As part of its new focus on core responsibilities, the Wikimedia Foundation is reforming its grant schemes so that they are more accessible to individual volunteers. The community is invited to look at proposals for a new scheme—for now called Individual engagement grants (IEGs)—which is due to kick off on January 15.
In 2012, the WMF reformed the financial structure that underpins the funding of programs across the movement. At the heart of this was the establishment of a community-based committee, the FDC, to make recommendations to the WMF board on grant applications by eligible organizations for movement funds. Individuals and smaller organizations could rely on two other schemes: the GAC-backed Wikimedia grant program and participation grants.
However, no comparable program is yet in place to empower individual and small groups of volunteers to tackle large and time-consuming structural issues. The fellowship program, which funded projects like the wub'sredesign of the English Wikipedia's help pages, has been wound down to free technical and organizational WMF resource for core tasks like developing the visual editor.
While the foundation is encouraging chapters to engage in funding efforts modeled on the fellowship scheme, it recognizes that there will be a gap, given the WMF refocus. According to the drafts published on Meta by Siko, who has led the fellowship program and is now responsible for grants to individuals, the new pilot scheme aims to provide a solution. In the first round, seven IEG grants of US$5k–30k each are on offer, in a unique framework:
Funding
Support
Duration
Submissions
Scale
Wikimedia Grant
Expenses (travel, venue, outreach materials, logo gear, etc)
Money, proposal planning and reporting coaching
Single event, generally
Rolling
Participation support
Expenses (travel)
Money
Single event
Rolling
Individual engagement grant
Time and expenses (project materials, travel, outside services, logo gear, etc)
Money, planning and assessment coaching, progress check-ins
6–12 months
Semiannual RfPs, new cohort every 6 months
7 grants for pilot (budgeted at US$5k–30k per grant), 10–20 in round 2
In selecting grantees, the WMF will rely on community input from both individual members of the community and a subcommittee of the already-established GAC volunteer committee, which advises the WMF on the Wikimedia grants scheme. The proposal for the new grant scheme also involves working with chapters, where they exist, to find the best institutional support for programs that are funded.
The community is invited to propose changes to the draft framework and to address open questions. According to the plan, a call for applicants is expected to be published by January 15.
Trademarks and identities: Wikimedia thematic organizations debate reloaded
On Meta, the community is once again debating the two new offline participation models—user groups (open membership groups designed to be easy to form) and thematic organizations (incorporated non-profits representing the Wikimedia movement and supporting work on a specific theme within or across countries). While the WMF board approved a broad framework for what these new community-run entities could aim to achieve in principle by March 2012, the latest debate on how to make it all work in practical terms has centered around whether new entities should be allowed to call themselves Wikimedia (X), and the potential implications of such a move.
The roots of the discussion go back at least to the movement roles working group, established in October 2010 to review and reform which Wikimedia entities are supposed to do what in serving the online projects properly. The investigation concluded that no established model at the time was properly equipped to empower communities like volunteers working on our Catalan language projects (an example of the concept of the thematic organization in these debates) and user groups such as Wikipedia's oldest meetup in Munich (an example of the user group).
The WMF legal team—conscious that volunteer organizations outside the US have faced legal complaints through being confused with the foundation (example)—is now proposing four general principles. These principles, to be implemented by the volunteer-run AffCom as the body that guides recognition-seeking entities through the application process, are designed to guide the naming decisions of entities seeking WMF board recognition:
Confusion. The name must avoid confusion among outside stakeholders and promote a precise understanding of what the applicants will be engaged in. For example, if a meetup contributes to a Wikipedia language version but not to its sister projects, it is proposed in such cases that "Wikipedia" appear in the group's name.
Scoping. Names that "allow a multiplicity of groups to pursue our shared mission" and periodical reviews of their work to ensure the name matches the activity are encouraged. Exclusivity was a hotly contested issue on the German Wikipedia over the Wikimedia Medicine proposal last October. German community members argued that establishing such a thematic organization might lead to a seismic shift, depriving the editing community of its control of the editorial processes in the longer term.
Accuracy. Names that accurately describe the group are recommended; for example, “WikiSource Editors for Military History” for a Wikisource project dealing with the history of military.
Dilution: To avoid brand dilution, the guidelines recommend (i) careful consideration of the purpose of entities applying for trademark rights, and (ii) community consultations under the guidance of Affcom. Both recommendations aim to recognize the work of the editing community that has underpinned the public goodwill towards the trademarks sought by entities.
AffCom, traditionally dominated by chapter functionaries and currently seeking new members through its co-option process, is required to look at applications case-by-case in implementing the guidelines of and making recommendations to the WMF board.
Community reviewing new Wikimedia guidelines for COI
WMF General Counsel, Geoff BrighamIn a consultation process on Meta that will last until January 15, the community will be discussing WMF proposals for a new guideline on conflicts of interests concerning Wikimedia resources. The draft covers COI issues for both volunteers and organizations across the movement.
The document is a framework that sets out minimum standards to be upheld by everyone who is requesting movement resources, such as grants made possible through donations and the receipt of trademark permissions like the use of the Wikipedia ball, emblems that have achieved good public standing on the back of years of work by Wikipedia communities. In commenting on the general context of the draft, Geoff Brigham, the WMF's general counsel, told the Signpost that the timing of these guidelines is highly appropriate:
“
Not only might we learn more about ethical governance from past events, but we – as a movement – are also growing more interactive on a global scale in our allocation and requests for resources, demanding the highest ethical standards. The guidelines are intended to ensure a movement-wide baseline for those who ask for resources belonging to the Wikimedia movement: proactive transparency disclosing any potential personal or financial conflicts of interest when an applicant asks for movement resources. Such transparency is the first step in ensuring objective and independent decision-making in the allocation of those resources.
For example, many chapters are taking on leadership roles and are coming to have oversight responsibility for large sums of money, staff, and other resources: chapters and other entities in the movement deserve proactive transparency about potential conflicts of interests that possible recipients of their staff work or [spending] may have. If someone is asking for a grant that indirectly supports a family member's business, that should be disclosed.
We have movement-wide committees, like the FDC and AffCom, who make important decisions about movement resources and those committees need transparency and assurance that all requests are for mission, not personal, goals. If someone seeks a thematic organization to support the mission of another charity where they sit as a trustee, that should be disclosed. WMF is building up its grants program and will be providing large amounts to diverse individuals and organizations internationally. WMF is also approving and drafting valuable trademark licenses to support international movement goals and projects, and furnishing staff, such as communication or tech expertise, to help further mission projects. If a paid consultant asks for support to post a Wikimedia blog, that consultancy should be disclosed. In short, we need to ensure that people proactively disclose their personal and financial interests or potential conflicts when they request movement resources so fair, objective, and independent decisions may be made in their allocation. The proposed guidelines are a step in that direction.
”
The document outlines five basic guidelines:
If you are being paid by or receiving anything of value from another person or organization, you should disclose proactively that relationship and interest when you make a request for movement resources that may benefit that other person or organization.
If you are requesting movement resources that may benefit your family member, spouse, partner, business associate, significant other, close friend, or their organizations or employers, you should disclose proactively that interest when you make the request.
You should answer fully and honestly any relevant and appropriate questions when requesting and using movement resources.
If your request or use of movement resources could be perceived by others or the public as improper, you should disclose proactively why in your request for those resources. Even the perception of a conflict or unauthorized personal gain needs to be disclosed.
You should not request or use movement resources for unauthorized personal gain.
The document provides five practical examples, and assumes that people involved in handling movement resources can set higher standards as they see fit in their field of activity. Volunteers can rely on the guidelines in engaging in debates like the Gibraltar controversy last September.
However, open questions such as how to handle potential COIs of decision-makers are still to be addressed; and the practicalities of how to apply the guidelines in more decentralised financial decision-making processes such as the newly approved flow-funding pilot project are still to be thought through. Community input is welcome until January 15 on the draft's talk page. The WMF board is not expected to vote on the outcome before its meeting in February 2013.
Brief notes
Cite4Wiki menu
Cite4Wiki is on e-death's door: Cite4Wiki, an established, free, open-source Firefox add-on used by editors as a citation-generating tool, is having problems in coping with Firefox's version 17. Stanton McCandlish, the fourth volunteer developer in succession to serve as caretaker, is seeking urgent help to redevelop the tool.
Ombudsman commission: On December 22, the WMF staff published a call for applications for membership of the Ombudsman commission. The volunteer body is investigating alleged violations of the privacy policy through checkusers on behalf of the foundation.
WMF annual report 2011–12: The WMF has published its annual report for 2011–12. An on-wiki version can be found on Meta.
WikiProject medicine workshop in San Francisco: Between January 8 and 11, Wikimedians engaged in medicine are holding a number of events at the University of California, San Francisco. Interested editors in the area are invited to sign up on the project page.
What motivated you to join WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire? Were you first introduced to the series through the novels or the television series? Have you contributed to any of the project's 11 Good Articles?
sgeureka: I really loved the first season of the show and started reading (and loving) the books shortly afterwards back in 2011. When I checked out the main ASOIAF article to answer some of my book questions, the article was very unbalanced, with a major focus on fictional details and translation. I was on a longish wikibreak at the time, but I knew that since I wanted to research that topic in depth anyway, I might as well use the research material to expand the article for future readers. After a good year of work (four months were serious), the article finally reached Good Article status.
TenTonParasol: I started reading the novels when I saw my bus stop had an ad for the first season, and I was halfway through the second when the series began airing. I loved it, and as is my habit with series I love, I put the whole family of articles on my watchlist. I really started working on the articles when I decided it was ridiculous that the characters were split across two articles: Major Houses in A Song of Ice and Fire and Characters of A Song of Ice and Fire. However, I never really watched the television series past episode four and I focused all my work on the character list, so if I contributed anything to the project's Good Articles, which are mostly television episodes, it was minor.
George R. R. Martin last year. An American screenwriter and author of fantasy, horror, and science fiction, he is best known for A Song of Ice and Fire, his bestselling series of epic fantasy novels that HBO adapted for their dramatic series Game of Thrones.
Jclemens: I started with the novels when A Feast for Crows came out, seven years ago. After hearing friends rave about it, I snagged a copy of A Game of Thrones from a bookstore in Regan National, and was hooked. Interestingly enough, since Wikipedia doesn't actually know when my account was created, I have no idea if I bought the book or created my Wikipedia account first. While I've worked on most of the GAs, my role has pretty much been that of a polisher and editor, rather than a wholesale content creator.
Sandstein: I don't think I've actually joined the project if by that you mean signing a list.... As far as I recall, I read the novels first, and when the TV series came about I started making substantial edits to the article about that, its seasons and episodes, and wrote some sub-articles such as those about the music, the comic and the ... other stuff.
With just over 100 articles, the project works on a relatively small collection. Has this been a curse or a blessing? Have any of the project's lists of characters or locations spawned an independent article for a single subject? Do you foresee any of the project's articles reaching Featured Status in the near future?
sgeureka: I joined the wikiproject after people had already cleaned up the previous mess by merging dozens of plotty stubs about individual fictional elements/characters/locations into lists. This condensed state has been a blessing for me, as it's far easier to maintain. Fortunately, with the successful TV show and availablity of good source, I can actually imagine spinning out a selected few characters into their own articles again. But my future work will likely go into improving the book articles we already have. I believe the main ASOIAF article is currently the closest to reaching FA status, but real-life doesn't allow me to go that extra mile time-wise.
TenTonParasol: Like sgeureka, I joined after the project was condensed. I find it to be a blessing that the project is so small. I've worked in other, much larger WikiProjects and there the work seems to be never-ending. Here in ASoIAF, there's a lot of work, but at least we know exactly what we have at any given time and it's easier to maintain. I also think that a few characters and houses--House Stark, House Lannister, a few characters in those Houses, and Daenerys Targaryen to name some--are fair candidates for their own articles. I was actually drafting three, but then I wandered off to draft character articles for other series. For the longest time, I've also thought the main article was closest to FA. But with some work, I think "Lord Snow", "Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things", and "Baelor" could make it.
Jclemens: I'm not an article creator, for the most part, but an accomplished article improver. When I was first looking at the Wikiproject, most everything was a mess, in large part because of how non-notable fictional elements get merged together into list articles, like the characters. Since the TV series aired, we now have plenty of reliable secondary sources on just about everything in the first couple of books... but not enough editors interested in adding those sources such that characters or locations could be appropriately broken out into standalone articles.
Sandstein: It's probably helpful to work on a more manageable set of articles. In general, I think the balkanization that afflicts the coverage of other popular media franchises on Wikipedia - articles for every single minor character, for instance - has been kept well under control. This I think is a good thing, because the more articles there are, the easier it is for cruft to accumulate in them, or what WP:NOT#PLOT refers to as "summary-only descriptions of works". As for FA, some of the season 1 articles have the potential to get there, if only because writing about an episode provides a well-manageable scope and range of sources as compared to the whole TV or novel series. Also, I think that articles covering the whole series can only be reasonably called "featured" after the series - and hence the article's coverage of it - is complete.
Which elements of the series tend to be better covered than others on Wikipedia? Are any of the books or episodes neglected?
sgeureka: So far, I haven't seen any good wikipedia article specifically on fictional worlds (i.e. setting and geography). So I started working on the World of A Song of Ice and Fire article, and it's my long-term plan is to get it to Good article status.
TenTonParasol: All of the season one episodes are pretty well covered; they're all Good Article status, I believe. The World article is also very nicely covered, thanks to sgeureka. From a quick look-through, most of the season two episodes aren't as well covered. And the character list could use a lot of work.
Jclemens:User:Sandstein and I worked on the first series episode articles, and I hope to finish off S1 and S2 to Good Article (episodes), Featured List (series/season articles), and thus Good Topic eventually. I think good topic is an excellent target for popular topics, because it assures our readers they'll get a good treatment of a topic, without the added work that goes into a Featured Topic. I work on the TV series because it is the gateway for so many new readers into Wikipedia, and the Wikiproject should be focusing on such high-visibility articles.
Sandstein: I think we have everything reasonably well covered on the TV side of things. The articles about the books could need some more attention; e.g. A Storm of Swords is mostly plot summary now.
Does the project deal with a lot of fancruft? Has sourcing been an issue with any articles? What are the most difficult aspects to improving articles about the series?
sgeureka: All in all, I'd say the ASOIAF book-related coverage doesn't suffer from excessive fancruft anymore, thanks to the good work of editors before I joined the wikiproject. I have tons of real-world information in my userspace and a few secondary ASOIAF books on my shelf, and I know how to find plot references in the multi-thousand-page story quickly. So the most difficult thing for me is actually finding the time to add the material and the refs to the articles.
TenTonParasol: I don't know what it was like before, but I can say there isn't as much fancruft as I've seen in other articles (though I do worry a bit about the character list). I have a lot of reviews book-marked and queued in my Readability account. Finding references in the books is not as hard as it seems. I can sometimes remember about where something happened or what point of view character witnessed it, and what I can't remember I can generally use A Wiki of Ice and Fire as a guide. The problem is finding the motivation to add the references, which isn't unique to this family of articles. Besides my laziness, the hardest thing is deciding what to cut out when writing the character entries. There's a lot of nuance in these characters, and in five books, each with hundreds and hundreds of pages, there's so much character development. I just want present everyone with a whole view of the characters as I think the fandom generally cherry-picks traits and refuses to see entire sides of the characters. But at the same time, I'm afraid I'm contributing cruft.
Jclemens: Actually, I think "fancruft" as it applies to A Song of Ice and Fire has been redefined. Fancruft are things that no one actually talks about in reliable sources because it's petty nuance that no one but the hardest core of fans ever care about. With the exploding popularity of the TV show and the books upon which it is based, what used to be considered fancruft is now actually a lot more mainstream.
Sandstein: There's not as much fancruft as in articles covering other popular culture franchises, in part perhaps for the reasons Jclemens mentions, but probably also because several experienced editors are watching the articles. And for some reason the topic doesn't seem to attract the type of ultra-fanboy editor willing to devote page after page to, say, the clothes worn by each character or their romantic relationships. One minor issue is that the TV series articles are relatively often edited to add leaked casting announcements or other rumors sourced to fan websites, which unfortunately we can't accept.
How is the project preparing for the next season of Game of Thrones? Are there any articles that fans can work on while waiting for the sixth novel?
sgeureka: The novels have always taken years to get published, and ten TV episodes of hype per year isn't that much either. So, unlike a lot of fiction wikiprojects I know, this project isn't really about coordinating the weekly TV rush&news and preparing the immediate future, but it's a place that offers long-term coordination and gathering opinions.
Jclemens: I will be going through and polishing up the work of enthusiastic and dedicated Wikipedians, who form the backbone of the project's contributions and create the series' episode articles as they go. I need to work on S2 first, but will probably be doing that once the DVDs come out.
What are the project's most pressing needs? How can a new contributor help today?
sgeureka: Thankfully, the project is in a state where I don't see any pressing needs. The "Other media" secondary articles may need a little extra love though, since sources and enthusiam are a admittedly harder to come by for them. With such a large franchise, there is something for everyone's taste. Help is always welcome.
Sandstein: I agree that there aren't any pressing needs right now, but there are always quality improvements to be made. A permanent concern in most articles about fiction is to keep the focus of the article on the real world and the works' reception in secondary sources, rather than immersing the reader in the fictional setting the works take place in. The style guide for writing about fiction has good advice about how most articles about A Song of Ice and Fire, or other articles about fiction, could still be improved.
Little Moreton Hall (nom) by George Ponderevo and MarchOrDie. Little Moreton Hall is a moated half-timbered manor house southwest of Congleton in Cheshire, England. First built for William Moreton in about 1504–08, the building was completed in stages by 1610. The Grade I listed building remained in the possession of the Moreton family until 1938, when ownership was transferred to the National Trust. It is open to the public from April to December each year.
Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages (nom) by Torchiest. Drowned God is a 1996 video game developed by Epic Multimedia Group. The game propounds the conspiracy theory that all of human history is a lie and the human race's development and evolution were aided by extra-terrestrials. At first a commercial success, the game suffered from bugs and a lack of technical support. Drowned God received mixed reviews.
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service (nom) by Nick-D. The Royal Australian Air Force operated 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II fighter-bomber aircraft between 1970 and 1973. Leased temporarily from the United States Air Force, the aircraft were popular. The Phantom II had been evaluated by the RAAF to replace its English Electric Canberra bombers, but ultimately lost out to the General Dynamics F-111C.
Blockhaus d'Éperlecques (nom) by Prioryman. The Blockhaus d'Éperlecques is a Second World War bunker in the Pas-de-Calais region of France. Built by Nazi Germany between March 1943 and July 1944, the bunker was meant to accommodate over 100 V-2 missiles at a time and to launch up to 36 daily, targeting London and southern England. Damaged extensively by Allied bombing raids, the bunker was never completed. It now serves as part of a museum and has been designated a monument historique.
Shunzhi Emperor (nom) by Madalibi. Fulin, best known as the Shunzhi Emperor (1638–1661), was the third emperor of the Qing dynasty and the first Qing emperor to rule over a united China. He took the throne at age six, with the co-regent Dorgon in command. The Zhunzhi Emperor began ruling in 1650 and tried to fight corruption and reduce the political influence of the Manchu nobility. By 1661 his armies had defeated the Qing's last enemies.
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (nom) by Hawkeye7. American comedian Stephen Colbert was the featured entertainer at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in Washington D.C., where he gave a 16-minute tongue-in-cheek podium speech and a 7-minute video presentation targeting President George W. Bush and the media. The performance, a parody of conservative pundits, quickly became an internet sensation.
Amphibian (nom) by Cwmhiraeth and Axl. Amphibians are four-footed vertebrates; most undergo metamorphosis from larva with gills to an adult form with lungs. The earliest amphibians evolved in the Devonian Period. In recent decades there has been a dramatic decline in amphibian populations for many species around the globe.
Featured lists
Two featured lists were promoted this week:
List of battlecruisers (nom) by Parsecboy. In the early 20th century eight navies constructed or planned to build battlecruisers. The first such ships were built by the British, with Germany following soon after. Construction halted almost entirely after World War II.
Toolserver parties try to inject festive goodwill into dispute
“
I'm looking forward to working with Wikimedia Germany, other Toolserver supporters, DaB, and the tools and bots communities to help improve their experience.
Efforts were stepped up this week to sow a feeling of trust between the major parties with an interest in the future of the Toolserver. The tool- and bot-hosting server – more accurately servers – are currently operated by German chapter, Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE), with assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation and numerous volunteers, including long-time system administrator Daniel Baur (more commonly known by his pseudonym DaB). However, those parties have more recently failed to see eye-to-eye on the trajectory for the Toolserver, which is scheduled to be replaced by Wikimedia Labs in late 2013 (see Signpost coverage: 1, 2), with increasing concern about the tone of discussions.
At the crux of the disagreement is a single question: whether Wikimedia Labs can ever viably supplant the Toolserver. The Foundation is certainly throwing its weight behind the transition, but it is people like DaB – not to mention hundreds of Toolserver volunteer developers – that will need to be convinced if content is to be properly migrated, given the substantial switching costs individual developers must bear. The switching process will be further complicated if those developers share the concerns of DaB about the long-term prospects for Labs. It is not an easy situation to manage, especially given the tight timetable.
Two positive steps forward were taken this week. In a meeting on Thursday, WMDE community liaison Denis Barthel and DaB agreed that the WMF plan should be taken in good faith as a viable proposal for transition, and deserves the investment of time and energy. Though DaB later shared his ongoing doubts on the Toolserver-l mailing list, he offered his support for users wishing to transition, though he said he could not advise on setting up tools on Wikimedia Labs; for that, developers would have to rely on WMF help.
24 hours later more news reached the ears of Toolserver developers: it was announced that that WMF help would be co-ordinated by WMF engineering community manager Sumana Harihareswara. Harihareswara is one of the Foundation's most recognisable faces, regularly attending developer meetups both in person and online. As a senior WMF employee, her appointment to the role is likely to help resolve a feeling that the feelings of individual Toolserver developers – who may not appreciate the powerful range of environmental options available on Labs – were being ignored by WMF senior management. This move can only help ease tensions between the parties.
Wikimedia Germany, for its part, remains essentially stuck in the middle, committed both to keeping the Toolserver going in some circumstances and shutting it down in others. It can be little wonder the organisation is seeking to "normalize the relationship between the Toolserver, WMDE and the Wikimedia Foundation". Fortunately for the chapter, that middle ground may have just become a slightly nicer place to be.
In brief
Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for several weeks.
Wikidata phase 1 launch data set: Barring unforeseen events, the Wikidata client will be launched to the Hungarian Wikipedia – its first production wiki – on January 14 (Wikidata Project Chat). Although the announcement reflects the first time a date has officially been set for a client deployment, the Signpost understands that the project is essentially behind its ambitious schedule by a matter of weeks (the result of delays in getting code review), though developers may be able to catch up some of that lost ground before the end of March, when it is scheduled to be wound down. The client will interface with the Wikidata.org repository, pulling interwiki links directly in addition to reading them from the page's wikitext. The Hebrew Wikipedia is considered a likely second deployment target, so as to enable testing of the client within a right-to-left framework. Phase 2, already in development, allows for the centralisation of data items for use in infoboxes and other displays.
