After a Request for Comment on English Wikipedia's Main Page, a strangely-prominent link to the English-language Wikinews was removed from the "In the News" section, a section of the Main Page dedicated to promoting articles on Wikipedia that have been updated to reflect sudden new events.
"In the News" does a very good job at constantly providing new material, with about one or two new, updated articles every day, covering events in an encyclopaedic manner, and helping to keep Wikipedia updated. Its existence encourages Wikipedia articles to be kept up-to-date, and, by insisting the new material is well-referenced, it also helps maintain quality, and therefore can be considered a successful addition to Wikipedia. Even if "In the News" didn't update every day, Wikipedia would still have a lot to offer. Its archives remain a useful resource, and the various other Main Page sections provide new content. Even updates to articles that attempt to get onto Wikinews and fail to be accepted likely represent an improvement to the encyclopaedia.
However, Wikinews is a rather different project. Wikinews attempts to substitute for a newspaper or news magazine, and thus needs to update quite regularly, but does not update on any specific day more than one-third of the time,[1] and there are often gaps of three days between news stories. If a story is not accepted, it is deleted, losing all work done. As news reports often only represent a tiny sliver of the main story, or are mere trivialities in the larger scheme of things (e.g. "Duke of Edinburgh leaves UK hospital following exploratory surgery", "Air Pacific re-brands as Fiji Airways"), most of Wikinews' archive is likely of little value.
However, Wikinews' biggest problem is that it has so few editors that it has essentially become a vanity project. The active users list gives just 133 users who have made any edits at all in the last month, including 6 bots. As seen in the pie chart leading this article, one user has 45.8% of all non-bot contributions, and it rapidly tails off after that. That's a few users' vanity project, not a viable project in itself.
Wikinews includes some shockingly bad content, such as San Fermín de los Navarros church in Madrid celebrates patron day, a seven-sentence article followed by a few poorly-composed snapshots that show little more than people dressed in white and red, mainly facing away from the camera, and fail to illustrate anything about the festival other than that (see example, right). In the meantime, important news stories aren't covered.
And that's the fundamental problem of Wikinews: it's not a good newssite, regularly missing out important stories that affect large parts of the world, but including events of very localised importance. For comparison, have a look at Portal:Current events, a fairly obscure little Wikipedia-based side-project, which actually does a really good job at noting current events. Up until this week, they included Wikinews, interleaved between their own coverage; however Wikinews updated so rarely, and missed out so many of the main stories, that they have now removed Wikinews from their portal, stating that "[i]n the few articles that appear in a timely manner, except for occasional interviews of debatable interest, no substantial information is provided above Wikipedia coverage or what is found in primary sources. It has been given its chance, more than any other sister project, but ultimately the same reasoning behind the external links guideline applies, and on the merits there is no justification for automatically linking to Wikinews." And they're right. They do a far better job covering the news at that portal than on a project that has been given every possible chance to grow and flourish.
This is Wikinews' fundamental problem: it can neither do a good job providing a summary of world news, nor does it have any special focus that it does well. It's a collection of random articles, with only the occasional, passing resemblance to important current events.
And if Wikinews cannot even come close to fulfilling its core mission, it's not a viable project.
This week, we traveled to Cymru with the folks at WikiProject Wales. Started in January 2007, the project has grown to include 12 Featured Articles, 11 Featured Lists, and 122 Good Articles. With a relative WikiWork rating of 5.34, the project still has a hefty workload with thousands of stubs and start-class articles. WikiProject Wales is the parent of WikiProject Cardiff. We interviewed Bencherlite, Sionk, Ghmyrtle, and Deb.
Next week, we'll role-play with kingdoms and dragons. Until then, explore your final fantasies in the archive.
Reader comments
Summary: Last week proved one thing—we have a lot to learn. So many articles had high views for no discernible reason that it became pointless to exclude them. If any of you have ideas as to from whence these oddities emerged, please let us know, as we can always use new sources! Think of this then as our all view-spikes are created equal list; each given due prominence regardless of its creator or particular endowments.
Thankfully, this inclusive policy didn't affect the Top 10 much; to see the full effect you should check out the Top 25
For the week of June 30 to July 6, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yahoo! | 
|
3,087,818 | .svg) |
After becoming the most viewed Wikipedia article in over four months last week, its viewership actually increased this week, which has sent some alarm bells ringing that perhaps this site's page has been getting some artificial inflation. Purchasing Tumblr is all well and good, but it doesn't deserve this level of attention, surely. |
| 2 | Independence Day (United States) | 
|
1,169,967 |  |
A far more obvious object of interest for the week of July 4 (although technically American independence was declared on July 2nd, by which time the American Revolutionary War had already been going for more than a year, and not attained until February 3, 1783), the celebration of American independence is arguably the biggest summer festival in the English-speaking world (with the possible exception of Christmas in Australia). |
| 3 | Franz Kafka | 
|
1,027,411 |  |
The angsty German chronicler of authoritarian oppression, who essentially predicted the surreal horror of 20th century dictatorship, had both a Google Doodle and a main page appearance to celebrate his 130th birthday on July 3, leading to a massive spike in interest. |
| 4 | Arrow (TV series) |
|
910,481 | Why this TV series, which went off the air in May and won't return until October, would suddenly get a surge in views on July 1-2 is not clear. | |
| 5 | Kendrick Lamar |
|
885,387 |  |
Compton-born rapper whose album good kid, m.A.A.d city won two awards at the BET Awards on June 30. |
| 6 | Li Shizhen |
|
733,104 | The Chinese botanist and physician who wrote a comprehensive materia medica with nearly 1900 entries had a Google Doodle to celebrate his 495th birthday. | |
| 7 | Chikako Watanabe | 
|
715,123 | This Japanese singer has been a thorn in our side for weeks; her entry keeps spiking apparently at random. On any other list she'd be excluded but in this one, who's to argue? | |
| 8 |
|
709,225 | .JPG) |
A perennially popular article. | |
| 9 | Edward Snowden |
|
658,578 |  |
The story of the international cause célèbre who blew the whistle on the NSA's domestic spying program becomes more gripping by the day. Denied a passport by the US government, he presumably remains trapped in Terminal E of Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport, possibly seeking asylum in Venezuela. Polls suggest Americans are still fairly divided on whether to treat this man as a hero or a traitor, which will only stimulate more debate and, likely, more Wikipedia views in future. |
| 10 | Amy Winehouse |
|
626,641 |  |
An exhibition of the life and possessions of the tragically short-lived singer (and member of the 27 Club) went on display at the Jewish Museum London on July 3. |
In apparent acknowledgment of the urgency of two issues facing the Wikimedia movement—the need to engage both women and the global south—the WMF Board has appointed Ana Toni as one of its four expert members. Ana Toni, who lives in Rio de Janeiro, will bring rare expertise to the movement, acquired during two decades of involvement in the politics of the world economy, sustainable development, and community development projects. The Signpost understands that her skills in advocacy and her key roles in international NGOs are likely to be a natural match with the WMF as the hub of disseminating free knowledge around the world.
Since 2011, Ana Toni has been the chair of the Board of Greenpeace. From 2003 to 2011 she was the representative for the Ford Foundation in Brazil, coordinating work in human rights, racial and ethnic discrimination, and reproductive health; in 2011 the Ford Foundation approved nearly half a billion dollars in grants worldwide to reduce poverty and injustice, promote democratic values, and—of particular resonance with the WMF—to advance human knowledge and creativity. Her presentation on behalf of the Ford Foundation to the conference Innovations for Successful Societies: Building Institutions, Escaping Development Traps, displayed expertise in creating linkages between the public and private sectors, civil society, the media, and academic researchers. The address focused on innovations in reducing criminality in the favelas (shanty towns) of Brazilian cities, and how success hinges on "community integration and leadership, a multidisciplinary approach, academic engagement in public security studies, and replacing political positioning with professional expertise" (a full audio interview from the conference is available). She has also been involved in the World Economic Forum, the non-profit that is committed to improving the state of the world by bringing together business, political, and academic leaders to shape global, regional and industry agendas.
Ana Toni's career, however, has encompassed not just policy development, but its local application. After five years as policy advisor to ActionAid UK, she held the role of executive director of ActionAid Brazil from 1998 to 2002. From this time, it has been clear that "macro–micro linkages"—of big-picture policy and on-the-ground work—have been an important part of her approach. In the 2005 ActionAid publication Stories of change, Andrea Cornwall, director of a research program on women's empowerment at the Institute of Development Studies, recounted the search for likely partners after ActionAid opened its Brazil office in 1999. Ana Toni told her: “I saw [Silvia Cordiero, director of the Women's Centre do Cabo] first at a meeting in Brazilia. She impressed me. She was strong and articulate. And she was there from an organisation that worked with women at the grassroots, articulating with national policy debates. It was what their experience of linking macro–micro might offer us that excited me most.”
Ana Toni brings to the Board a strong track-record in research and writing. She serves on the editorial board of the Portuguese-language monthly, Le Monde diplomatique Brazil, which provides analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs. It is not hard to find a string of scholarly publications that acknowledge her advice. The 2010 book Intellectual property and human development: current trends and future scenarios, to take one of many examples, expressed appreciation for her "wonderful support and insights" towards broadening the scope of the research "to cover important areas of human development". In the light of increasing knowledge of how environmental and market-based policies interact with economic development and the role of women in developing countries, her advice has played an important role in the preparation of papers such as "Trade and environment: conflict or compatibility" for the Proceedings of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
In announcing the appointment, Kat Walsh, chair of the WMF Board, said: "As we aspire to nearly double the number of people who use Wikipedia over the next few years, and build a larger and more diverse movement of active volunteers, Ana’s leadership experience and insight on the management and growth of non-profit organizations will be invaluable in guiding us." In the WMF's press release, director of communications Jay Walsh pointed out that Toni has coordinated "a regional Latin America Initiative on Economics and Globalization, an IBSA initiative (joint work between Brazil, South Africa and India) and the International Initiative on Intellectual Property Rights."
The challenge for the Board and the movement as a whole may be how to pose the right questions to gain the greatest benefit from this new Board member.
This week saw a lively discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and in several other forums about the role of director Raul654 and several other issues facing the featured article (FA) process at large. Prolific FA writer Brianboulton began a discussion about the future of the JSTOR account donation process, that quickly devolved into questioning Raul's role in the featured content processes.
Several users expressed views that Raul's title should be changed to "Director Emeritus", while others believed that he should retain his title as Director in honor of his contributions to the process over the years, and another subset of users thought he should be removed from the process entirely due to his inactivity over the past few months. The discussion intensified after David Fuchs removed Raul's name and role from Template:FAC-instructions; he was reverted by SandyGeorgia, a former FAC delegate. An edit war began as several users became involved and reverted one another. After several reverts from both sides, Crisco 1492 fully protected the template to end the conflict.
The 2012 FA RfC, where there was consensus for keeping the status quo of the FA process as it stood, was cited by participants on all sides of the discussion.
Two requests for comment have been started as a result of the discussions: Tony1's proposal to make Raul a director emeritus and rename the delegates "coordinators", and PumpkinSky's proposal to eliminate the directorship and move for direct elections of the delegates.
What are infoboxes for? As a regular reviewer at PR and FAC I look at a lot of articles, which means that I see plenty of infoboxes. They have been a feature of WP articles for years now, and it seems obvious that they can provide a useful service to readers who want a few specific facts about a subject, rather than an in-depth study. What is the population of Salzburg? Who was Henry II of England married to? How many first-class wickets did Jack Hobbs take? The infoboxes are there to give these answers.
The initial MOS guideline on infoboxes was posted on 10 March 2006; by 1 January 2007 a number of WP projects were incorporating them into articles, and on that date the WP:Infobox project was started, designed to foster encyclopedia-wide cooperation. The project page summarises the nature of infoboxes as: "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout". The particular words "quick", "convenient", and "key facts" all imply a degree of selectivity in information. The MOS guideline gives broadly the same message, while adding a significant rider: "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".
The fundamental idea is clear: keep the box simple, and limit it to essentials. At some point down the line, however, these basic principles seem to have been abandoned, in favour of an approach akin to "the more the merrier". As I go through my reviewing duties I can't help noticing just how big some infoboxes have become, how much room they take up and how much detail is crammed into them. Some are simply enormous; far from being convenient, quick-reference points conveniently placed in the top right-hand corner of their parent article, they have become huge columns reaching deep into the body of the article. Apart from anything else, this can foul up presentation by squeezing the text and mispositioning images. In some cases, the article itself appears to be almost subordinate to the box.
Let's look at a few specifics. Articles on countries are, I imagine, frequently consulted by casual readers in search of basic facts: location, population, capital city, language, currency, form of government. Unfortunately, most "country" articles have infoboxes which go way beyond the provision of these essentials. Denmark is one example, typical of many. Its infobox includes mottoes, anthem titles and translations, two sets of GDP calculations, Gini ranking, HDI ranking, ISO code and much else besides. Some of this information will require the use of links, often to articles that aren't at all easy to follow – try this one. While all these extra facts obviously are relevant, few of them could be said to represent the "key" information on the subject. Another problem area that I encounter in my reviewing travels is political biographies, where infoboxes are often of inordinate length and complexity. Way back in 2008 I cut my reviewing teeth on the Shimon Peres article, and I commented then that the infobox was confusing and overcomplicated with detail. It still is, and the same criticism can be made of most articles for statesmen who enjoyed long and active careers. Winston Churchill is another example. A particular issue is the dubious practice of recording in the infobox not only every political office ever held by the subject, but also the names of each predecessor and successor in these offices. Much of this information is entirely inconsequential; is it a key fact that Lord Weir preceded Winston as Secretary for Air in 1919?
Infoboxes should not be the repositories of any odd bits of information related to the subject. Indeed, sometimes information that is not just inessential but downright absurd finds its way into them. I had reason recently to look at the London Coliseum article, where the infobox is relatively short. Among the "essential" information it provides are the theatre's geographic co-ordinates! In what sense is this "key information" about the theatre? It is about as pointless as it gets. I thought this might be a once-off aberration, a case of editorial over-enthusiasm, so I checked the articles for other well-known buildings—the Eiffel Tower, and St Paul's Cathedral—and found that these landmarks, too, have their co-ordinates proudly displayed in their infoboxes, as does the Empire State Building, whose infobox records the co-ordinates twice, for no clear reason. I am sure that a general audit of infoboxes would throw up many similar instances of redundant or insignificant information.
The issue of concern is the extent to which infoboxes are becoming generally less efficient in fulfilling the function for which they were initially introduced. I believe it is time to reconsider the tendency towards overdetailing that has developed in recent years, and to look for a new approach. In the short term we could reestablish first principles by the adoption of a mechanistic formula whereby the number of parameters in any one infobox are limited to, say, eight (or even six). This is not a revolutionary idea; it is similar in purpose to the existing MOS guideline that restricts the number of paragraphs in an article's lead, with the aim of keeping the lead in brief summary form. If infoboxes were likewise limited, editors' minds would focus on what really needed to be included, rather than on how to extend the box. In the longer term, however, an altogether more fundamental change might be considered, along the lines of an idea that has already been floated by Dr. Blofeld: the development of a Micropedia version of the encyclopedia, that would obviate the need for infoboxes altogether. Now, that would indeed be revolutionary.
Five featured articles were promoted this week.
Six featured lists were promoted this week.
Ten featured pictures were promoted this week.
This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 10 July 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, and recent watchlist notices and SiteNotices. The latter two are in bold. Items that are new to this report are in italics even if they are not new discussions. If an item can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only in this report. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.
(This section will include active RfAs, RfBs, CU/OS appointment requests, and Arbcom elections)
_Weltvogelpark_Walsrode_2012-015.jpg)
