The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
4 September 2013

In the media
Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in Azerbaijani Wikipedia
News and notes
Privacy policy debate gears up
Traffic report
No accounting for the wisdom of crowds
Discussion report
Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more
Featured content
Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt
WikiProject report
Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia
Arbitration report
Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion
Technology report
Making Wikipedia more accessible
 

2013-09-04

Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Andreas Kolbe

Reactions to Chelsea Manning's Wikipedia bio being renamed, again

After media praise for Wikipedia's decision to move the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning (see last week's Signpost), the reversion of that page move on August 31, after a discussion in which several hundred Wikipedians participated, has so far triggered less favourable feedback, as well as a blog post from Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner expressing her disappointment with the decision.

The Daily Dot reported on the decision to move Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning on the same day, asking: "Can a website vote on a person's gender transition?" The article stated, "On Wikipedia, Chelsea has been sentenced to remain Bradley", and went on to quote Jimmy Wales, who responded to complaints from Josh Gorand on his user page by saying:


The Daily Dot article was picked up by Slate in France on September 2. Slate expressed the opinion that Wikipedia had "put its foot in it".

On 4 September, the New Statesman weighed in with a piece titled "Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia", attributing the decision to a lack of diversity among Wikipedia editors:


The New Statesman went on to quote excerpts from a blog post Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner had published earlier that day, in which she argued:


Gardner and the New Statesman both noted that an arbitration request had been filed. Gardner commented on her blog,


It remains to be seen whether Gardner's hope that ArbCom "clarify policy" is at odds with ArbCom's constitutional role, as defined in Arbitration Policy:


The New Statesman meanwhile noted that any ArbCom decision would take at least a month. "But it's the best chance yet for Wikipedia's editing community to take some time for the introspection it apparently needs."

Gardner clarified in her blog post that she had written the post in her capacity as a volunteer editor. She added, "everything I say here, I say with lots of respect for the Wikipedia community. This is a rare misstep: an unusual and unfortunate blind spot." HASTAC also had an analysis of the naming dispute, by Wikipedians Adrianne Wadewitz and Phoebe Ayers.

Azerbaijan government's involvement in its language's Wikipedia expansion

The Azerbaijani news portal abc.az reported on September 6 that the Azerbaijani Ministry of Communications and Information is creating a "social movement for expansion of the information about the country in online encyclopedia Wikipedia". The Ministry said it was collaborating with the Azerbaijan Association of Young Translators (AGTA) to create a wiki movement in the country. The website of VikiHərəkat, the Azerbaijani wiki movement, is here. Jimmy Wales said on his talk page, "I know nothing about it." According to Human Rights Watch, Azerbaijan has a deteriorating human rights record. Under the heading "Azerbaijan: Crackdown on Civil Society", Human Rights Watch summarises the most recent developments in the country as follows:


This makes Azerbaijan, after Kazakhstan (see earlier Signpost report), the second state with a dismal record on human rights and free speech to take an active interest in the expansion of the local language version of Wikipedia.

According to The Guardian, the Azeri government is employing a number of PR agencies in Europe, including Freud Communications, Consultum Communications and Ketchum.

In brief

2013-09-04

Privacy policy debate gears up

On September 3, the Wikimedia Foundation launched the second stage of the process to improve the privacy policy implemented on most Wikimedia sites, including Wikipedia, by publishing a policy draft.

The first round of deliberations started in mid-June with an open call for input, but was overshadowed by the PRISM debate. The overall aim is to replace the current, aging policy developed in 2008 by WMF's then-General Counsel Mike Godwin with one that accounts for changes in the legal and technological environment since then.

The second consultation broadly resembles the Terms of Use update in 2011–12, where more than 120 issues were examined over the course of several months. The legal department only released an English-language draft, while the new privacy policy draft was released in other languages as well: Arabic, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish.

An early controversy was sparked by the attempt—novel in Wikimedia contexts—to use illustrations and jokes as part of the draft in an effort to expand the audience able and willing to read through the legal documents. Geoff Brigham, the foundation's current General Counsel, said in the related Meta debate that early A/B tests displaying the department's mascot, Rory, on banners calling for input indicate a higher click-through rate than for the conventional Foundation logo—including a 9:1 increase on Japanese Wikimedia sites.

The privacy policy draft is the most important part of a series of ongoing and upcoming legal documents to be scrutinized by the community. Alongside the main draft, the WMF has published a proposal for the access to non-public information policy, governing rights and duties of CheckUsers, support team members, and others in handling a wide range of issues. Future plans include data retention guidelines; a spelling out of the Foundation's data collection and retention practices under the new privacy policy; and a transparency report disclosing, among other things, how often the Foundation is approached by third parties to hand over user information, the sources of these demands, and how often the foundation complies.

In brief

2013-09-04

No accounting for the wisdom of crowds

Summary: A news-heavy week offers some insight, perhaps, into humanity's priorities: Barack Obama's contemplating entering the Syrian Civil War and the anniversary of the March on Washington share space with Miley Cyrus's public pushing of her posterior and Robin Thicke's apparent extramarital groping, with the highest interest directed towards the offending bottom.

For a list of the top 25 articles of the week, plus exclusions, see: WP:TOP25

For the week of August 25–31, 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 Twerking Start-class 1,264,178 Apparently, girls waggling their bottoms onstage now has a word. Or at least one fit for the Oxford Dictionary Online. And a Wikipedia article. You'd think we'd have had one a while ago, given what a common phenomenon it is, but I suppose words are as they are needed, and boy, Miley, did you make this one needed.
2 Robin Thicke C-class 855,701
The last time the Blue-eyed soul singer and son of Alan Thicke was on this list, it was because he'd just released his latest album; now he's back, with triple the views, both for his role in Miley's routine, and for his hand straying too far over the anatomy of a pretty clubgoer.
3 Miley Cyrus B-class 826,479
The former teenybopper graduated into adulthood in the manner customary to her profession: doing something in public to offend. The heightened publicity has secured her career for the immediate future at least.
4 Facebook B-class 563,381
A perennially popular article
5 Breaking Bad B-class 561,320
The final season of this acclaimed chemistry teacher-turned-Scarface TV series began on August 11.
6 Syria C-class 560,861
The next potential Middle Eastern country in which the USA might embroil itself has, unsurprisingly, become a topic of interest this week.
7 Białowieża Forest C-class 390,642
This ancient forest of centuries-old oaks and European bison between Poland and Belarus stimulated a Reddit discussion on August 28.
8 Deaths in 2013 List 372,873
The list of deaths in the current year is always quite a popular article.
9 I Have a Dream C-class 372,170
The 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's rhetorical masterpiece at the March on Washington on August 28 stimulated much public discussion about its legacy and effects.
10 Martin Luther King, Jr. Good Article 354,119
Of course, the anniversary also drew attention to the man himself.


Reader comments

2013-09-04

Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more

As mentioned in "In the news" on Wikipedia's main page, the Library of Birmingham in the United Kingdom has opened. This interior photo was taken a week before opening. The article reports that the library "has been described as the largest public library in the United Kingdom, the largest public cultural space in Europe, and the largest regional library in Europe."

This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 5 September 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, 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.

Style and naming

Policies and guidelines

The present building of the Supreme Court of the United States. An RfC regarding election procedures for the English Wikipedia Arbitration committee has started, and Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 is underway.

WikiProjects and collaborations

Technical issues and templates

Proposals

English Wikipedia notable requests for permissions

(This section will include active RfAs, RfBs, CU/OS appointment requests, and Arbcom elections)

Meta

The new logo for Wikivoyage

Upcoming online meetings


"Video of the monthly Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting covering the month of July (August 1, 2013)", from the Wikimedia Foundation Report, July 2013


Reader comments

2013-09-04

Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt

The Albert Bridge, London, by David Iliff. One of our newest featured pictures.

Four featured articles were promoted this week.

An Atlantic puffin, photographed by Richard Bartz, now a Featured Picture.
  • Tosa-class battleship (nom) by Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy and The ed17. The Tosa class were two dreadnought battleships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, ordered during the early 1920s. The first ship, Tosa, was canceled before completion as a result of an international naval-limiting treaty, being used then in experiments to assess the effectiveness of its armor. The results of these tests were used years later to design the heaviest battleships ever built, the Yamato class. The hull of the second ship, Kaga, was converted into an aircraft carrier and was sunk in the Second World War.
  • Peasants' Revolt (nom) by Hchc2009. Also known as the Great Rising, the Peasants' Revolt was a major uprising that took place in 1381, across large parts of England. Economic and political tensions generated by the Black Death were among the causes of the revolt, as well as the high taxes caused by the conflict with France during the Hundred Years War.
  • No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF (nom) by Ian Rose. The No. 2 OCU is a fighter training unit of the Royal Australian Air Force, located in New South Wales. The unit trains pilots to operate the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, conducts refresher courses for pilots returning to the jet, and trains future Hornet instructors. The unit was established in April 1942; it provided training on a wide range of aircraft during World War II.
  • Lanny McDonald (nom) by Resolute. McDonald (born 1953) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player of the National Hockey League. He played over 1,100 games during a 16-year career in which he scored 500 goals and over 1,000 points. He is among the most popular players in Calgary Flames history, and holds the Flames's record for highest goals scored during a single season with 66, while playing for the team in 1982–83.

Four featured lists were promoted this week.

A photograph of the 2013 Moore tornado which destroyed much of the town, taken by the very brave Wikipedian Ks0stm.
The 13th-century Heddal stave church, the largest stave church in Norway. Photographed by Micha L. Rieser and nominated by Tomer T.

Eight featured pictures were promoted this week.

One featured topic was promoted this week.

2013-09-04

Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia

Your source for
WikiProject News
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

This week, we spent some time with the minds behind WikiProject Psychology. The project was created in March 2006 and has grown to include 14 Featured Articles and 43 Good Articles. WikiProject Psychology is home to three task forces and a collaboration with the Association for Psychological Science. We interviewed WeijiBaikeBianji, MartinPoulter, and Looie496.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Psychology? Do you have an educational or professional background in psychology? Have you contributed to any of the project's Good or Featured Articles?
MartinPoulter: Psychology deals with questions of human bias and error, of happiness, of social interaction, and other things that are extremely useful or important to understand. So a central way a free encyclopedia can benefit the world is to raise awareness of what reliable, scientific knowledge there is about these topics. Writing about psychology is also an opportunity to write about the scientific method. Although my PhD is in philosophy, my academic interests have always straddled psychology and philosophy. Improving Wikipedia articles has been a great opportunity to develop my expertise, get feedback from other people and to make my writing more accessible. A weak article straddling psychology and philosophy was Confirmation bias, which I rewrote and took up to FA. Psychology still has the feel of a "frontier": it's rewarding to find a core concept of psychology which lacks an article, and start one.
WeijiBaikeBianji: I have had a personal research interest in the psychology of education and the theory and practice behind IQ testing for more than twenty years as a lawyer, a homeschooling parent, and a consultant on gifted education. My higher education degrees were in other subjects, but through my alma mater university I have access to a university library with very good holdings about psychological research, and I have been a participant in a graduate seminar ("journal club") on behavior genetics and individual differences psychology at that university for the last four school years. I have not contributed (yet) to any of the good articles or featured articles followed by WikiProject Psychology, but I take Confirmation bias, a featured article contributed to by other project editors, as a model article and an example I strive to emulate in editing other articles. The articles I work on most pertain to IQ testing, and some of those have been subject to very extensive edit-warring over the last few years.
Looie496: I don't think of myself as a member of this project, but I watch it because of its overlap with neuroscience. I'm writing here because it would be wrong to discuss this project without mentioning Lova Falk, who has been doing much of the maintenance for some time, and has been tremendously helpful to new contributors, even to the point of burnout. She is apparently on vacation and might not be able to respond before this interview appears, but it would be a shame not to mention her role.
MartinPoulter: Absolutely. Lova Falk is an incredibly hard working and exemplary Wikipedian, and does a lot of necessary maintenance and article development. We're all greatly in her debt. Only speaking up for her because she's on a wikibreak and not likely to answer herself.
WeijiBaikeBianji: I too agree that Lova Falk has been a consistent contributor of good content to many of the articles watched by project participants, and furthermore has been very encouraging to new editors, as I recall from when I began editing in 2010.
How detailed are Wikipedia's articles about psychological concepts? Has it been challenging to write articles that are substantive yet accessible to the layperson?
WeijiBaikeBianji: Most of the articles about human intelligence and IQ testing are an embarrassment. The articles are challenging to write or edit, yes, because almost everyone thinks they know something about those topics, but in fact many popular views on those issues are not supported by reliable sources from any author. I knew these topics would be controversial to work on, as I began as a Wikipedian in 2010, from reading the article talk pages and from my own experience in online discussion of these issues that goes back to 1992. So my first approach for a few years was mostly to compile a growing source list on those topics, sharing what I found in the university library with other Wikipedians, and linking to that list from the talk pages of many of the articles that badly needed revision. Sure enough, as I began more actively updating articles this year, I found that the IQ classification article started out with another editor's expert-attention-needed tag from October 2012, but once I did a massive expansion of that article, another editor tagged it as too technical. It's an art to write about a topic for which there is much detailed expert analysis and still communicate with members of the general public who have never checked what the experts say on the topic. I will be practicing this art for years, I think.
MartinPoulter: I agree with WBB above: a large proportion of psychology articles are an embarrassment. Psychology itself makes things hard because there is often a lack of expert consensus on terminology and theory: too many researchers come up with their own "laws" or "effects". It's hard to explain how these effects relate to each other when the academic sources themselves often don't say. There is also a lot of folk misconception and "pop" psychology about. There are some tremendously informed Wikipedia editors, but there are also contributors who push decisions about psychology articles based on other Wikipedia articles (which are just as bad) or on a Google search (when the best research is paywalled).
Are some branches of the discipline better covered by Wikipedia than others? Is applied psychology treated the same way as theoretical aspects?
WeijiBaikeBianji: I don't have a general impression of which subdisciplines are best served at present by Wikipedia. I have heard from friends who are clinical psychologists that they are angry that the Rorschach test editing dispute was resolved in a way that displays all the test items, along with interpretive information. (The test is no longer under copyright, but some psychologists don't appreciate the item content being shared with the general public if they still use the test clinically.) That's not my beef, but I get the impression that some psychologists self-select to not improve Wikipedia articles, not trusting the Wikipedia editorial policies as actually implemented.
MartinPoulter: My impression is that, while psychology is a huge and diverse subject, the number of very active editors is small, and our interests are also diverse, so there's not much overlap. This is worrying. As my interest is bias and error, I'm really glad the Rorschach test article is as comprehensive as it is. It's amazing that, not long ago, adults showed other adults inkblots to identify if they were homosexual (among other things). The story of how a profession fell into this error, and how the scientific approach exposed it, belongs in a free encyclopedia.
Have you found any resources that are particularly useful in sourcing articles about psychology? Are there any resources that would be helpful if an editor could make them available?
WeijiBaikeBianji: Yes, essentially all of the resources shared in my source list on IQ and human intelligence are useful, as are most of the resources shared in my source list on human biology, race, and genetics.
MartinPoulter: The most helpful sources have been actual physical textbooks. Whenever I feel that distilling the topic down into an article is impossible, I remind myself that if there can be an academic textbook on a topic, there can be an encyclopaedia article. I have a huge advantage working in a university and having access to paywalled research, but that shouldn't be restricted to people like me, and I advocate open access whenever I can.
Did the recent publication of the DSM-5 result in any changes that the project had to cope with?
WeijiBaikeBianji: The project has looming before it a messy process of renaming Mental retardation to Intellectual disability without resulting in a redirect clash. Many wikilinks, a few templates, and much article text will have to be updated just to take into account that change in DSM-5 terminology. I made sure to check DSM-5 before writing about low-IQ persons in my expansion of IQ classification. I suppose there are many more articles that are affected by changing views of psychiatrists and psychologists as reflected in the DSM revision.
Does WikiProject Psychology collaborate with any other WikiProjects? What could be done to improve communication between the projects that cover the various social sciences and medical professions?
WeijiBaikeBianji: I think there is informal cooperation through overlapping memberships of editors. I will have to look for more opportunities to collaborate. One thing I do now is remind editors working on articles on topics for which there is medical literature to refer to the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources for medical-related articles. Whenever I look at an article, I look at the article's talk page (perhaps that is one defining characteristic of a Wikipedian), and when I do that, I note which WikiProjects follow the articles I watch.
MartinPoulter: I sense a bit of friction, or maybe friendly rivalry, with the philosophy wikiproject. They claim many psychological articles in a way that seems a bit imperialist. Psychology hasn't been a subdiscipline of philosophy for a long time- let it go! I'm more keen on external collaboration. I've been building a relationship with the British Psychological Society and contacting individual psychologists for pointers. Educational projects are the only real grounds for optimism about psychology on Wikipedia: if you find a psychology article which cites decent scientific sources, then it's probably been written by a student assignment. Though a minority of educational activities have had a bad press, I don't think Wikipedia can fulfil its mission without them.
Looie496: There is cooperation with WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Neuroscience, largely through shared membership. There has also been cooperation with the Education project. The Association for Psychological Science recently sponsored a Wikipedia initiative that resulted in a number of university classes doing Wikipedia-writing assignments. Some of the results were painful, but some were good.
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
WeijiBaikeBianji: I would love to see more editors who are well informed about psychology take looks at any and every article that pertains to human intelligence. Most of those are badly in need of revision, and I've already done the spadework of finding a lot of good current secondary sources.
MartinPoulter: It's true for any subject, but more watchlisting by more editors would be good, since too many articles are the work of just one person or aren't being worked on at all. Keep an eye on us and keep us honest!
Looie496: As with all academic topics, the most urgent need is for more people to write good articles.


Next week, we'll head to the stomping ground of the Java Man. Until then, find unity in the diversity of our archive.

Reader comments

2013-09-04

Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes; Infoboxes nears completion

The dispute over the title for the Manning article escalated quickly to arbitration levels, as the Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming dispute case was accepted for arbitration. The Tea Party movement case has closed, with topic bans and interaction bans passed for several users. The Infoboxes case nears completion, as the committee continues to fine-tune topic ban proposals.

Open cases

The Manning naming dispute case, brought by TParis has been accepted for arbitration. The case involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning’s attorney announced Manning’s wish to be known as Chelsea. The case is to focus on conduct and WP:BLP issues. The evidence phase closes 19 September 2013, the workshop phase closes 26 September 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 3 October 2013.

The Infoboxes case nears completion as several findings of fact and topic ban proposals have garnered enough votes for passage, and discussion continues on a final topic ban proposal.

Closed cases

Findings of fact related to conduct were passed for Goethean, North8000, Malke 2010, Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow, Xenophrenic, Collect, Ubikwit, and Snowded, and associated topic bans were passed for Goethean, North8000, Malke 2010, Arthur Rubin, Phoenix and Winslow, Xenophrenic, Collect, and Ubikwit, as well as interaction bans between Xenophrenic/Collect and Snowded/Phoenix and Winslow. Community sanctions on the case were lifted, and superseded by discretionary sanctions.

Other requests and committee action

  • Amendment request: Scientology: An request made by The Devil's Advocate requests the lifting of a restriction imposed after the mention of an editor's previous username, an adjustment to the log of warnings about discretionary sanctions stating that the claims of misconduct underlying the warnings were invalid, and restoration of an oversighted edit to avoid the appearance of misconduct implied by a suppressed edit.
  • Amendment request: Locke Cole arbitration case: A request was made by Locke Cole for the lifting of a 7-year-old interaction ban.
  • Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles: A request was made by IRWolfie- for clarification of the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template.

    Reader comments

2013-09-04

Making Wikipedia more accessible

In this week's "Technology report", we explore ways of making Wikipedia more accessible to users of screen readers. Graham87 is a highly active contributor who is blind and accesses the site through a screen reader. We asked him to suggest ways in which editors could help make Wikipedia more accessible:

Compared with many websites, Wikipedia generally works very well with screen readers. It was the third-most popular site in a 2008–09 survey involving over 1,100 screen reader users. It has a consistent "look and feel", and guidelines encouraging the judicious use of headings and links make it more accessible. However, there are a few important things that editors can do to make Wikipedia articles easier to read for users of screen readers:

  • Avoid separating list items by blank lines, especially in bulleted lists, as it makes lists harder to read with screen readers. For example, this list of tips to make articles accessible contains three items, and would be read by a screen reader like this: "list of 3 items, <text of the list> ... list end". If there were a blank line between each list item (i.e. if I had pressed the enter key twice between each point), it would be read out like this: "list of 1 items, <text>, list end; list of 1 items ..." and so on.
  • Keep everything in its expected location in terms of wiki markup (the text in the edit window). Most modern screen readers will read text in Wikipedia in the order it's presented in the wiki markup rather than its physical position on the screen; therefore a screen reader user's experience is disrupted if items are not in their usual place. For example, if a template that changes the position of the table of contents like {{TOC right}} is placed above the lead section of an article (in terms of the wiki markup), a screen reader user who is used to going straight from the table of contents to the first heading with a single keystroke will miss the text of the lead section.
  • Use alt text to complement image captions. Alt text, which is produced using the "alt=" parameter in the image markup, is read out by screen readers but is not usually visible to sighted users. It is especially handy for images that contain useful features that are readily apparent to those who can see the image (e.g. a cartoon caption, a sign, a graph with an easily identifiable pattern). There is no need to note these features in the image caption because most people will be able to see the image, but screen reader users should also have access to them where possible.

For more information on accessibility in Wikipedia, both for screen reader users and people with other usability issues, see the accessibility guideline. Signpost readers may also be interested in WikiProject Accessibility, which always welcomes new members. Questions or concerns about accessibility may be raised at the project's talk page.

VisualEditor enhancements

  • Copy-paste improvements continue: The VisualEditor team continued to make improvements to the tool's copy-paste functions, aiming to support copying of any richly-formatted text into VisualEditor, with appropriate markup being applied automatically. The team hopes to eventually allow direct copying from Wikipedia pages not currently open for editing.
  • Rapid typing bug fixed: A bug where very quick typing or input editor use could cause VisualEditor's text to become corrupted has been fixed.

Wikidata news

  • How do we measure the quality of Wikidata?: A blog post by Denny Vrandečić asks this question and proposes several possible metrics.
  • Using Wikidata to support Wiktionary: An analysis of how Wikidata might support the Wiktionary model has been presented. Since a dictionary is essentially a structured set of data about words, Wikidata could be an excellent fit; however, significant effort is still required to define a specific data structure to be used.
  • URL datatype: Wikidata defines numerous data types for the various kinds of data entered into it. For example, the page on Brassica oleracea includes categories of information such as "genus", which is of the type "item", meaning that the genus also has a Wikidata page; and "image", which is of the type "Commons data file", meaning that it links to a file on Wikimedia Commons. A new "url" data type is currently being tested; once complete, it will allow Wikidata to provide ready-made links to external reference materials.
  • VIAF: Gerard Meijssen has written a series of posts on VIAF, an inter-library system for matching different methods of organising library records on individual people, and how Wikidata uses it for information. Topics covered by the series include a general overview of VIAF and how the system deals with deletions from the database.

In brief

  • Wikipedia Signpost Android application: Yuvipanda has created an Android application to notify users of Signpost updates and allow reading of Signpost articles from mobile phones. The application is available through Google Play.
  • Wiki Loves Monuments Android app fixed: Yuvipanda has fixed the Wiki Loves Monuments mobile application for Android.
  • New HTML tag support: The <wbr> tag, which inserts an optional mid-word linebreak, is now supported.
  • Random page tool for categories: The new Special:RandomInCategory tool allows users to visit a random page in a category. The tool currently includes subcategories—but not their contents—as "pages in a category".

    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