Meta is the wiki that has coordinated a wide range of cross-project Wikimedia activities, such as the activities of stewards, the archiving of chapter reports, and WMF trustee elections. The project has long been an out-of-the-way corner for technocratic working groups, unaccountable mandarins, and in-house bureaucratic proceedings. Largely ignored by the editing communities of projects such as Wikipedia and organizations that serve them, Meta has evolved into a huge and relatively disorganized repository, where the few archivists running it also happen to be the main authors of some of its key documents. While Meta is well-designed for supporting the librarians and mandarins who stride along its corridors, visitors tend to find the site impenetrable—or so many people have argued over the past decade. This impenetrability runs counter to Meta's increasingly central role in the Wikimedia movement.
Meta was created back in 2001 to outsource "meta" discussions on how to organize matters beyond the needs of English Wikipedia articles; however, the new project quickly took on multilingual responsibilities, particularly the translation tasks associated with the annual fundraisers, and transwiki administrative issues from steward services to global spam prevention to privacy investigation and conflict mediation. Nowadays, "Meta" refers to at least two largely distinct systems: one deals with the work of stewards and the small-wiki monitoring team (SWMT); the other is for other issues related to "meta debates".
In its linguistic diversity (matched only by Commons, where languages coexist but there is rarely the need for the same intensity of discourse) Meta is the only place where a volunteer expert taskforce can be instantly created to address complex cross-wiki problems.
Meta is currently ill-suited to provide a transwiki public sphere where disparate editing communities can discuss shared problems on equal terms and to engage with supportive organizations. It is not a deliberative space in which editors of content projects can easily navigate and participate. For newcomers and occasional visitors, there is an almost total absence of orientation, the working cycles are largely unpredictable, and there are mountains of cryptically written files and confusing, ill-documented proceedings. For the project's small community, it is increasingly difficult to manage processes that have enormous implications for the movement. Attempts to establish new instruments like a global ArbCom and a global ban policy haven't succeeded so far.
This situation has arisen from both the Meta's original function in relation to the English Wikipedia, and as a series of rational optimizations of individual working habits. The use of English by default in an environment in which there is little translation is a matter of continual complaint. The process has counterparts in the ways Wikipedia projects have organized their self-governing structures and help pages in favor of seasoned rather than new editors.
The Meta approach, however, has hit the wall. While stewards and the SWMT continue to provide support for editing communities, the site's medium- and long-term processes are struggling. This problem, while perceived on Meta for a long time, has not been widely recognized on other Wikimedia projects for years. Meta's dysfunctionalities have become a significant issue in 2012, because the WMF has made Meta the platform for expanding its grant-making programs and policy reviews such as reforming the terms of use. These issues are examples of the need for multilingual communities to engage much more freely on a common website.
Meta, chronically short of volunteers, is now trying to adapt to the challenges of hosting sophisticated grant-making schemes. Among these challenges is the need for efficient translation support for both applications and their discussion. Furthermore, editors have made their case(s) in debating global policy reforms in languages other than English. Another prominent example was the debate on the Toolserver, where ironically, decisions affecting its largest client—the English Wikipedia—were prepared, discussed, and decided primarily in German.
The WMF has promoted less exclusive Meta committee models, such as by setting up an open GAC recruitment process; the foundation has also established charters for key committees. Bodies in charge of approving new content projects and supportive organizations were given new basic frameworks, and a volunteer committee, the FDC, was established to review entities' programs and finances. For the first time, chapters opened their own WMF trustee-selection process for community questions in 2012.
The project has played important roles in managing the lead-up to Wikimedia's most important launches of 2012: Wikidata and Wikivoyage; but these were exceptional cases, supported by significant funding, and with unique historical origins, respectively. However, this contrasts with the scenario faced by volunteers who seek feedback for innovative ideas, who are still left out in the cold in the current Meta environment. A committee with the aim of redressing this has been under organization since April 2012. While everybody acknowledged that WMF projects cannot be run just with a server in an office in Florida, as used to be the case, Meta still relies on IRC and a jungle of vaguely defined mailing lists for its off-wiki meetings—bygone messengers for ever-increasing numbers of community members introduced to the internet in a Facebookish age.
The resulting problems have partly been fixed by diversifying the community news media over the past two years. The WMF has put resources in its own professional blog to inform the public, and created the Wikimedia highlights. Special interest newsletters for topics such as GLAM (February 2011), research (April 2011), education (February 2012), and Wikidata (August 2012) have been established. The Signpost widened its scope to include more significant coverage of the movement beyond the English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia's community tabloid, the Kurier, was complemented by a chapter-supported newsletter, the Wikimedia Woche, at the peak of the image filter controversies (September 2011), and the French community created Regards sur l'actualité de la Wikimedia ("Current Wikimedia events") in July of the same year. But none of these channels provides anything like a space for cross-community dialogues.
Divergent communications realities make the task of creating a coherent Wikimedia movement more difficult to achieve. If the movement is to acknowledge shifting community needs and patterns of communication, we need to and can open Meta's gates.
Reader comments
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg)
The dawning of a new year offers both a fresh slate and an opportunity to revisit our previous adventures. 2012 marked the fifth anniversary of the WikiProject Report (this is how it all began) and was the column's most productive year with 52 articles published. In addition to sharing the experiences of Wikipedia's many active projects, we expanded our scope to highlight unique projects from other languages of Wikipedia, tracked down all of the former editors-in-chief of the Signpost for an introspective interview, and rediscovered two early articles of the WikiProject Report that have been missing from the archives for years: a 2007 overview of WikiProject History and a 2008 interview with WikiProject Australia. While last year's "Summer Sports Series" may have drawn yawns from some readers, a special report on "Neglected Geography" elicited more comments than any previous issue of the Report. Following in the footsteps of our past three recaps, we'll spend this week looking back at the trials and tribulations of the WikiProjects we encountered in 2012. Where are they now?
As with previous years, the WikiProject Report was well-traveled in 2012. An interview with WikiProject Maps helped us find our bearings as we visited countries as far apart as Brazil, Korea, and Poland. The Indian Cinema Task Force showed us that there's far more to the Indian film industry than just Bollywood. The US state of Connecticut and the English county of Yorkshire also invited us to see their corners of the world.
Strangely, our interviews with the projects for two large metropolitan areas, Toronto and New York City, were among the shortest interviews last year and each drew only one participant. It remains to be seen whether this resulted from the time constraints of the projects' members, a lack of interest in promoting their projects, or more dire concerns about each project's level of activity. We are grateful to the two lone editors who did respond to our inquiries, without whom these projects would not have been mentioned in the WikiProject Report.
Our boldest experiment in 2012 was the inclusion of three WikiProjects from other languages of Wikipedia. The first, a project from the Czech Wikipedia that develops articles about protected areas in the Czech Republic, was actually pitched to the Signpost by members of the project. They were excited to share their successes incorporating social media, collaborating with NGOs, spearheading classroom projects, and even distributing a memory game that used images from the Wikimedia Commons. As always, anyone who knows of an extremely active project or any unique initiatives undertaken by a project, regardless of what language of Wikipedia the project calls home, is encouraged to leave a message at the Signpost's WikiProject desk.
To coincide with last summer's Tour de France, we interviewed the French WikiProject Cycling and were surprised to discover that the project had no special plans for the race. Real-life commitments and an overall malaise at the French project signaled that cycling needs greater attention, even in communities that celebrate the sport as exuberantly as the French.
In our final trip to the farthest reaches of Wikipedia, we interviewed the German WikiProject Computer Games. Their responses highlighted not only a difference in project structure in which Portals are supreme, but also a different working environment with regard to the use of images.
The most talked-about WikiProject Report was by far our special report on the unequal coverage of certain parts of the world. Limited spurts of activity have been sighted at some projects that were mentioned in the special report, but in general the report stirred more conversation than immediate action. Debates continue on talk pages around Wikipedia about the consolidation of lightly-active WikiProjects, with many dissenters feeling that being a "big fish in a small pond" has its benefits. Additional debates have arisen regarding how best to determine the activity and productivity of a project. A proposal under discussion at the WikiProject Council seeks to develop tools that automatically keep membership lists updated and possibly determine how frequently a project's articles are being edited by project members.
Our interview with WikiProject Star Wars last May painted the picture of a project in decline. At the time, the WikiProject was shedding members and living under the shadow of the more prosperous WikiProject Star Trek. However, a new surge of interest in Star Wars resulted when the Walt Disney Company bought Lucasfilm in October and announced the production of three new Star Wars films. The project's page still remains rather quiet, but a flurry of activity has been going on at the article for the Star Wars sequel trilogy and various discussions at Articles for Deletion.
When we interviewed WikiProject James Bond before the release of the newest Bond film, the C-class article for Skyfall was the only blemish in the Featured Topic for the James Bond series. Today, the article is B-class and preparation is underway for a Good Article nomination. The article has even received attention off-wiki, with mentions in publications like the Chicago Tribune and Business Insider.
To members of WikiProject Doctor Who, a mysterious new companion in new episodes of the television series offers fresh meat for articles. More importantly, with the long-running British programme entering its 50th year and growing in popularity overseas, there is plenty of motivation for editors to improve Doctor Who articles.
For a television series that has been on hiatus for several years, WikiProject The X-Files is surprisingly vibrant. Five months after our lively interview, the project's members began tallying articles that were nearing viability for Feature Article status. The project's talk page continues to be an active exchange point for information, even for editors who are not typically working on X-Files articles. One contributor shared some resources for X-Files articles that he stumbled upon while searching for sources to use in Doctor Who articles. Another editor posted kudos on the project's talk page, commenting that "I see you guys everywhere—FAC, FLC, FTC, GAN—and wanted to thank you for your hard work. The statistics speak for themselves; 250 out of 620 X-Files articles are at least a GA. I've never [seen] such numbers in five years on Wikipedia!"
On the literary side, WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire appears to be in hibernation for now, but the return of the Game of Thrones television series in March should bring renewed activity.
WikiProject Visual Arts and WikiProject Science Fiction provided a look at much broader projects that have remained active, albeit dependent upon their child projects and task forces for many active contributors.
A variety of music genres were explored this past year, from jazz to rock to punk. However, WikiProject Songs remains the most talkative project of all those we interviewed, with lengthy debates springing up nearly every month on the project's talk page. Commonalities we found among these music projects are concerns that large seas of stubs are in desperate need of expansion, more eyes are needed to watch articles to prevent the addition of fancruft, and more freely-licensed images need to be uploaded to illustrate articles about bands, tours, and albums.
In celebration of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, we revisited WikiProject Olympics to see how preparation for the summer games differed from their efforts for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver (see our 2010 interview). Now the project is busy tidying up their 2012 articles while a countdown on the project's pages is ticking down the days until the 2014 Winter Olympics begin in Sochi.
From late June to early August, we experimented with a set of themed articles under the banner of the "Summer Sports Series" (Winter for our friends in the south). Highly active projects like WikiProject Football, WikiProject Horse Racing, and WikiProject Athletics were presented alongside the moderately active WikiProject Martial Arts, WikiProject Motorsport, and the aforementioned French WikiProject Cycling. While all of these projects remain active today, WikiProject Football is certainly the most direct in setting goals for project members. WikiProject Horse Racing appears to be driven primarily by a small number of very active editors who provide answers to nearly every question posed on the project's talk page. WikiProject Motorsport went through a frenzy of activity from July to September, but activity at the project appears to have slowed in recent months.
However, the activity at the projects that we interviewed hides the large number of other sports projects that didn't make the cut. We also researched or approached the members of WikiProject Sports, WikiProject Gymnastics, WikiProject Rowing, WikiProject Swimming, WikiProject Water Sports, WikiProject Golf, WikiProject Snooker, and the English-language WikiProject Cycling. In most cases our inquiries were met with silence. In the case of the English WikiProject Cycling, we were actually told to look elsewhere because the project's members felt that the "Cycling WikiProject is not exactly one that others should look up to..."
On a more lighthearted note, WikiProject Beer may be suffering from excited, overactive editors building lists of red links to be filled in later. The project has been busy dealing with new and expanded lists for breweries in different parts of world, triggering discussions about notability and whether such lists are too much like directories or advertising. Here's to your health, WikiProject Beer!
The earth and life sciences saw a lot of coverage this year, from WikiProject Geology and WikiProject Palaeontology to the projects covering fungi, turtles, butterflies and moths, and all amphibians and reptiles.
WikiProject Chemicals became the newest addition to a collection of chemistry-related projects we've interviewed in the past, including our 2009 interview with WikiProject Chemistry and 2011 interview with WikiProject Elements. All three remain very active and, despite their closely related topics, each project tends to have its own unique community of editors.
We revisited WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, which continues to track its goals and hosts a very active talk page even during their "off season" times of the year.
While WikiProject Robotics now has very few unassessed articles, the project could still use help addressing the large category of robotics articles tagged with cleanup templates.
During our revisits to the always jovial WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military History, we learned how to tame huge collections of articles and ways to reward the efforts of a large project's members.
Among the newest projects interviewed was WikiProject Women's History, a project that was only a year old when we interviewed it last March. The project is still going strong, using its talk page and growing membership to promote edit-a-thons, discuss the categorization of articles, and draw attention to topics ranging from birth control to midwifery to honor killings.
The recently interviewed WikiProject Human Rights is currently seeking editors interested in improving biographies ranging from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Malala Yousafzai.
Members of WikiProject Languages had hoped to bring many of the project's stubs up to at least C-class status, a goal that still requires a lot of work. The project still needs help from people familiar with many languages and any English experts hiding out there.
In addition to the topic-based projects mentioned above, we visited with several projects that work behind the scenes at Wikipedia to ensure articles are tidy, the encyclopedia remains organized, and the community is updated with news that impacts them. We learned which projects are in charge of sorting short articles and deletion discussions. We also learned that vandals are no match for the Counter-Vandalism Unit, which even offers a training program for would-be crime fighters.
When times get tough, new editors can head to the Teahouse to relieve their anxieties and clarify any confusion they may have. When editing gets heated, WikiProject Dispute Resolution may have some ideas to try before going into formal mediation. Both projects are growing and could use help from interested members of the community.
Finally, the Signpost's interview with the Signpost ripped a hole in the space-time continuum that we've been trying to patch-up all year. We managed to drag all four previous editors-in-chief out of retirement for what turned out to be one of our longest articles of the year. We're still waiting for that Pulitzer Prize...
So, where is the Signpost now? Well, that depends on you. Our readership continues to grow, but we always need writers and copy editors. For the WikiProject Report, we could use your help finding active WikiProjects that have been around long enough to develop their own character. We're looking for editors who have stories to tell. We want to hear about projects that are trying unique initiatives that could enrich the encyclopedia or stimulate Wikipedia's community. Leave your ideas for news items or full-fledged interviews at the WikiProject desk. We're also interested in intriguing questions you may have about the ways WikiProjects function, grow, falter, and evolve. Ask your questions on our talk page and you may see an answer in an upcoming special report.
Next week, we'll shoot for the moon. If we miss, at least we'll land among the stars.
Reader comments
We began by asking several Wikimedians who are closely involved in the movement what 2012 meant to them—a collection of vignettes, as it were, through which to try to piece together some of what the almost 100,000 people who regularly participate in the movement might be thinking.
Essam Sharaf, a medical student in Cairo, Egypt, has been a Wikipedian for seven years and specialises in translating articles from Arabic to English. The Signpost asked him what's on his mind as far as the Arabic Wikipedia goes:
| “ | I think this year, with the launch of the Arabic Wikipedia Education Program, the prospects for ar.wp are positive. The university-based program is working on increasing students' awareness about Wikipedia and how it works, providing them with the basic knowledge they need to edit and contribute more to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The students' response to the program is generally positive as well, especially when focusing on the importance of having the "sum of all knowledge" in their native Arabic language. Almost everyone wants to help! | ” |
Cantons-de-l'Est (French Wikipedia user page) is from Quebec. He writes a regular news page as a service for the French Wikipedia community, analogous to the Signpost. Much of his time on the French Wikipedia goes to improving the language, typography, layout, and neutrality of articles. What does he think were some of the important issues for the French Wikipedia during 2012? His immediate response was one that the movement as a whole is feeling: "Our community keeps growing, but at a slow rate. Some argue this is a consequence of the way we welcome newcomers, but there's no hard evidence." Cantons-de-l'Est identified three specific matters, at least two of which may resonate with editors in the English Wikipedia:
| “ | First, the comité d'arbitrage (like the English Wikipedia's ArbCom) has been on hold since April 2012, but there's a will to re-establish it, which should happen in 2013. Second, in January 2012 a notable change was made: any user with enough "rights" may challenge an administrator's status; since then, 15 requests have been filed, and five administrators have lost their tools. And third, many editors keep writing our equivalents of featured and good articles, "alone" or in competitions, but sometimes there are not enough knowledgeable reviewers at our FAC forum (and there are rumors that many editors don't want to review any more). | ” |
Abhishek Suryawanshi is a Young Scientist and social worker from Pune in western India, who participates in Wikipedia Club Pune. We asked what he felt was noteworthy across Wikimedia in 2012:
| “ | There were at least three highlights, for me. One was the launch of the Visual Editor trial. It's good to see a user-friendly interface, and let's hope it will be extended to Indian Language Wikipedias. The many editors who joined the Marathi Wikipedia during 2012 have contributed to a broader growth in Indian language Wikipedias. And the WikiWomenDay launch was one of several important initiatives in the task of bridging the gender gap in the WMF world. I'm also looking forward to the development of spoken Wikipedia, which will be helpful to visually impaired and will increase accessibility to the projects by the underprivileged Indian community. I have hopes that 2013 will bring more inspiration and excitement. | ” |
Akaniji is active on the Japanese Wikipedia, where his eclectic interests are reflected in a wide range of articles he has created and improved, many of them on biological and chemical topics. Akaniji is also active in off-wiki support of movement goals in Japan. He pointed out how active the Japanese off-wiki activities have become, even though the country does not yet have a formally recognised chapter. He told us that some of the most important events in 2012 were:
| “ | ... editathons in Tokyo, monthly meetups of Japanese Wikimedians, a visit to Wikimania DC, and the creation of a new user group, the Wikimedian Society of Tokyo. In 2013, we expect to be holding even more events in Japan! | ” |
2012 started with eight new arbitrators: Courcelles, SilkTork, and AGK were new to the committee, and Risker, Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies, Jclemens, and Hersfold had already served at least one term. Civility enforcement was likely the most contentious case of the year, but there have been no new cases since Fæ in July.
In one of the biggest stories of the year, the English Wikipedia went dark to everyone in the world in protest at two proposed US laws: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). The move, which was authorized by a consensus of anonymous readers and regular Wikipedia editors, attracted significant press coverage of Wikipedia and the two Congressional bills.
Early in 2012, there was a contentious debate at the featured article candidates process (FAC), where editors were divided over whether the positions of featured articles director and delegates should be elected, or if Raul654 should continue indefinitely in the former and appoint the latter as needed. Various sockpuppets and returning users played a role in continuing the drama through subsequent months, but the area has calmed more recently. As covered in the Signpost's Featured content section this week, the FAC process approved an average of 31 articles a month, slightly higher than last year's average of 30 per month.
At Requests for Adminship, there was another major attempt at reforming the process, in July (see related Signpost investigative report). There were only 28 new administrators this year—just over half of 2011's total, which itself was two-thirds of 2010's total and less than half of 2009's total.
After several requests for comment, pending changes was enabled for use on all articles, similar to page protection, and a successful trial of the Teahouse project was completed early in the year.
Paid editing was a common theme in 2012, rearing its head several times during the year. The Signpost ran a five-part series, beginning with three proponents and ending with two opponents, including Jimmy Wales. No proposed policy or guideline on paid editing has garnered enough consensus to be made official on the English Wikipedia. In a related move, Wikimedia Germany approved an €81,000 grant in December for a project to evaluate paid-editing concepts on Wikipedia.
In January, the WMF reached its US$20M goal in the annual fundraiser held during the previous month. At the end of 2012, it was announced that the most recent fundraiser had delivered "$25 million in record time".
In milestones reaching from January to December, Commons celebrated its 12-, 13-, 14, and 15-millionth upload. These came just six years after the site reached its millionth upload, underlining the importance of Commons as a worldwide resource.
The WMF board decided to publish its own voting record per person for each resolution and to set up the LFAP.
The chair of the foundation's board of trustees, Ting Chen, published a controversial open letter to the movement, flagging the foundation's intention to restructure its financial relationship with the chapters by moving towards a grant-making system. At the Berlin conference, the board gave in-principle approval to the creation of the volunteer-run Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), heralding a major change in the financial relationship between the foundation and its grant-recipients; in this scheme to date only chapters. The FDC was allocated US$11.4M for its first year of operation, which started with round 1 in October. This resulted in grants totaling $8.3M—81% of the funding sought by 11 chapters plus the foundation itself. Five chapters were granted full funding; three chapters, the UK, France, and Australia, received major disappointments. The FDC's statement stressed the need to discuss growth trajectories, encourage mutual learning from experiences in the movement, and promote editor recruitment, particularly of women.
The foundation announced that two new types of entities would be created alongside the established nation-based chapter entities: thematic organizations and user groups. The first candidate for approval as an thematic entity—Wiki Med—has run into bureaucratic issues on Meta, showing that details of how these entities will be approved are yet to be determined by the new Affiliations Committee.
Representatives from 25 of the 39 chapters, meeting at the Berlin conference in March, decided to establish a Wikimedia Chapters Association to represent the interests of the chapters in the movement; however, developing the details of where and how the Association is to be incorporated, who will fund it, and the nature of its role have been slow and controversial. The Association currently has expressions of interest by 21 member organisations, but neither legally exists nor has taken up programmatic activity.
Conflict-of-interest issues in the movement came to the fore with a controversy over governance in Wikimedia UK in which the chair of the board resigned. This resulted in a joint decision by the foundation and the chapter to launch an external report into WMUK's governance; the Hudson report is due to be released by 15 February. In addition, there were storms over financial propriety in two chapters.
Meanwhile, Wikimedia France forged a major collaboration with a French government agency to promote links between WMF sites and some 50 languages in metropolitan France and affiliated overseas countries. There are plans for further projects for francophone areas that have poor Internet access.
GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, and museums) activities continued this year. The OCLC and the British Library were among the institutions to host a Wikipedian in Residence, while MonmouthpediA became the first Wikipedia town in the world. A highlight was the closing plenary at Wikimania 2012 (the annual conference for anyone interested in Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia), which was given by David Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States and head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Shortly after, the GLAM initiative stumbled into its first major controversy on the English Wikipedia, when GibraltarpediA was alleged to have severe conflict-of-interest problems.
_Komorniki_gmina_Polkowice_-_Zesp%C3%B3%C5%82_dworsko-folwarczny.jpg)
Wiki Loves Monuments was held globally for the first time. It was expanded from a European-only competition to be worldwide, and it eventually became the largest-ever photo competition. The winner was a photo of the Tomb of Safdarjung in New Delhi, India.
The WMF took a bold step this year in creating the first new Wikimedia project in six years. With support from several large donors, Wikidata, hosted by Wikimedia Germany, was opened to the world on 30 October. It aims to produce a centralized database for easily quantified items, like infobox entries, for use on Wikimedia projects.
Just two weeks later, a second new project, Wikivoyage (VOY), was launched as a beta trial. WV had a unique but difficult journey: community members of the website Wikitravel (WT) decided to ask the WMF to host the site's content, which was licensed under CC-by-SA, on the WMF’s servers. The editors of another website, the largely German-language Wikivoyage that had forked from WT years earlier, also decided to move under the WMF’s umbrella, combining VOY's content with WT's in the process. This resulted in the filing of lawsuits by Internet Brands, the owner of WT's trademark, against two Wikipedians who were also editors at WT. The WMF countered by "seeking a judicial declaration that IB has no lawful right to impede, disrupt or block" the creation of a new WMF travel website. Internet Brands' legal actions were eventually dismissed, while the WMF’s continue. The newly recombined projects adopted the Wikivoyage name, and the site will be officially launched on 15 January.
In January, the Read Report on the India Education program pilot cited inadequate planning, poor communication and lack of due diligence on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and instances of unsatisfactory behaviour by the Wikipedia community in India. Following this report, the Indian program was completely reworked and an Indian non-profit organization, the Center of Internet and Society, was put in charge.
In October 2012, the US and Canadian Education Program did not manage to build community consensus on whether it should transition to a Wikimedia thematic organization. Two analyses of early 2012 edits associated with the program were conducted by the WMF and an English Wikipedia editor. Education projects in the Czech Republic, Brazil, and Cairo (see the Signpost's special report) all went well.
Over the past year, 963 pieces of featured content were promoted. The most active of the featured content programs was featured article candidates (FAC), which promoted an average of 31 articles a month. This was followed by featured picture candidates (FPC; 28 a month). Coming in third was featured list candidates (FLC; 20 a month). Featured topic and featured portal candidates remained sluggish, each promoting fewer than 20 items over the year.
Although this was a decrease in overall numbers, adjusted for the lack of featured sounds (which was marked historical on 2 January 2012, after having been marked inactive on 25 October of the preceding year), the rate of promotions actually increased. As covered last year, 2011 saw 1,053 pieces of content promoted (917 if we subtract featured sounds). The average number of promotions for FAC and FPC increased, while FLC's rate has remained constant.
As covered last week, numerous pieces of featured content have been created to address systemic bias. However, trends remain similar to last year. At FAC, common topics include male political and military figures, ships, television episodes, and songs, generally from the US, Britain, and Australia. FLC has remained been dominated by discographies and sports figures, predominantly from the US and Britain but with an increase in South Asian-related lists. FPC has seen many animal species, works of art by European and American artists, and similar subjects.
Looking forward, there is nothing but questions. Will the rate of successful nominations continue to increase? If so, at what cost? Will featured topics, portals, and sounds ever reach the main page? Will Jenna Jameson?
| Month | Articles | Lists | Pictures | Topics | Portals | Total |
| January | 29 | 18 | 28 | 1 | 2 | 78 |
| February | 31 | 21 | 38 | 0 | 1 | 91 |
| March | 34 | 17 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 92 |
| April | 28 | 8 | 37 | 0 | 1 | 71 |
| May | 28 | 8 | 37 | 1 | 0 | 74 |
| June | 26 | 14 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 59 |
| July | 30 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 66 |
| August | 38 | 42 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 93 |
| September | 39 | 26 | 33 | 1 | 0 | 99 |
| October | 37 | 28 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 90 |
| November | 36 | 20 | 27 | 2 | 0 | 85 |
| December | 24 | 16 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 65 |
| Total | 375 | 239 | 331 | 11 | 7 | 963 |
And now, the Signpost is proud to present the first new featured content of 2013.
,_full_restoration.jpg)
Four featured articles were promoted this week:
Two featured lists were promoted this week:
Twelve featured pictures were promoted this week:
Following on from last week's reflections on 2012, this week the Technology report looks ahead to 2013, a year that will almost certainly be dominated by the juggernauts of Wikidata, Lua and the Visual Editor.
The Wikidata client (phase 1, at least) launches this week on the Hungarian Wikipedia, making almost all "manual" inter-language links obsolete. With phase 2 (infobox-style data items) yet to be reviewed, however, and the code behind phase 3 (dynamic lists) not yet written, the possibility that the developers will wrap up in late March without phase 3 being deployed remains a significant risk. Even so, the project could well be the biggest success of 2013.
The other contender for that title is the Visual Editor (VE), assuming that its development schedule does not slip further. The current target is for the VE to be enabled by default "for (almost) every Wikimedia/MediaWiki instance" by the end of July, probably requiring (at a minimum) references, images and table support to have been added, as well as some category and inter-language link functionality: an ambitious goal.
Also likely to capture headlines are the Lua and Echo projects. Lua, set to launch in the first half of the year, is an attempt to introduce a proper template programming language, though questions about code duplication could well give existing {{#if:{{{image|{{{image_name|}}}}}}|[[File:{{{image|{{{image_name|}}}}}}|thumb|{{{image_size|250px}}}]]}}-style code a reprise. Echo, also in its early testing phase, is a similarly ambitious project to develop a series of Facebook-style notifications to track everything from new messages to being mentioned by a third party.
Because material on smaller WMF-sponsored projects is somewhat less centralised than this year, and describes a shorter timespan – most plans only run until the end of June for budgetary reasons – it is difficult to see past these big projects. Certainly, mobile uploading is now firmly on the agenda after the success of the Wiki loves Monuments app, which included a specialised version of the same functionality. There is also the Toolserver migration to consider, introducing the possibility of a stand-off in the latter half of the year between the WMF and any Toolserver developers who do not wish to migrate. Other smaller projects up for debate at the moment include tweaking the API and deleting little-used preferences, though they are (counter-intuitively) probably less likely to make it to fruition.
So much for the WMF-led development. Volunteer developers, now with up to nine months of experience of Gerrit development under their belt, should continue contributing in 2013 as they have done in previous years, though it remains to be seen whether reform of WMF staff's 20% time can finally eradicate code review complaints (answer: probably not, though any amelioration would no doubt be warmly welcomed). In short, then, it is set to be a very exciting 2013 for Wikimedians, or, perhaps, a very disappointing one indeed.
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.
.jpg){kind=link}
_Apollo_and_Daphne.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
