Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/From the editors
Summary: Somewhat predictably, the birth of a new heir to the House of Windsor on 22 July led the English-speaking world to suddenly embrace Monarchism. In honour of this occasion, the Traffic report will be assiduously employing British spelling and dating conventions. Cheers.
For the complete top 25 report, see WP:TOP25
For the week of 20 to 27 July, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
Rank | Last | Wks | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | - | - | Rosalind Franklin | 2,314,478 | The co-discoverer of DNA alongside Watson and Crick got a Google Doodle to celebrate her 93rd birthday on 25 July. | ||
2 | - | - | Prince William, Duke of Cambridge | 790,630 | The baby-daddy of the day got the highest view count of his extended family, though nearly everyone got a look-in. | ||
3 | - | - | Elizabeth II | 694,842 | Still going strong after 61 years on the throne, no one can deny that the great-grandmother of the newly minted bundle of joy (her third great-grandkid so far) has done an excellent job of symbolising her country for all that time. | ||
4 | - | - | Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge | 655,249 | That's Kate Middleton to the rest of us. You'd think she'd be higher, given that she did most of the work to bring about this situation. | ||
5 | - | - | Charles, Prince of Wales | 527,043 | The heir to the British throne got some attention in accordance with his newly established granddad status. | ||
6 | - | - | Diana, Princess of Wales | 523,396 | The baby's late and still much-lamented granny (the word just doesn't fit, does it?) may also have drawn attention due to a biopic coming out this year. | ||
7 | 7 | 29 | 515,653 | A perennially popular article. | |||
8 | 14 | 2 | The Conjuring (film) | 506,204 | James Wan's latest ghost story (reportedly based on true events, take that as you will) stormed the US, taking $70 million in its first week. | ||
9 | - | - | The Wolverine (film) | 477,296 | The second attempt to give X-Men fan-favourite Wolverine his own franchise appears to be doing far better than the first, taking $21 million in its first day. | ||
10 | - | - | Dennis Farina | 453,466 | Likable actor of Manhunter, Get Shorty and Midnight Run fame got a decent sendoff from Wikipedians after his death on 22 July. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/In the media Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Opinion
The ninth annual Wikimania conference will open in just over a week at the Jockey Club Auditorium, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Wikimania is for people worldwide who have an interest in Wikimedia Foundation projects. It features presentations and discussions on those projects, on free knowledge and content, and on related social and technical issues. Attendance at the first three conferences—in Frankfurt, Germany; Cambridge, US; and Taipei, Taiwan—ranged from 380 to 440. This rose to 500–650 for Alexandria, Egypt; Buenos Aires, Argentina; and Gdansk, Poland; to 720 in Haifa, Israel in 2011; and then nearly doubled to around 1400 for Washington DC last year with relatively easy access for many Americans.
Wikimania 2013 will be held 7–11 August, and a related Facebook page and Twitter account are already active. Although the English Wikipedia article on Wikimania clearly announces the "Wikimedia Foundation" as the organiser, in fact a dedicated organising team is in charge of the event, arranged by the Hong Kong chapter, which owns copyright on the official logo.
The organisers told the Signpost they expect a thousand people to attend, including volunteers, journalists, and VIPs. There has been significant media interest, says the team's Deryck Chan: "Of interest to Signpost readers are two recent feature pieces in the South China Morning Post, the main English-language newspaper of Hong Kong: there was a front-page article on Wikimania two weeks ago, focusing on the gender gap, and a detailed piece just came out on Monday." The committee has also received significant media interest in covering Wikimania itself. The preparatory meetup in July, he says, "was attended by journalists from three news agencies ... Press pass registration has been open for a few weeks and we're having a good turnout of journalist registrations."
Several attendees at a previous conference complained to the Signpost that Internet connectivity was poor from venues and hotels. We asked Deryck Chan whether Wi-Fi access will be satisfactory: "Yes. We're grateful that [Polytechnic University] is aware of the heavy use of internet by Wikimania and is deploying additional network hardware to ensure good wi-fi coverage at the lecture halls and meeting rooms. For the HKBU dorms [the primary accommodations], wi-fi tickets are arranged for all Wikimania guests. Our hotel recommendations are also chosen partly based on their ability to provide internet connections to guests." Nevertheless, he warned visitors to expect slower connections to Wikimedia projects than are typical in some countries: "The physical distance between Hong Kong and Wikimedia's server clusters means that higher latency and slower speed are inevitable."
Of the individual sessions, we can mention only a few. Wednesday and Thursday will be "pre-conference" days; they will include an Education Program Pre-conference, a Multimedia Roundtable for "exploring a range of solutions for providing a richer media experience" on WMF sites, a "meet and greet" for the European Union Free Knowledge Advocacy Group, and a three-hour welcome party on the Thursday evening.
Friday will kick off with an opening ceremony that will include addresses by the Hong Kong government's chief information officer and a plenary by Jimmy Wales ("The State of the Wiki", no doubt a pun on the US president's annual State of the Union address to congress). After morning coffee, among the sessions will be those on Wikipedia and Internet regulation in Mainland China, product management at the WMF, approaches to evaluating GLAM collaborations, and editor surveys. The afternoon will feature topics such as Science GLAM, the future of Wiki Loves Monuments, the multilingual Commons crisis, and movement-wide elections and referenda.
Saturday will start with a keynote by Hong-Kong-based entrepreneur and IT advocate Charles Mok. Morning topics will include the rebirth of Wikivoyage as a WMF project, the global south challenge for the WMF, the technical development of new admin tools, and a panel session on open access for academic research. Four major afternoon themes will be women and diversity, legal strategy (with WMF general counsel Geoff Brigham), languages and translation, and Imagine Wikipedia in 2022.
Sunday will open with a keynote by WMF executive director Sue Gardner, followed by a Q&A with the board of trustees. A tribute to Gardner's formative six-year stewardship of the foundation will be one of the highlights of this plenary session. Later sessions on Sunday will include those on paid editing (sure to be controversial), the difficulties of verifying indigenous knowledge on the Wikipedias; the severe challenges of giving people in parts of Africa access to WMF projects, taking quality images with cheap cameras (sure to be a winner), WikiTV, and the much-neglected challenges of script for the many non-roman languages, exemplified in the Javanese Wikipedia. Activating Africa will be a major theme on Sunday afternoon.
There are three sources of funding for Wikimania: (i) WMF grants, scholarships, and other cash and in-kind contributions; (ii) cash and in-kind external sponsorship for the event, from both public organisations and private companies; and (iii) the costs of travel and accommodation that are borne by most attendees. Getting the tension right between these three sources involves juggling several needs: paying for a large international conference, garnering sufficient attendance to make it worthwhile, and avoiding any risk of conflict of interest in accepting funds from sponsors. For the movement as a whole, an additional question may be the extent to which donors' funds should subsidise the event.
Wikimania 2013's main page is cluttered with the logos of up to a dozen sponsors and partners; some are government organisations, some NGOs, and some private companies. Ask.com, for example, is a "diamond sponsor" (~US$41,000, going by the budget for Hong Kong's successful bid last year), Google is a "gold sponsor" ($19,000—three gold sponsors were claimed in the bid), wikiHow is a silver sponsor ($10,000—seven were claimed), and Dot.Asia is named as "co-host". These sponsors appear to be not inconsistent with the aims of the movement, although the websites of some displays link to too many other sites for us to follow up.
The Signpost put to the organising team that the actual details of sponsors' financial and in-kind support are unavailable on-wiki (despite the presentation of the budget in the bid). We asked (i) who is giving what cash and in-kind, (ii) whether the benefits remain as they were expressed in the bid (VIP tickets, naming rights, ads in the program, in situ logo displays, slideshows, and other promotional items), and (iii) whether the expected revenues in the bid have changed. The organising team declined to comment on these questions, saying that "a detailed financial report for the WMF will be prepared after the end of Wikimania."
We asked Garfield Byrd, the WMF's chief of finance and administration, to discuss whether the Foundation's allocation of funding is on the basis that it alone is insufficient to hold a successful event—i.e. that cash and in-kind funding from sponsors and other entities is now built into the financial model of Wikimania.
“ | The model for Wikimania was that the Wikimedia Foundation will provide a grant (currently budgeted at $150,000 for the event and $150,000 for scholarships) and the balance of funding for Wikimania will come from sponsorships. For Wikimania 2012 and Wikimania 2013, this model has not worked as planned and so the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia Community needs to review its funding commitments to Wikimania to ensure a successful event. For Wikimania 2012 and Wikimania 2013 sponsorships did not and have not provided the level of funding expected and the Wikimedia Foundation has provided additional funding. | ” |
We also asked Garfield Byrd whether the Foundation regards the ethics and practical considerations of sponsorship to be irrelevant to its continuing opposition to the acceptance of advertising on WMF sites. He told us that the corporate sponsorships have become part of the funding model for Wikimanias—something that in his view is entirely different from advertising on WMF sites—and that "it is up to the Wikimedia Community to decide if sponsorships are the best model going forward to fund Wikimania."
Would the WMF be uncomfortable if Wikimania organisers accepted sponsorship from a tobacco retailer, or a corporation that employs dubious practices? "As Wikimania is a Wikimedia Community event, it is up to the Wikimedia Community to decide which types of sponsors it does or does not want for Wikimania. The Wikimedia Foundation always encourages the organizers of any Wikimania to use good judgement when accepting sponsorships so that they are consistent with the values of the Wikimedia Movement. Sponsorships, both cash and in-kind, are to be used for the benefit of Wikimania and for charitable purposes."
He offered this further point: "The Wikimedia Foundation is open to a conversation on the best way to fund Wikimania. It is up to the Wikimedia Community to set the standards by which this event takes place and the Wikimedia Foundation will be a partner in ensuring a successful Wikimania. As with any Community event, funding models will change over time."
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Serendipity
One of the narratives I've heard a lot is that Wikipedia is unable to change, that it's too stagnant, too poorly resourced, too inherently resistant to change. I don't believe that at all.
Here are some of the technical changes we've partially or fully deployed in the last few months:
We've done this with a tiny engineering team by the standards of websites of our reach, working through a mountain of technical debt. We've done it with a QA team of two. We've done it with you. All these changes still need love, for sure.
Wikipedia was inspired by the free software and open source movement. All our software is open source. All the changes we make, the bugs we find, the discussions we have, the things we learn—we share. We continually improve in everything we do, both in what we do and how we do it.
When we embarked on the VisualEditor project, we knew it was going to be the most disruptive change to the user experience in the history of our projects, and also that it was going to be incredibly difficult. Anyone who says "what's the big deal—it's just a rich-text editor, there are a billion of those" doesn't have the faintest clue what's involved.
The single most complex thing to support: templates. What started as a simple idea (re-usable blocks of text) has turned the encyclopedia into a set of programmable documents, complete with a Turing-complete programming language. Every document is made up of in some cases hundreds or even thousands of transclusions that need to be updated dynamically whenever they change.
Because until now, as our software only had to spit out a single document for readers, it has been very tolerant of how templates are used. You can make almost any page content out of templates, including subway maps, football t-shirt graphics, vote result charts, chess diagrams, and of course citations. And templates can literally inject bits of markup into a page that don't make sense in isolation, but perform some function in the context of a table, inside image syntax, etc. (e.g. {{!}}
which creates just the "|" that marks the boundary of a table cell).
There are two primary problems with this approach:
When we released the beta of VisualEditor earlier in July, a lot of users were legitimately upset that in many cases, it doesn't yet deliver on the promise of easy editing for everyone; it has bugs (it's a beta) and can be slow especially on large pages, while imposing a new cost to the community:
Besides bugs, a new editing environment means that new types of errors can be made. Deleting an infobox in a markup editor means selecting a whole bunch of text and consciously removing it. Deleting it in a visual editor means accidentally backspacing one time too many. Positioning markup for formatting consciously around text using cursor keys increases precision around spacing and encapsulation of characters. Using the mouse to select text increases the likelihood of certain types of selection errors. And so on.
We've made many changes and improvements already. There are additional affordances we can create to reduce user error. There are changes we can make to the parser to improve its handling of complex template constructions. And in the long run, there are features we can build to make graphics, charts and other rich content easy to create and edit without templates.
We also need to have conversations about the future of wiki markup (yes, there may be uses of markup that will need to be deprecated), about how and whether certain features can even be supported with markup (e.g. annotations, real-time collaboration), and about the unavoidable consequences of having users edit articles in a visual editing environment (yes, there are types of editing mistakes that are inherently more likely in such an environment—others are less so). If you're coming to Wikimania, we'll create opportunities to have these and other conversations with you in person throughout the course of the conference.
Even though it's difficult and disruptive, there was no alternative to getting VisualEditor in front of thousands of real users. While there is more polish that we should have given core features before launching the beta to as many users, I can also tell you with confidence that the level of initial disruptive impact would have been 80% the same even with 3-6 months of additional development effort. Given the level of complexity involved (number of browser/OS/device combinations, amount and complexity of existing markup including templates, types of user actions), there's really no way around it. And yes, we've done tons of automated parser testing on Wikipedia's content, which has enabled us to minimize wikitext<->HTML roundtripping issues.
But as disruptive as it has been, it's also been incredibly useful. The stream of feedback we've been getting is invaluable. The continuing improvement of template metadata is essential. Seeing real-world diffs on a day-to-day basis that show whether a specific thing we're changing has had the desired effect on real-world users (without self-selection bias) is the only way to make VisualEditor awesome. We need to update user documentation, welcome messages, videos, tutorials, workshop resources, etc. etc.
An off-again, on-again approach doesn't work well. We have to keep improving every week, not fall into a pattern where development is largely isolated from the real world impact of its decisions.
Being bold, failing quickly, improving iteratively has been the way Wikipedia has evolved from the very beginning, both in technology and content. I don't believe in the mythology that Wikipedia can't change—in fact, that is all it ever does. I believe in our resilience as a community, and our ability to make it through complex change together.
That said, let's find the best way to do this together, and take the principle of iteration seriously even in how the VisualEditor is deployed. We do have a ton of useful actionable feedback and data that we didn't have a month ago.
And we can make VisualEditor prominently accessible with appropriate caveats, without making it the default primary experience. In doing so, we need to ensure that we maintain a large and diverse number of users (IP address users, new accounts, experienced users) so that we can continually improve VisualEditor under real world conditions and avoid blind spots. We're open to exploring the best ways of accomplishing that goal, and will alter the current beta configuration soon.
One other thing I'm taking away from our beta experience is that we'll need to make it really trivial to set your primary editing experience—whatever the secondary option is needs to be minimally intrusive. Complaints about the section editing experience with VisualEditor are completely valid in that context, for example; the progressive disclosure of wikitext section edit links was a bad idea.
And no, we're not taking markup-level editing away. Some users may always prefer it over visual editing, even if the exact nature of the markup changes, and even if VisualEditor becomes the best tool it can possibly be.
The VisualEditor/Parsoid team has solved some really challenging problems already, but I also recognize that we still have a long way to go. We are listening, and are continuing to iterate, in partnership with you. Thanks to you for embracing change while helping us to get it right. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/In focus
The case Race and politics was closed. The workshop phase continues for Infoboxes. The workshop phase closes in Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. Voting on the proposed decision continues in the Tea Party movement case.
Race and politics brought by UseTheCommandLine and dealing with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, was closed after being suspended for a two-month period, to see if an editor central to the case, Apostle12, would return. The user did not return, a topic ban was imposed with regards to any page relating to "race and politics", and the user was directed to inform the committee if he returns to editing.
This case, brought by Ched, involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting (right margin, footer, both, etc) -- whether the preferences of the original author should be taken into consideration, if the decision should be made by various WikiProjects to promote uniformity between articles, or whether each article should be decided on a case-by-case basis after discussion. It also involves what is perceived by some to be an aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion by some editors, in areas where they do not normally edit. Areas that have seen disputes over infoboxes include opera, the Classical Music and Composers project, and Featured Articles. The evidence phase of the case closed 31 July, the workshop closes 7 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 14 August 2013.
This case, brought by Mark Arsten, involves a dispute between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Ironholds, the original account of Wikimedia Foundation employee Oliver Keyes, that began on-wiki and escalated in off-wiki forums, ending with statements that could be interpreted as threats of violence. The evidence phase of the case closed 26 July, the workshop closes 2 August, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2013.
This case involving a US political group, brought by KillerChihuahua, is now unsuspended, after a moderated discussion failed to agree on the ground rules for such a discussion. Voting continues on the proposed decision.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Humour