Welcome to the new Wikizine, a monthly component in the Signpost exploring Wikimedia's sister projects and the movement's direction as a whole. As previously discussed, Wikizine held the role that the Signpost does today—a Wikimedia movement-wide community news outlet—but has fallen into decline in recent years. We see this merger as upholding the Wikizine legacy while expanding the Signpost's coverage.
We are excited to present this new endeavor, but are still experimenting with the format and content. Please provide comments and suggestions in the comments section below. Wikizine is looking for regular contributors and suggestions for stories to cover. Let us know at the Signpost's suggestion page.
Numerous Commons editors have made comments about the Foundation's deployment of mobile uploading, a new facility in its mobile website. Allowing anonymous users to register and upload pictures for use in an article, the feature was placed prominently at the top of Wikipedia articles in multiple languages.
The mobile uploading was deployed near the end of March, and Commons editors patrolling the uploads noticed a steady stream of incorrectly sourced images that violated copyright. Since Commons does not accept fair-use media as some Wikipedias do, editors have promptly tagged and deleted many of these images.
Associate Product Manager Maryana Pinchuk, an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, is responsible for the mobile web product. On April 4, she notified the Commons community that uploads from the mobile web were not tagged with author or source information and that a patch from the WMF would be deployed the next day.
Yet editors continued to object: the feature did not adequately instruct users on Commons policy and led to numerous copyright violations. Commons editors suggested adding an interactive wizard, rather than the existing warning messages. Commons editor Rillke criticized the Foundation's experience with developing upload tutorials, saying that he is skeptical that the WMF could even design an effective wizard.
The Foundation has since disabled this feature for brand new users via mobile. This is not the first reversal of a feature deployment by the community: an English Wikipedia discussion recently led to the partial removal of the article feedback feature.
A handpicked gallery of our favorite images featured on Commons this week, judged on educational value and visual appeal.
This week, we felt the world tremble in the presence of WikiProject Earthquakes. The project was started in May 2008 to deal with articles about earthquakes, aftershocks, seismology, seismologists, plate tectonics, and related articles. While the project has seen success building 14 Featured Articles, one A-class Article, and 21 Good Articles, a fairly heavy workload remains, with a relative WikiWork rating of 4.94. WikiProject Earthquakes maintains a portal, a list of open tasks, a popular pages listing, and an article alerts watchlist. We interviewed Ceranthor, Dawnseeker2000, and Mikenorton.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Earthquakes? Have you contributed to any of the project's Featured or Good Articles? Do you participate in any other projects that handle natural disasters or earth sciences?
How is Wikipedia's coverage of earthquakes different from severe weather? Does activity at the project wax and wane with the occurrence of major earthquakes? Is there any predicting or tracking of seismic activity that compares to the forecasts of severe storms and seasons?
On Wikipedia, are the earthquakes of any regions or time periods better covered than others? What can be done to fill gaps in coverage of earthquakes?
Has the project ever dealt with conflicts about the notability of earthquakes? How have these issues been resolved?
Is it difficult to obtain images for articles about earthquakes? What tend to be the best sources for freely licensed images from areas impacted by an earthquake?
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Anything else you'd like to add?
Next week, the Report will take its first trip to Africa. Until then, explore other cultures in the archive.
Reader comments
Last Friday, the Wikimedia movement awoke to news that one of their number—Rémi Mathis, a French volunteer editor—had been summoned to the offices of the interior intelligence service DCRI and threatened with criminal charges and fines if he did not delete an article on the French Wikipedia about a radio station used by the French military.
The 30-year-old Mathis graduated from the prestigious École Nationale des Chartes for archivists and librarians in 2007. He is now a historian, library curator, and free-culture advocate, specialising in archival science—the diagnosis and restoration of decayed or damaged artifacts. Since 2010 he has been editor-in-chief of the scholarly journal Nouvelles de l'estampe ("News about prints"), which is supported by his employer, the National Library of France in Paris.
The "atypical" Mathis has been described as a "conveyor of knowledge", occupying a space "between two ages", represented by archival prints and modern technologies such as Twitter. Until the past few days, he was a volunteer administrator on the French Wikipedia, which he has edited since February 2006; he is the chair of Wikimédia France.
The bulk of the French-language article on Station hertzienne militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute (Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station) was written by Qvsqvs, who has a total of just four edits. The article remained in this state from July 2009 to March 2013, and while no sources were cited, French Wikipedians have noticed many similarities between the article and a publicly available video in which a reporter is given a tour of the base and conducts an interview with its commander.
[Mathis] felt threatened and he was shocked
— Christopher Henner, vice-president of Wikimédia France
[It is the chapter's] duty to denounce such acts of censorship against a French citizen and Wikipedia editor. Has editing Wikipedia officially become risky behaviour in France?
— Statement by Wikimédia France
After a surprisingly long interval of four weeks for a matter purported to concern national security, DCRI then chose a different tack, summoning Rémi Mathis to its offices on 4 April and ordering him to delete the page. The DCRI agents told Mathis that the law applies to the article and to him personally—despite the absence of any link between him and the article or its subject, or his knowledge of either. If he had refused, the agents told him, he would be thrown into jail and prosecuted (under French law, which lacks habeas corpus, citizens may be held for up to 48 hours without cause).
Christopher Henner, the vice-president of the Wikimédia France chapter, told the Guardian that "The DCRI regularly asks us to go and explain to their operatives how Wikipedia works, so this volunteer thought he'd been summoned to explain or show them something. Had the DCRI presented us with documents or a legal order showing us this was a threat to national security we would have taken down the page at once. Instead they summoned one of our volunteers and ordered him to take it down, saying he would be held in custody if he didn't. Yes, he felt threatened and he was shocked."
A spokesman for the French government disputed the characterization of the agents' actions as threatening: "in a state of law, the threat of taking legal action against a passage that poses a problem for national security cannot be considered a threat."
Facing this stark choice, Mathis complied with their demands. Mathis told other administrators of his out-of-process deletion and explained that any French citizen who restored it could be sanctioned, as he believed that it was covered under 413-11. This could carry significant penalties, including five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 euros. (The related 413-10 is even harsher, specifying seven years in jail and a €100,000 euro fine.) The article was restored on 5 April by a Swiss Wikipedian, who is outside French jurisdiction.
Mathis's action drew many comments from French Wikipedians. It was noted that a picture of the station is still on Commons, which the agency appeared to have missed. Someone else suggested that it be hidden from public view, but oversighting is "uncommon" and does not apply in this case. Another contributor asked why the Foundation did not intervene; but Arkanosis replied: "It would not be the first time that the foundation has relied on volunteers to make a decision that it does not want to take itself." Arkanosis pointed out that Wikimédia France has no authority over article content, but the Foundation offers legal counsel to any editor under threats or pressure because of their Wikimedia involvement (Editor's note: Arkanosis' comment is not accurate; the Foundation cannot give legal advice, but it can refer contributors to the Legal Fees Assistance Program or their policy on the defense of contributors, through which it may be possible to "[secure] local independent counsel to defend individual users, or [provide] public support.")
Administrator Hégésippe Cormier asked other administrators to support Mathis, while others suggested that a defense fund should be created to cover any legal costs. To reduce the external pressure on Mathis, Dr Brains asked him to give up his administrator status for his personal safety—a suggestion that was poorly received by some administrators. Dr Brains replied that Mathis's two Wikimedia-related roles—his administrator status and chairmanship of Wikimédia France—were a danger to both him and Wikipedia. However, the Signpost notes that despite Mathis's high visibility, under similar circumstances any French citizen volunteer contributor could be pressured into deleting allegedly offensive content where the DCRI or a similar agency knows their name and address.
The debate quickly snowballed into a much larger question: should the French Wikipedia allow someone to be an administrator if they are a member of a chapter, as their names, addresses and phone numbers are public, making them easy targets for the French intelligence agencies? This exchange coalesced around Ash Crow (WMFR employee), Benjism89 (WMFR board), Remi Mathis (WMFR board) and Serein (WMFR employee), then widened its scope: since some countries have anti-democratic legal and security practices, should their citizens be automatically disqualified from stewardship?
On 6 April 2013, five contributors of the French Wikipedia—all citizens of France and including the four named WMFR employees and board members—requested the withdrawal of their administrator rights, which was implemented.
Reactions to the event from media outlets were swift, with blogs chiming in first (Geekosystem, Battleground); this was followed by online news outlets (arstechnica, zdnet, Boing Boing); and then by major news outlets (the Guardian, France24, Russia Today).
Wikimédia France and the Wikimedia Foundation promptly issued statements, with the chapter's—alongside a post on wikimedia-l—the first to break the news. The chapter stated, in part:
| “ | Wikimédia France cannot understand how bullying and coercive methods can be used against a person dedicated to promote the freedom and knowledge. As Wikimédia France supports free knowledge, it is its duty to denounce such acts of censorship against a French citizen and Wikipedia editor. Has editing Wikipedia officially become risky behaviour in France? Is the DCRI unable to enforce military secrecy through legal, less brutal methods? / ... Intimidation is not the right way to enforce military secrecy in France, and the Internet is not a place that has to be regulated in such a brutal manner. We believe the DCRI has other ways to enforce the law. We hope that an independent investigation will clear up the recent events. France is a legal state, where national security should not be ensured through such measures. | ” |
The Foundation responded via its legal counsel, Michelle Paulson. She detailed the Foundation’s interactions with the DCRI on the matter before issuing a strong condemnation of their tactics:
| “ | When governments have security concerns about Wikipedia articles, they should direct those concerns to the Foundation, and only to the Foundation. We believe it is unnecessary, irresponsible, and often counter-productive for any governmental agency to contact users or volunteers of any Wikimedia website directly ... While we have never received a request of this nature from the DCRI before, it is unfortunately not unheard of for governmental entities to contact, or even harass, local users. The Foundation strongly opposes any governmental attempts to intimidate the volunteers ... . We are saddened and disappointed to discover that the DCRI believes the tactics they employed in the name of security in this matter could be acceptable under any moral or legal authority. The Foundation was, and remains, willing to work with the DCRI to resolve this matter if possible, but we cannot condone any harassment of individuals who have done nothing wrong. / ... in cases where there is no apparent threat but rather a vague unsubstantiated claim of threats to national security, we require more information before we will consider removing any content—to do otherwise would allow censorship to trump free expression, which would be a direct assault on the values of the Wikimedia community. ... In this case, we have been unable to readily determine that the information is classified on its face and—especially in light of the video ... / The community remains free, of course, to retain or remove the article as it sees fit under community policies and processes. We value and respect community decisions in this regard. However, we want to remind users who are subject to the jurisdiction of France that there are risks involved in posting content that government authorities don’t want posted, and we advise such users to consult an attorney before acting in a situation that seems potentially risky. At this point, we do not see a demonstrated reason to remove the article on legal grounds. | ” |
Rémi Mathis declined the Signpost's invitation to comment on the matter.
In a comedic irony for the French intelligence service, articles have suddenly popped up in 26 other Wikipedias, while Twitter has been abuzz with the matter (Editor's note: this includes the Signpost's Twitter account). The article's views skyrocketed in the day after the event, up by more than 45,000%.
It appears that the French Wikipedia article on the Pierre-sur-Haute military base will be around for quite some time; however, internet freedom and intimidation by nation states of people who contribute to the net is still a burning question. Only last week, the Russian government published the list of Wikipedia pages they intend to blacklist. The action comes as part of a new law passed last year that spawned protests and the Russian Wikipedia blackout last July. The law allows "extrajudicial blacklisting of web content deemed to be promoting suicide, pedophilia or drug use", according to the state-owned news agency, RIA Novosti.
.jpg)
The arbitration committee is looking for expertise in Argentina and the Spanish language for a case involving former Argentinean president Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877).
In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles, as well as Spanish language sources, in order to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentinian "nationalists" or "revisionists".
Uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise are invited to participate in the evidence and workshop phases of the case, to help determine "whether the allegations of use of highly disreputable and unreliable sources, quotation of Spanish-language sources incompletely or out of context, and the like appear to have merit."
The evidence stage is scheduled to close 12 April 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled for 26 April 2013, though these dates may be extended by the recent floods in Buenos Aires, which have adversely affected an editor involved in the case.
This case, brought by Mark Arsten, was opened over a dispute about transgenderism topics that began off-wiki. The evidence phase was scheduled to close March 7, 2013, with a proposed decision due to be posted by March 29.
This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by March 20, 2013, and a proposed decision scheduled for April 3, 2013.
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted between 31 March and 6 April 2013.
Four featured articles were promoted this week.
Two featured pictures were promoted this week.
The deployment of phase 2 of Wikidata to the English Wikipedia, originally scheduled for 8 April but delayed due to technical problems, may be rescheduled again as the result of community resistance, it emerged this week.
As of time of writing, concerns with the deployment – which allows wikis to automatically retrieve data from the central data repository at wikidata.org (see previous Signpost coverage) – fall into two categories. The first, made most forcefully by User:Risker, suggests that the deployment should be preceded by a full debate on its merits. Although Wikidata supporters counter by pointing out that the deployment only makes interaction with Wikidata possible rather than compulsory, Risker is unmoved. "Anyone who's spent any amount of time on English Wikipedia knows that statement is untrue. As soon as it is enabled, it will be used, even over the objections of other editors, because there's no rule against it", she wrote on the English Wikipedia's Village Pump.
The second strand centres on the idea that the likely result of any discussion would be to reject the current implementation for the English Wikipedia. In addition to WMF Editor Engagement specialist Steven Walling's comments last week regarding the difficulty that new users will have working out where the values they see on the rendered version of the page can be changed, it was also suggested that the English Wikipedia – as by far and away the most complete language edition – stood to gain little from data sharing. Others disagreed. "I think Wikidata is great ... it will enable lots and lots of super cool things in the years to come, and having over the years lived through the deployments of commons, categories, new skins and who knows what else I am also confident, along with Denny, that we will figure it out as we go", wrote User:Phoebe . The discussion continues, at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
| “ | In March:
|
” |
—Adapted from Engineering metrics, Wikimedia blog | ||
The WMF's engineering report for March was published this week on the Wikimedia blog and on the MediaWiki wiki ("friendly" summary version), giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project and the now Wikimedia CH-led Kiwix offline reader project). Although the eight headlines items will be the focus of this "Technology report", the WMF-led publication also contains a myriad of updates about smaller initiatives which interested users should peruse at their leisure.
The first of the eight highlights the beginning of the registration period of the Amsterdam Hackathon, scheduled to take place in late May (24 to 26 May) and temporarily replacing the Berlin Hackathon, which would have been in its fifth year; the second the introduction of Lua to Wikimedia wikis (see previous Signpost coverage). The third highlights the recent WMF-supported improvements to the Translate extension, which assists users in translating interface messages and other communications into their own language; the fourth points to work done by OPW intern Valerie Juarez to provide better guidance for would-be bug report filers. Other headlines included a "collaboration with the Noun Project towards creating an 'Encyclopedia Collection' of free icons"; reference to a blog post exploring Parsoid; and "Wikipedia Zero winning a SXSW Interactive award for activism and gaining a new partner, Axiata".
It was item five, however, which came under the spotlight this week. The project in question, helping users "upload images to Commons from mobile phones, allowing [them] to directly add a photo to a Wikipedia article that has no image", was trialled in March with logged-in users but was more latterly actively pushed to all visitors to the mobile site, causing a jump in the number of uploads to more than 200 per day. Failing to repeat the success of the Wiki Loves Monuments photo competition, however, those uploads were criticised by Commons editors this week for being of poor quality. One estimate put the number of good images at just 10%. Although some were optimistic that providing better information to uploaders would help, others pointed out that the uploads of the average new contributor, even made through the traditional upload interface, did not fare much better.
In related news, the Foundation stressed in a blog post that supporting Wikimedia Commons was one of their key priorities, pointing to several new hires they will be making to support multimedia work. "[Over the past few years] we haven't invested enough [in multimedia support]" WMF Director of Platform Engineering wrote Rob Lanphier and Deputy Director Erik Möller, "[but] this is about to change".
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.
