Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/In the media
Recently "Technology reports" have abounded with different stories arising from the Git switchover on March 21; it can be easy to miss the wood for the trees when negotiating one of the largest changes to their workflows developers have experienced in years. To assist in establishing the current "state of play" when it comes to the switchover, the Signpost caught up with Chad Horohoe, the WMF developer responsible for managing the switchover.
Chad, are you happy with how things have gone so far? Would you have done anything differently, and if so what?
The move to Git has probably sounded rather abstract to many Wikimedians. What can they expect in the way of tangible differences?
Technology Reports since "Git day" have included coverage of some of the issues that have arisen since the switchover. How confident are you that once developers get used to the new way of working, those concerns will be resolved?
In 1957, C. Northcote Parkinson bemoaned the fact that getting agreement on the design for a new bikeshed is uniformly more difficult than getting agreement on the design of a nuclear reactor; though fewer people are affected, the entire community (in Parkinson's case a committee) are willing and able to give their opinion on the matter. MediaWiki tries to avoid this problem by allowing logged-in users to choose how they wish the proverbial bikeshed to appear to them, but it is often not enough: participants still argue over how interface elements should appear to the overwhelming majority of users who are not logged in.
Such was the situation this week as the English Wikipedia's Technical Village Pump became a forum for discussing the changes to MediaWiki's default diff colouration and formatting schema, brought in last week with the local deployment of 1.20wmf1. Predictably (see previous Signpost coverage), the result was much consternation and fierce debate (as of time of writing, it seems as though the new global default will remain the default on the English Wikipedia, albeit with possible tweaks).
Design controversy is nothing new to Wikimedia wikis, however. In May 2010, for example, an update to the famous Wikipedia "puzzle globe" logo caused pages of on- and off-wiki debate. Indeed, it was an episode that bore all the hallmarks of the present diff colour discussion: the change was primarily aimed at fixing an objective problem (incorrect characters) but also incorporated purely aesthetic changes, and hence sparked disagreement. In the end, the logo was adjusted slightly to respond to the criticism of it by Wikipedians, but the update was not reverted. It was around the same time that the Vector skin was rolled out – first optionally and then as the default for all users – prompting a similar number of complaints. These complaints included those of one user, still an active Wikimedia Commons editor, who wrote that "the kind of morons with no place whatsoever in Wikipedia ... I expect donations to plummet in reply to this change".
Not all central changes have stuck, either: the furore over a change to the colouring using in the new messages bar prompted it to be widely reverted. Of course, the correct analysis of this historical record is itself a controversial issue; commentators seem split between those who feel that controversy is a part of the design process that can't be eliminated and those who feel that it can be, but that developers and designers have never tried hard enough to eliminate it. One thing is certain, though: with design changes of some sort or another occurring on an increasingly rapid basis, it's rarely been a more topical issue.
.png)
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/2012-04-30/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Opinion
| “ | I am available as a paid editor. I charge $1000 to take an article to featured status. If you don't require your article to be featured, just improved, we can work out a reasonable compensation schedule. Please contact me via my email from this account, or at Wikipediocracy where I am a moderator. I believe my qualifications, as detailed below, speak for themselves. | ” |
By adding this short note at the top of his user page, User:Cla68 has ignited strong and at times emotive reactions that have engulfed the discussion on paid editing over the past week, and introduced a debate on what editors may say on their user page about their professional activities. Cla68, a Wikipedian for more than six years, has 29 sole-nominated and four co-nominated FAs to his name, and a long-standing involvement in military history articles. Cla68’s user page was soon the scene of an edit-war by other editors, who alternately removed and reinstated the statement until the page was temporarily protected two days later.
The debate over the status of paid editing in the project has been simmering for more than two months in a trenchantly debated RfC that now comprises more than 90,000 words. The RfC is a new episode of a discussion that first peaked in 2009. Discussion has become more active since the release of hotly disputed external research findings covered in last week's Signpost. Cla68 has stated that Wikipedia's soapbox policy "does not prohibit announcing your services or availability to improve Wikipedia."
There really are ethical communications professionals who understand that I will crucify their clients in the media if they do not do the right thing. And there are those who do NOT get it, and banning them is the fastest and easiest thing to do."
Opinions on Jimmy's page were as mixed as elsewhere, and ranged from the measured to the uncivil. One editor said that Cla68 makes himself "sound like a whore". Some doubted that Cla68's action was anything more than provocative or sarcastic. Arguing from logic, one participant wrote, "How likely would you be to work for free in an environment where many people are getting paid for the same work?" On the other hand, another said, "a complete banning of paid editing would just lead to media complaints of hypocrisy that paid editors are banned, but those editors with extreme COI issues (often high ranking Wikipedia members as well) are allowed to roam free." In one editor's view, "It is far too late to pretend that Cla68 is responsible for the current ruckus. His provocation was only possible thanks to years of studied inattention." Others were concerned with the analogy with BLPs who edit their own articles, or with a different bright line: "Jimbo is clearly distinguishing between paid editors and paid advocates. The latter should be banned the former not. I agree with that."
In news that may have implications for the current debates, The Signpost has been informed that a university has approached Cla68 and is negotiating a contract with him to write a set of articles about their researchers; this has now been confirmed with the university itself. The details of whether or how many of these articles will be nominated as featured article candidates are still to be determined between the parties.
"Looks like a pretty effective troll to me. Par for the course for this particular editor."
This ANI thread was closed as a "no admin action", a closure that was almost immediately disputed. Another ANI thread was opened, this time with the explicit theme of "asking the community to affirmatively address specifically whether there is consensus to disregard policy and allow an advertisement on this user page." This thread was closed with the summary, "Regardless of your feeling on paid COI, there's a RfC and a MfD where this can be properly discussed, and this is getting very silly here, let's stop it."
"The post on Jimbo's talk page was especially helpful in getting the word out. Jimbo's talk page is likely the most watched user talk page in Wikipedia."
On Monday 29 April UTC, the MfD page was subjected to a rapid-fire edit-war in which an attempt to speedy-close it was reverted, reinstated, reverted, and reinstated, all within nine minutes. The MfD has now been closed, with the summary, "Keep per WP:FORUMSHOP. This has been taken to ANI twice and closed due to no consensus. Brought up at Jimbo's talk page. And an RfC. ... easy call."
The request for comment was launched at the guideline on user pages. The proposal is to add a bullet to the current guideline that restricts what may appear on user pages (see below; our italicisation).
| Promotional and advocacy material and links |
|
|---|
The argument is that "the wording of the first bullet point is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:NOTADVERTISING, implying that it's ok to advertise products and services, as long as they are related to Wikipedia. ... It is not the intent of this proposal to decide whether paid editing (or otherwise making money from Wikipedia-related activities) is acceptable, nor is it the intent of this proposal to limit an editor's ability to disclose that they are a paid editor."
At the time of writing, there are 13 supports, one provisional support, and nine opposes. The comments have included queries concerning whether Pete Forsyth (who is interviewed in the current edition of The Signpost), would need to remove from his user page the link and reference to his consulting business, Wiki Strategies, in which he advises on "opportunities to engage with the Wikipedia community in accordance with its policies and culture."
Opinion was mixed as well at the off-wiki Facebook site CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement). Among the reactions were: “I'm quite sure that there's far more people on the 'meh, who cares' side and the 'how you edit matters, not why' side than the banning side.”; “This was a pretty obvious attempt to provoke a reaction rather than a serious attempt to drum up business as a paid editor by 'advertising services' on CLA's 'User Page.' "; and “Even I'll say that using a userpage to advertise services is kind of shady.”
There is currently a related proposal at the Village Pump that new articles on commercial businesses must have at least one independent reliable source, as for BLPs.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/In focus
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, keeping the number of open cases at two.
A review of the Race and intelligence case was opened as a compromise between starting a new case and proceeding with a ruling by motion. The review is intended to be a simplified form of a full case, and has the stated scope of conduct issues that have purportedly arisen since the closure of the 2010 case.
A complete decision was proposed on 16 April by drafter Roger Davies. The proposed principles include clarifications of harassment policies and sockpuppet investigation procedures. After a long series of findings of fact, the proposed decision seeks to admonish one editor involved in disruptive actions and to ban two others for 12 months. Voting so far has established a tentative consensus on some principles and some findings of fact; agreement on the remedy in the case has not been reached.
The case involves accusations of disruptive editing against Rich Farmbrough. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the editor and his observance of bot policy. Arbitrator Hersfold originally filed the case, which the committee accepted four weeks ago.
Workshop submissions closed several weeks ago, with most parties presenting suggestions on principles to include in a final decision. The draft or "proposed" decision is due to be posted in a few days, by arbitrator Newyorkbrad.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Humour
