Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/From the editors
Summary: While the Syrian Civil War crept its slow way into the minds of the public, with a new fourth related entry in the top 25, the top 10 remained dominated by celebrity, mainly sports and music. Two megabucks transfers stimulated public interest in football/soccer ahead of the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualifiers, while Lil Wayne's public apology ahead of his latest album release sent him to the top.
For the full top 25 plus exclusions, see WP:TOP25
For the week of September 1 - 7, 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 | Lil Wayne | 
|
662,661 |  |
After apologising to his fans on Twitter, Lil Wayne has gone from not receiving any BET Award or MTV Video Music Award nominations to coming tops in Wikipedia views. |
| 2 | Rosh Hashanah |
|
590,908 |  |
That's the Jewish New Year to the rest of us. Jews the world over ushered in the year 5774 on September 4. |
| 3 |
|
580,025 | .JPG) |
A perennially popular article | |
| 4 | Mesut Özil | 
|
532,862 | .jpg) |
The German footballer was recently transferred to Arsenal FC for $67 million, which, for a presumed 5-year contract works out at roughly $1500 an hour. |
| 5 | Breaking Bad |
|
507,227 |  |
The final season of this acclaimed chemistry teacher-turned-Scarface TV series began on August 11. |
| 6 | Twerking | 
|
502,811 | The new term for girls waggling their bottoms onstage continues to be a point of interest. | |
| 7 | Syria |
|
468,913 | ,_Flag_of_Syria_(1980%E2%80%932024).svg) |
The next Middle Eastern country in which the United States might become embroiled has continued to be a topic of interest this week. |
| 8 | John Wisden |
|
398,834 |  |
The star cricketer and creator of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack got a boost thanks to a Google Doodle on his 187th birthday on September 5. |
| 9 | Charlie Hunnam |
|
393,246 |  |
The English actor and Sons of Anarchy star saw his popularity soar after being cast in the title role of the film adaptation of 50 Shades of Grey. |
| 10 | Gareth Bale |
|
392,593 |  |
The Welsh footballer was just signed by Real Madrid for a reported 100 million euros ($133 million), an even more astronomical sum than that for the above Mesut Özil. |
The National Law Journal reported on September 9 that lawyer Susan L. Burke has been taking legal steps to discover the identity of Wikipedia editor Zujua. Zujua had edited her biography, allegedly adding misleading content about various lawsuits in the process:
| “ | Burke was hired in 2009 by the families of victims of shootings in Iraq to sue private security contractor Blackwater Inc., now known as Academi LLC. The cases settled in 2010. Around the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice was prosecuting Blackwater security guards for the killing of Iraqi civilians. In late 2009, a federal district judge dismissed the government's case, finding that prosecutors improperly used statements made by the defendants. The criminal case was later reinstated. In 2012, according to Burke's complaint, the Wikipedia editor Zujua edited Burke's page, adding a section incorrectly tying the ruling dismissing the government's case to Burke's civil lawsuit. Burke removed the section. Several months later, a Wikipedia editor known as CapBasics359 removed Burke's edits and repeatedly republished the inaccurate information over Burke's objections, Burke alleged. "The frustration of dealing with Wikipedia led her to file the suit, mostly in an effort to find out who was doing it," said Burke's lawyer, William O'Neil of The O'Neil Group in Washington. |
” |
Zujua's edits to Burke's biography are still available in the page history, and appear to bear out her complaint.
The Wikimedia Foundation itself is protected from legal responsibility for Wikipedia content by the safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The legal protection of the Act has been tested several times in court, most notably in 2008 in Bauer v. Wikimedia. Legal responsibility for edits rests solely with the editor who makes them. Burke therefore subpoenaed the Wikimedia Foundation for information on Zujua and CapBasics359 after filing suit in September 2012. CapBasics359 did not contest the subpoena, but all Burke's lawyers learned was that the edits had been made by an unknown person from a Starbucks in California.
Zujua on the other hand challenged the subpoena. The Center for Individual Rights (see their comments on the case) argued on Zujua's behalf that his edits were protected free speech about an issue involving a public figure: "We view this as having the effect of chilling the free speech rights of other Wikipedia editors who will hesitate to edit on matters of public concern for fear of being sued if they make a mistake."
The judge, however, disagreed:
| “ | District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Maurice Ross sided with Burke in January. Ross found that Zujua failed to prove the Wikipedia edits constituted protected speech, since Burke wasn't a public figure. Moreover, the judge said, Zujua hadn't shown his statements weren't commercially motivated—another factor under the anti-SLAPP law—and that Burke had proved she was likely to succeed. | ” |
Zujua has appealed. Arguments were scheduled to be heard in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals later this month—first of all, to decide whether Zujua in fact has the right to appeal the decision—but according to a September 12 post on the blog of the Legal Times, the court has asked for additional briefs and said it would reschedule the hearing.
After positive coverage in the past weeks (see Signpost coverage two weeks ago and last week), Fox News, FrontPage Magazine and Patheos.com took a more skeptical view of FemTechNet's "Storming Wikipedia" this week, portraying it as an effort to insert feminist and left-wing propaganda into Wikipedia, rather than an effort aimed at addressing Wikipedia's existing gender imbalance.
Fox News quoted Katherine Timpf, a reporter for CampusReform.org, "They're more concerned with making it politically correct than factually correct. This is the opposite of what [students] should be taught."
Gene Veith on patheos.com asked,
| “ | What if Christians were to storm Wikipedia, writing their thinking into the entries? I assume that would not be academically acceptable. (Would it be theologically acceptable, since Christianity holds to objective truth and doesn't need to be advanced by propaganda, as radical ideologies do? Or should Christians also storm Wikipedia?)
I wonder which ideologies would be an acceptable basis for re-writing according to the prestigious universities offering academic credit for this. Could there be a course storming Wikipedia from the perspective of Marxists? (I suspect that would be all right. ) Or libertarians? (I don't think so.) Or animal rights activists? (Of course.) Or political conservatives? (That would be corporate manipulation!) Wouldn't contributors who push an ideological agenda be the death of Wikipedia? The Bastille was not just stormed; it was destroyed. |
” |
FrontPage Magazine published two pieces commenting on the initiative, "Wikipedia and left's propaganda innovations" by Daniel Greenfield and "Colleges recruiting students to propagandize Wikipedia" by Ben Shapiro.
An article on TheDrum.com published on August 27 reported that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), a professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK, has appointed Alastair McCapra, the current Wikimedia UK Secretary, as its new chief executive, replacing Jane Wilson.
The appointment, due to become effective in November 2013, has been discussed at the Wikimedia UK Watercooler page and on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Wales said,
| “ | It is obviously a conflict of interest and clearly demands a choice between one or the other. There is no shame in that—such is the nature of nonprofit work. But especially for Wikimedia UK, with a history of problems in this area, it's absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt something that has to be handled with the utmost defensiveness about the reputation of the organization. I trust that Alastair will do the right thing. | ” |
Alastair McCapra has posted a statement and a further response at the Wikimedia UK Watercooler, stating that "... my commitment to working for WMUK is undimmed, I wish to continue to serve on the Board and don't feel, on the basis of what has been said above, that there is a strong case for my not doing so."
In an article on MarketingLand.com, writer Danny Sullivan asserts that Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"—anyone who is not the subject of the article, that is.
He proposes that Wikipedia should include a "right to reply" box that would allow subjects of biographical articles to correct misinformation about themselves, and further suggests that Wikipedia should introduce verified identities, following the example of Twitter, Google and Facebook—and indeed the German Wikipedia, which has operated a user verification scheme for some time now. This, Sullivan argues, would enable biography subjects to claim their "right to reply" box.
Responding to the idea of verified identities, Wikimedia Foundation Product Manager Steven Walling said on Twitter that "Orgs like TW, FB, GOOG have way more money and manpower to throw at it, and they still fail all the time."
Told by Walling that subjects are always free to use the talk page, Sullivan countered that "Talk pages aren't friendly to Wikipedia outsiders". Walling conceded that "Improving usability and friendliness of discussion pages is a key project for us this year" (referencing Wikipedia:Flow); Sullivan responded that he hoped his idea would be given consideration:
| “ | Personally, I'd hope to see a Right Of Reply area as part of those changes. However you do them, the point is that the subject can add details they feel make sense, directly, without having to figure out the arcane and strange world of the Wikipedia—or hoping that some third-party talking to them percolates into the page. | ” |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Opinion
The deadline for proposals to the Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) volunteer committee on Meta will pass on 30 September. The program is designed to fund projects that tackle long-term problems and have a significant editing community impact; it has previously supported solutions like The Wikipedia Library, which improves Wikipedian access to online reference sources like JSTOR (see Signpost coverage).
The WMF grantmaking scheme was introduced in January 2013 after a community consultation-period in late 2012. It aims to enable volunteers—individuals or in teams up to four—to tackle chronic on-wiki problems. The funding period is six months, with an opportunity to renew it for six more; it is capped at US$30k, which can be used for living costs and expenses like travel and project materials.
Interested users can either submit complete proposals or outline rough ideas in an open collaborative space, IdeaLab, which is designed to help think through and improve potential projects together with the committee and other community members. The committee itself is composed of eighteen community members from several different projects and advises the WMF's grantmaking department. The English Wikipedia's Anne Delong, Pine, Hahc21, Steven Zhang, and Ocaasi—himself a grantee last round—are among them.
Upcoming topics for review include an attempt to create a standardized way to handle backlog pages for WikiProjects on Wikipedia and introducing a mechanism to export content into LaTeX. However, proposals with technical focus have to be able to deliver on their own and cannot rely on the WMF's tech-departmental resources, due to its narrowed focus on key projects like VisualEditor and the upcoming Flow project—which aims to replace talk pages and is currently undergoing community consultation on MediaWiki. At the time of writing, 12 draft ideas, mostly aiming at improved outreach in developing countries like Bangladesh and Uganda, are under development in the IdeaLab. One formal proposal has already been filed.
The community comment period on IEG proposals ends on 22 October, while the committee will review both the ideas and community input on them until 19 November. Based on the findings and recommendations, the WMF will announce its funding decisions on 15 December and distribute resources in early 2014.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/In focus
Discussion over the Manning title dispute was off to a running start as evidence and workshop phases continued in the Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming dispute. The Infoboxes case closed with topic bans for two users, and a recommendation for community discussion of infoboxes.
The evidence and workshop phases are now open in the Manning naming dispute case. 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 scope of the case has been described as "broad": the committee is "willing to review evidence regarding any aspect of the naming dispute in question." There is particular interest in evidence regarding derogatory statements towards transgendered individuals, accusations of transphobia, whether WP:BLP concerns are being handled properly, and evidence of possible misuse of admin tools.
The evidence phase closes 19 September, and the workshop phase closes 26 September. A proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 3 October 2013.
The Infoboxes case was closed. Arbitrators agreed unanimously that infoboxes are neither required nor discouraged, and that decisions regarding infoboxes should be made by consensus on an article-by-article basis. They also recommended a community-wide discussion on infoboxes. Findings regarding conduct were passed for four users. In addition two users received topic bans: Pigsonthewing (also known as Andy Mabbett) was indefinitely banned from using or discussing infoboxes, and Gerda Arendt was restricted from discussing or adding infoboxes to articles but not from participation in broader policy discussions.
The following remedies were announced by the committee:
- Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
- Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
- Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
- Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
- All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.
The proposed findings of fact against Smerus were added to the case two weeks after the workshop had closed, after members of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement complained that the decision as written was too one-sided, that one-sided rulings "never calm things down", and that anti-box editors "deserve smacking".
Since little or no evidence had been submitted against these editors, a request was made for more diffs. Since the evidence and workshop phases were already closed, there was no discussion of this new evidence. Smerus offered to provide diffs if an arbitrator was willing to take them into consideration, but did not receive a response. While no centralized discussion took place on the case pages, comments elsewhere speculated that "ArbCom wanted to punish two users from each side of the dispute to demonstrate fairness".
A similar situation occurred in the Tea Party movement case (see Signpost coverage), when fourteen editors were proposed for topic bans after discussion had already closed in the evidence and workshop phases. However, while there was no centralized discussion in that case, the discussion did continue on various arbitrators' talk pages. In a post-mortem on that case, concern was expressed that "anything that might end up in the proposed decision should, first, be displayed at the workshop… because it gives the Committee a chance to get their gut feelings reviewed by editors outside the Committee."
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Humour
