appeals [of] blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users". Additionally, the decision states that there is no opportunity for a further appeal to Jimbo Wales if the Committee is reviewing a ban originally imposed by Jimbo Wales.
Along with the principles discussed in the case, a long series of findings of fact are listed regarding the circumstances of the ban of TimidGuy, and the nature of his appeal. After finding that the basis for the original ban was likely invalid, the decision vacated Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy. The administrator who originally sought the ban for TimidGuy, Will Beback, was desysopped and indefinitely banned as a result of his "disruptive conduct". This site ban proposal divided the Committee, passing by a vote of 8–4.
This case was opened to review alleged disruptive editing on the Manual of Style and other pages pertaining to article naming. The workshop phase was extended by arbitrator AGK to 26 February. AGK stated on the workshop talk page that an outline of the proposed decision would be posted early this week with the final draft of the proposals to be posted by 4 March.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-27/Humour
