The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
5 June 2013

From the editor
Signpost developments
Featured content
A week of portraits
Discussion report
Return of the Discussion report
News and notes
"Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project?
In the media
China blocks secure version of Wikipedia
WikiProject report
Operation Normandy
Technology report
Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless'
 

2013-06-05

Signpost developments

Contribute  —  
Share this
By The ed17
O quinzenário do que acontece na Wikipédia.


I am excited to announce that a Portuguese-language journal, Correio da Wikipédia has been launched by Vitorvicentevalente. It has just published its third edition, and I encourage readers who speak the language to read and contribute to its already expansive coverage of the Portuguese Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement.

As for the Signpost, many of our dedicated readers have no doubt noticed that we have published at irregular times over the last several months, a situation that has not improved with our most recent issues. Publishing on Wednesdays and Thursdays—and occasionally later—is not compatible with a listed publishing date of the preceding Monday. As such, we have moved the official publishing date to each Wednesday, and our readers should expect to see the Signpost on their talk page, RSS feed, mobile devices, Facebook, and Twitter every Wednesday or Thursday from now on.

In closing, reader comments on the Signpost's performance are always welcome. I find it hard to stress that enough—we cannot do our job effectively without feedback from you. You can contribute comment sections at the bottom of each article (including this one!), the main talk page for wide issues, or privately via my email.

The ed17, Signpost editor-in-chief

Reader comments

2013-06-05

A week of portraits

Alt1
The Portrait of Madame X is a 1884 painting by John Singer Sargent, which can be seen at the Metropolitan Museum of Art; a new featured picture
Alt2
The Portrait of Maria Anna is a 1630 painting by Diego Velázquez, which can be seen at the Museo del Prado; a new featured picture
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 26 May 2013 through 1 June 2013.
Obverse of the commemorative Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar
The frontispiece and cover of the first edition of The Man in the Moone
Cœur de pirate, whose discography is a new featured list
Cave of the Crystals is a cave in Naica, Chihuahua, Mexico
Malayan Banded Pitta at the Sri Phang Nga National Park in Phang Nga, Thailand
Shell of the veined rapa whelk
Female dik-dik at the Etosha National Park in Namibia

Six featured articles were promoted this week.

Four featured lists were promoted this week.

Thirteen featured pictures were promoted this week.

Gassed is a 1919 painting by John Singer Sargent about the WWI mustard gas attacks, a new featured picture


Reader comments

2013-06-05

Return of the Discussion report

The Parliament of Greece

This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 4 June 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC or watchlist notices. The latter and CentralNotices are in bold. If an RfC can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only on this page. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.

Style and naming

Policies and guidelines

Technical issues and templates

Proposals

Meta

Online meetings

2013-06-05

"Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; could WikiLang be the next WMF project?

The Wikivoyage and World Trade Organization logos.

On 31 May, the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal and Community Advocacy team announced that the Wikivoyage logo would have to be replaced, because it has become the subject of a cease-and-desist letter from the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The logo dispute comes as another entry in Wikivoyage's colorful history. Wikitravel, as it was then known, was created in 2003. When it was acquired by Internet Brands in 2006, the German-language contributors decided to fork, creating the original Wikivoyage. Wikitravel continued unabated until 2012, when frustrated editors decided to fork the site again, rejoining Wikivoyage and moving under the WMF's umbrella. These maneuvers set the stage for a dramatic scene when Internet Brands sued two prominent volunteers who were in favor of the move. When those matters were settled and the initial technical infrastructure was set in place, Wikivoyage was formally relaunched, with its sites covering nine languages, on 15 January.

The current Wikivoyage logo was decided on in a two-round community vote in November and December last year. 41 options were put forward in round one. The winner was then subjected to 24 variations for the second round before being chosen.

While Wikivoyage's logo is derived from the logo for the Italian Wikipedia's Transportation WikiProject, perceived similarities to other logos were brought up during the selection process, albeit jokingly; these suggestions ranged from the original Wikitravel logo to the logos for the WTO and for BBC World News.

The WMF promptly reviewed the community's selection and decided that while there were some shared traits, there were "significant enough differences between the designs and the markets the two organizations occupied for both logos to co-exist" (in the words of Legal Counsel Michelle Paulson). Unfortunately for all involved, this did not occur, and the WTO gave the WMF a deadline of 31 July to change Wikivoyage's logo. This was later extended to 31 August as a result of Paulson's discussions with the WTO's representatives.

A related Wikimedia-l mailing list discussion revolved around whether to legally fight the WTO's move. The WMF said in its original statement that while they see "significant differences" in the two logos, "such arguments are not guaranteed to win if we were to legally oppose this request because there are also some substantial similarities." The WMF's legal team calculated that such a risky fight, coupled with the current logo's age (less than six months) and brand recognition (low), would not be worth the potential gains. Nearly all of the community members there agreed with the WMF's view. English Wikipedia editor Craig Franklin stated in two emails that "Asking the Foundation to play chicken with the lawyers of a major international organisation over a trademark claim on a relatively new and easily replaced logo of ours does not offer a very good risk/reward ratio... / ... [While] the WMF [could be] victorious in court on this sort of issue, the expense would be enormous and the legal team's time is much better spent on things other than fighting battles over non-core principles with international organisations."

Some on-wiki discussion concerning the logo change is taking place on Meta, the global coordinating website for the Wikimedia movement, and a proposed timeline for selecting a new logo has been published.

WikiLang: a new WMF project?

Together, the eight countries in red contain more than 50% of the world's languages. The areas in blue are the most linguistically diverse, underlying the world's vulnerability to linguistic extinction.
In a chilling parallel to the precipitous loss of biodiversity on the planet, globalization is threatening the survival of many of the world's six to seven thousand languages. Geographical isolation is no longer offering the protection it did historically, and speakers of regional and minority languages are increasingly unable to compete with those who speak dominant languages. The scientific consensus is that 50–90% of these small languages will disappear by 2100. National Geographic has estimated that a language dies every 14 days.

A proposal on Meta aims to help combat this loss of rich human cultural identity. The idea is to form a new sister project, called WikiLang. Given a tagline of "the free language resources project" by User:Zylbath—the designer and principal advocate of the proposal, WikiLang's objective is to document, record, share, and teach as many languages as possible. It would also strongly support language revitalization.

WikiLang differs from Wiktionaries in its main goal: Wiktionaries attempt to document lexical items—word definitions—while the WikiLang would aim to move beyond this, to document and become a rich resource for both languages that have already become extinct, and those that are under threat. WikiLang aims to be a multilingual, interwiki bridge between the development processes of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiversity and Wikibooks, by providing a centralized source of documentation about all languages—both lexical and grammatical—that could be expanded on in many useful ways.

Going, going, gone ... the rich panoply of North American language families that used to exist, and in some cases are hanging on against all odds.
WikiLang has received opposition from proponents of the similarly themed OmegaWiki, who are currently attempting to have the Wikimedia Foundation adopt it. OmegaWiki is a multilingual dictionary that aims to "describe all words of all languages with definitions in all languages." While this is very similar to Wiktionary, there are plans to turn OmegaWiki into a Wikidata for the various language Wiktionaries. There are also several other online projects aiming to fill WikiLang's proposed niche. As such, User:ZeaForUs has said that WikiLang should not reinvent the wheel, while several others have wondered just why we should expend effort in reviving or at least recording these languages. The actual benefits are varied—from specific medical remedies derived from plants unknown to non-native speakers, to saving small cultures, to possible future historical investigations (saving records of the languages would prevent problems like those surrounding the Minoan civilization's Linear A and B scripts).

On the other side, User:Amqui defended WikiLang against OmegaWiki, stating that "one point of Wikilang is to make it easy for all languages (even dead ones) to have a place to develop a project", though he admitted his support to add the latter as a WMF wiki. There have also been proposals to merge the two ideas: Kipmaster, the current maintainer of OmegaWiki, underlined the differences in scope (which are, as Ypnypn put it, "OmegaWiki is about words, while WikiLang ... is more about languages"), but believes that there may be enough shared qualities for a merger if they cannot join as separate projects. However, users have come out against his base assumption.

The ultimate destination of both proposals is still unknown. WikiLang has not been put to a community-wide vote yet, and while the OmegaWiki request for comment enjoys strong support, there has been no official word from the Foundation.

In brief

  • Trademark discussion: In news unrelated to the Wikivoyage logo issues, the WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy team has opened a discussion regarding the WMF's current trademark practices. The suggestions garnered here will be considered and possibly incorporated into a new trademark policy, similar to the terms of use changes in 2011. The team hopes that "this could be the most collaborative, creative, and international drafting of a trademark policy to date."
  • Wikinewsie news: The Wikinewsie Group, which is applying to become a thematic organization, has published its first newsletter.
  • Quarterly review: The mid-year review of the Wikipedia Education Program is available on Meta.

    Reader comments

2013-06-05

China blocks secure version of Wikipedia

An article on TheNextWeb.com says that the Chinese Government has "effectively blocked" Wikipedia by cutting off access to the HTTP Secure (https) "workaround", almost completely cutting off uncensored access to those in China. Though Wikipedia has previously been blocked, people could still circumvent it using https instead of HTTP. The Great Firewall of China was not able to selectively block sensitive content, according to the initial report from Greatfire.org, a prominent censorship watch organization which the New York Times has previously featured. Greatfire.org accused Wikipedia of not caring about Chinese Wikipedia readers, using as evidence Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales' threat to make https the default in the UK if its parliament passed a "snooping bill"—and the lack of similar support for those in China.

Greatfire is calling for the WMF to switch the default protocol for Chinese Wikipedia readers from http to https, which would make the Chinese government choose between lifting the blackout or keeping what would quickly become a highly publicized block.

When asked to respond, the Wikimedia Foundation's Head of Communications Jay Walsh soundly disputed the blog's assertions:


Walsh also took issue with the blog post's factual assumptions, such as Jimmy's role within the WMF, which he says was mischaracterized by Greatfire. While Jimmy has indirect impact through his position on the board of trustees, he does not have direct, day-to-day impact on its staff. In addition, Walsh told the Signpost that while moving to an https default is a goal the WMF is actively working on, doing so is not "trivial"—it is a delicate process that the WMF plans to enable in graduated steps, from logged-in users to testing on smaller wikis before making it the default for anonymous users and readers on all projects.

Articles currently censored by the Chinese government primarily center around the Tiananmen Square Massacre which occurred on 3 and 4 June (the dates on which Wikipedia was censored) of 1989, and about which the Chinese government forbids discussion. Related discussion is currently occurring on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and a technical description of the https "challenges" can be read here.

In brief

  • Mobilink brings Wikipedia Zero to Pakistan: According to an announcement published in the Nation, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, Mobilink has launched Wikipedia Zero to Pakistani readers allowing them access to the "world's largest general reference database". Wikimedia Foundation Head of Communications Jay Walsh was ecstatic, telling the Signpost that it was a "big day" for Wikipedia Zero: "We're really thrilled to expand into another region and increase the number of readers who can access Wikipedia at no cost".
  • What would Wikipedia have looked like in the 1980s?: An article in the Huffington Post explored this concept after a YouTube video emerged regarding what popular websites would have looked like about 30 years ago. The video can be viewed in its entirety here.
  • WNBA franchise popularity and Wikipedia: An exposition on Sports Blog site SwishAppeal.com, a derivative of SBNation.com, gave some analysis on gauging the popularity of Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) teams based on page views on respective Wikipedia articles. Based on the analysis, the Los Angeles Sparks are the most popular team.
  • Wikipedia's most controversial articles: Wired published an exposition on some of the most controversial articles (that is, articles with the highest frequency of reverts) on various language Wikipedias. On the English Wikipedia, George W. Bush was the most controversial, followed by Anarchism and Muhammad. Croatia took the top spot on the German Wikipedia, Chile on the Spanish Wikipedia, and Homosexuality on the Czech Wikipedia.
  • Photo contest in Nepal: The Himalayan Times reported that Wikipedians in Nepal have marked the 11th birthday of the Nepali Wikipedia (which was started on 3 June 2002) by announcing a photo contest on Nepal's cultural heritage. The contest will take place in September.

    Reader comments

2013-06-05

Operation Normandy

Previous Reports
Military History
These are previous editions of the WikiProject Report related to today's topic. For more old Reports, visit the archive.
Into the Jaws of Death, showing the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division disembarking on the shores of Omaha Beach
A parachuting memorial in Sainte-Mère-Église
Liberty ships were scuttled to provide a makeshift breakwater during the early days of the invasion
The Atlantic Wall
A German Cross-Channel gun along the Atlantic Wall
The Bény-sur-Mer Canadian War Cemetery

This week, we reflect on the anniversary of D-Day by storming the shores of Operation Normandy, a special initiative of WikiProject Military History started in May 2008 that has been subjected to surging and ebbing in activity. The mission of Operation Normandy involves improving the "dilapidated state of all articles relating to the Battle of Normandy" and creating a Featured Topic for the subject by the 70th Anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. With one year left to go, Operation Normandy has already brought half of their core articles up to Good Article status, although the number of Featured Articles needs significant attention. The project's page includes a chart with the status of each article, brief notes for how each article can be improved to reach the next higher rating, a listing of 20 contributors, and a variety of print and online resources in the possession of specific editors. We interviewed Nick-D, EnigmaMcmxc, Ranger Steve, and Keith-264.

How do the "Operation" initiatives hosted by WikiProject Military History differ from creating independent projects and task forces? What aspects of the Operation structure could be exported to other WikiProjects that focus on topics unrelated to military history?
Nick-D: The 'operations' tend to have a clear focus on a specific topic and (typically) a specified list of articles and red links to work on. Having a dedicated talk page where like-minded editors can share resources and coordinate their efforts is really important to projects involving more than one or two articles. While developing lists of articles to be improved is tedious, doing so allows effort to be directed effectively and progress tracked (and acknowledged, which is always really important).
How difficult has it been to find sources for articles about the Normandy offensive? Where can contributors get resources for these articles? Do editors share their print resources? Are there any research tips you could share with editors interested in the history of the Battle for Normandy?
EnigmaMcmxc: At the height of the project, all editors listed the sources they had access to. The list can be found in the following link, showing the teamwork that was involved: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Normandy#Sources. In addition, as the bottom of that list shows, the American and Canadian official histories are available online and free to access. The internet and the use of Google Books has also been a great help, and provides further sources free of charge.
While I do not believe anyone went out of their way to gain access to new sources for particular articles, the fighting in Normandy is one of the most wrote about operations of the war. Libraries are usually well stocked on this subject.
When articles were being worked on, it was generally a team project and the various articles that were awarded the higher grades were done so through teamwork. Research tips or advise were provided, people would look through their own collection of books to see if they had access to information etc and edited accordingly.
Nick-D: The Battle of Normandy is one of those areas where Wikipedia editors suffer from the problem of there being too many sources. The extent of the literature on this campaign is vast, with the quality generally being quite high. While this is a good problem to have overall, it means that there's a lot of work involved in writing a good quality article given that many different sources will need to be consulted. In my experience the official histories provide the best starting point for articles, with more recent general histories of the campaign and specialist works being useful for fleshing out the article and ensuring that it reflects modern scholarship.
Ranger Steve: This is probably one of the most well documented battles of the Second World War, so sources are never difficult to find. Being a bit of a book nut, I've got dozens of books on the subject nowadays. The problem is often judging the reliability of the sources; many niche books can appear to be highly detailed, but in my experience are often riddled with errors.
What challenges does Operation Normandy face in acquiring images and other media for articles? How can the average Wikipedian contribute to the illustration of articles about World War II topics?
EnigmaMcmxc: In 2008, the Bundesarchiv (the German Federal Archive) donated 100,000 photos to the public. The American and Canadian archives, and the British Imperial War Museum have extensive photograph collections, of the war, which are accessible via the internet and within the public domain. Thus, generally, photographic material of the various battles are easy to come by. The major challenge has been accessing and creating maps to support the articles. Thus far, the team has accessed various maps from published sources, which team members have then adapted. I think every article that details a major battle should attempt to have some from of map to illustrate what is being described. This is what has been the major challenge, illustration wise.
Nick-D: As EnigmaMcmxc notes there's no shortage of high quality historical images. However, obtaining recent images of sites associated with the battle and, more significantly, memorials to the fighting is difficult as France doesn't have freedom of panorama.
How would you describe the community at Operation Normandy? Was it difficult to attract contributors to this initiative? Did you rely upon the membership of WikiProject Military History? What other WikiProjects should participate in this initiative?
EnigmaMcmxc: Unfortunately, dead. At the height of the project, there was a lot of teamwork and help from each member. A core group was already working away at improving articles, and Cam took the initiative to form the project to add some sort of organization to what was going on.
Nick-D: Yes, this project has been dead for a while. One of the issues which disrupted the project at its peak was some awful and nationalist-based behaviour from an editor. While they were ultimately blocked for this (I was one of the blocking admins), the disruption made working on articles in this area difficult for quite a while.
Ranger Steve: Dead unfortunately. I haven't worked on any of the articles for a while (or any wiki articles for that matter) owing to my busy off-line life. I think a few key contributors (particularly EyeSerene) have been lost and the drive in the project has gone.
Have there been any collaborations with projects of other language editions of Wikipedia? Is there any information missing from articles that could only be added with access to resources in Normandy?
EnigmaMcmxc: I do not believe there was any organized collaboration with other language editions of the wiki, however I have seen individuals - on the other editions - take on the initiative of translating some of the FA status articles.
Ranger Steve: Articles could probably be enhanced with information from Normandy, but it's not always essential. However, I'd argue that seeing a site makes it easier to understand some sources and battles. The geography of Hill 262 took a while to fully understand; a trip to the museum there would probably have made it easier.
Where do you see WikiProject Military History's Operation format going in the future? Are there other neglected topics in military history that could use the focus of an Operation?
Ranger Steve: There's always a topic in need of a drive; many aspects of military history are poorly represented on Wikipedia. At the moment though, I think any drives should be focused on the First World War.
Nick-D: I agree with Steve - the key aspect of successful drives is to assemble a group of enthusiastic editors, and tying things into an important anniversary can be a good way of doing this.
Anything else you'd like to add?
EnigmaMcmxc: Hopefully, by having this interview in Signpost the project will attract new members and give the project a kickstart back towards its original goals (which now are pretty lofty, but still achievable if there are editors out there with the sources and time).
Nick-D: The 70th anniversary of this campaign next year will hopefully give work on the topic a shot in the arm.
Keith-264: It was the first occasion in which I did more than remove Oxford commas from sentences and I quite enjoyed it, particularly that several editors took an interest at the same time and were able to move the articles away from casual sources towards more substantial writing. Sadly other commitments broke up the group and I've spent the time since on the Western Front 1917, by a process of historical osmosis, because the similarities between 1917 and 1944 seem the more compelling the more I learn about them. If there is a move to restart work on the Normandy articles (Bluecoat needs a lot of work) I'll chip in as I've got a lot of sources sat gathering dust.
Ranger Steve: Working on these articles (and other Second World War subjects) has been a very important step in my off-wiki life. Practising everything from multiple source analysis through to basic referencing techniques, plus the experience of writing articles for public consumption, was a big factor in me getting to where I am now in my employment (although I should add that it took a lot of non-wiki volunteer work as well!). I now find that many of the articles I worked on in the past, are subjects that I now work on professionally. So I'll be in Normandy when this issue of the Signpost goes out.


Next week, we'll replace our old Z3 with a state of the art ENIAC. Until then, pop in twelve floppies and perform a search of our archives.

Reader comments

2013-06-05

Developers accused of making Toolserver fight "pointless"

Volunteer root admin criticises developer approach

Wikimedia Labs: natural replacement or unfair competition?

Last week, the Signpost reported on a feeling at the Amsterdam hackathon that Toolserver developers were coming round to the idea of migrating to Wikimedia Labs (for full context on the migration and why it's happening, see previous Signpost coverage). This week, the theme was picked up by Toolserver volunteer admin and advocate DaB. in a dramatic email to the toolserver-l mailing list where he outlined his reasons for his losing hope in the continuity of the Toolserver as an independent project beyond the Labs switchover date:


DaB. also cited the introduction of a second paid root who could take over his duties, as well as the lack of commitment to the Toolserver (both spiritual and financial) German chapter Wikimedia Deutschland had demonstrated over the last six months. In short, he said he was upset that tool developers cared about the Toolserver-Labs debate only in terms of functionality and not of ideology, that they "think that the Toolserver is dead, that it is not worth the fight, that WMF has already won. You were the last group I had that supported me with the Toolserver. I had already lost the WMDE’s CEO, the general member meeting and also WMDE’s board. Losing you made it pointless to continue the struggle [but] I can not resent you [for wanting] to move to a place that has a future, may be faster and maybe better administrated".

DaB.'s instinct is probably not far from the truth. Giving a flavour of moderate opinion, Carl (CBM) suggested why he did not share DaB.'s inclination to defend the Toolserver's integrity:

At the more extreme end of the spectrum, while most thanked DaB. for his work as a volunteer, tool developer Tim Landscheidt was more critical:

The only WMF response so far comes from Marc-Andre Pelletier (User:Coren) who is contracting with the WMF to assist with Tool Labs and the Toolserver migration:

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. This week's In brief includes material that originally appeared in Tech News, a Foundation-assisted attempt to create weekly tech briefings.

  • Wikimedia wikis switch to single-week deploy schedule: The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. 1.22wmf5 marks the start of a faster deployment schedule for Wikimedia wikis; indeed, the software behind the sites will now be updated every week, starting on June 6. Although not expected to make too visible a difference, the change completes the project started last March to eliminate single deploys containing dozens of major changes, all of which could introduce major bugs (wikitech-l mailing list).
  • Wikimedia celebrates year of IPv6 support: Wikimedia wikis ticked off a year of IP version 6 support this week. Although few wikis have high proportions of IPv6 editors, this is unlikely to remain the case for languages such as Romanian, given that the biggest Romanian ISP has become one of the first to roll out IPv6 to a majority of subscribers.
  • Busy fortnight for WMF smaller projects: Away from the big projects deployments (Visual Editor, Lua, and so on), it has been a busy week for the Foundation's other teams, including Editor Engagement Experiments (E3) and Language:
    • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits.
    • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis on or after June 5. Users can temporarily use the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address.
    • The PostEdit feature has now been integrated in MediaWiki proper, and will become active across all wikis (bug 48726).
    • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions will be replaced by the Universal Language Selector extension across non-English wikis over the coming few weeks (gerrit changeset #63113).
  • Notifications bug fixed: Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature (bug #47912). In addition, all autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files – previously only administrators could do this (gerrit changeset #57286) – and videos will now play in modal, enlarged windows for most users on most wikis.

    Reader comments
If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0