Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/From the editors
It's been a grim few weeks. It says something that formerly arresting crises like the war in Ukraine, Boko Haram and the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, despite still being ongoing, have fallen out of the top 10 to make way for the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak and the equally if not more intense conflict against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, whose recent targeting of the Yazidis has spurred the usually war-wary Barack Obama to action. Our users largely sought escape through movies, as Hollywood looked set to have one of its most profitable Augusts ever. Guardians of the Galaxy generated a massive amount of interest on the list, as people sought background information on the relatively unknown Marvel property.
For the full top 25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions.
As prepared by Serendipodous, for the week of August 3 to 9, 2014, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most viewed pages, were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ebola virus disease | 
|
2,418,063* |  |
Since it was discovered in 1976, the Ebola virus has killed 2,541 people. Compare that statistic to those of a certain other African virus discovered 5 years later, and one realises that a mite of perspective is desirable when discussing epidemics. Ebola is not particularly contagious, many of its more horrific effects have been exaggerated (it does not actually liquefy your internal organs) and it isn't even the most fatal viral disease (that would be rabies). But its lack of treatment, rapid onset and associated images of blood and agony have given Ebola the kind of apocalyptic power that dwellers in previous centuries gave to the plague. And all the perspective in the world will not downplay the seriousness of the current outbreak, which is already one of the longest on record, the first to cross borders, and responsible for more than a third of the above deaths. Our viewers have apparently caught the panic bug, as views to this page are up 16% on last week.
*Includes hits for the Ebola redirect page. |
| 2 | Guardians of the Galaxy (film) | 
|
1,033,416 |  |
Holding steady at #2, this 2014 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics series opened in the UK on 31 July and the United States on 1 August. As of 10 August, the film's worldwide earnings are just under $240 million. While aided by a rapturous critical reception (it was the third best-reviewed film of the summer, according to Rotten Tomatoes), it fell a steep 67% at its second weekend at the US box office. It remains to be seen whether strong word of mouth will see it through to the end. |
| 3 | John Venn | 
|
769,330 |  |
The English logician and inventor of the Venn diagram got a Google Doodle on his 170th birthday on 4 August. |
| 4 | Tomato soup | 
|
727,310 |  |
Not the sort of topic one would expect to be sitting alongside blockbuster films, deadly epidemics and vicious conflicts, but there does seem to be a reason for it: a minor controversy has erupted online over rumours that Campbells' iconic version actually contains animal products, to the point where Campbell's had to issue an official denial this week. |
| 5 | Yazidi |
|
481,326 |  |
This fascinating ethno-religious group, neither Christian, Muslim nor Jew, but a separate branch of the Abrahamic tree that blends monotheism with Zoroastrianism and the religions of ancient Mesopotamia, have gained worldwide attention at a moment of particular peril, as they face expulsion from their ancient home in Iraq at the brutal hands of the Islamic State. |
| 6 | Deaths in 2014 | 
|
386,611 |  |
The list of deaths in the current year is always a popular article. |
| 7 | Star-Lord |
|
384,340 | .jpg) |
The lead character from Marvel Comics' relatively obscure superhero team, played by Chris Pratt (pictured) in the 2014 film, has been largely unknown to the public at large, at least until the aforementioned film started blasting boxoffice records. leading many to learn of his history for the first time. |
| 8 | Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) |
|
373,093 |  |
Well, it seems that all the fanboy crying about the trailer aping The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the casting of Megan Fox as April O'Neil, and Michael Bay ruining their childhood was pretty much for show, as the new TMNT movie made $65 million in its opening weekend. Even adjusted for inflation, that's still 70% higher than the Turtles managed in 1990, at the peak of their fame. Doubtless the popularity of Nickelodeon's recent TV reboot helped, but post-GenX nostalgia no doubt played a role as well. |
| 9 | Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant |
|
358,274 |  |
This almost absurdly brutal jihadist group, which proudly posts mass executions it carries out on Twitter, has been disowned even by al-Qaeda. Nonetheless it has managed to carve out a "caliphate" for itself currently about the size of Pennsylvania from what is supposed to be Iraq and Syria. Until now it has met with remarkably little opposition, but now the US is stepping in with airstrikes to help the overburdened Kurds. |
| 10 |
|
355,751 | .JPG) |
A perennially popular article. |
The Observer reported (August 2) that Google would "restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new 'right to be forgotten' legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia." This was followed by a profile of Jimmy Wales the day after, detailing his opposition to the legislation. The BBC, The Daily Telegraph and others followed with their own reports on the Wikipedia link Google have removed.
The Wikimedia Foundation receives notifications from Google on the pages in question, and decided to make these public as part of its transparency reporting. The pages affected included:
The removal of a Google search result link does not affect the existence of an item on Wikipedia, and searches made on google.com, Google's US site, remain unaffected.
An AfD for the Gerry Hutch biography was closed as Keep per the Snowball clause.
.jpg)
The New York Times and The Washington Post were among the first to comment (August 6) on the Wikimedia Foundation's first transparency report, which details requests for user data, content alteration and takedown that the Foundation has received. Further reports appeared in The Guardian, with strong quotes from Jimmy Wales, Geoff Brigham and Lila Tretikov describing the legislation as Orwellian and tyrannical, and in The Daily Telegraph, which focused on the Wikimedia Foundation's refusal – referenced in the transparency report – to delete a monkey's "selfie" from Wikimedia Commons. The image was prominently displayed at Wikimania, and a number of Wikipedians, including Jimmy Wales, took selfies of themselves next to the picture. The Foundation argues that the photographer who set up the equipment cannot claim copyright, as a monkey operated the camera.
The story went on to attract attention in many other publications, with some legal experts questioning and others endorsing the Foundation's reasoning; a Commons deletion discussion was closed as Keep.
Wildlife photographer David Slater put his side of the story on Technology.ie and ITN. He asserts that the Foundation's legal reasoning is based on tabloid reports from 2011 that took liberties with the facts of how the images came about, which he described in 2011 on his website. He told Amateur Photographer that he set up the shot, mounting the camera on a tripod:
| “ | Slater says that, at one stage, a monkey did steal the camera and run away with it, but he claims the picture in question was taken after he had set it up on his tripod. Whether or not he set up the shoot could be key to any ensuing legal battle, says photography rights lawyer Charles Swan. Swan told Amateur Photographer (AP): "European copyright law requires a photograph to be the author's 'own intellectual creation'. In simple terms, the author has to leave his "mark" on the image. If a photographer sets up a shot, selecting the background etc, with some mechanism (eg. infrared or shutter release) for an animal to trigger the photograph, that is more likely to be considered an original artistic work with the photographer as the author. If he has set up the picture and the monkey has just clicked the shutter, then that could be his copyright, if the resulting picture is what he set up. Who releases the shutter is neither here nor there in that scenario. It's all down to whether it's your picture, or a random picture taken by a monkey – which means there's no copyright at all.' | ” |
The tripod set-up was also referenced in a 2011 article in The Guardian, the first quality newspaper to run the story at the time.
Amateur Photographer further reported on August 11 that Slater has struck a deal with "Picanova, a German printing company that plans to give away a canvas print of the monkey, worth £27.40, to anyone visiting its website. Slater says a 'significant percentage' of what he receives from Picanova will go towards the animal's conservation. Picanova has pledged to donate £1 to a Sulawesi black macaques conservation project for every print ordered."
Slater says he has been in touch with a number of lawyers in both the UK and the US; it looks likely that the case will go to court. (Andreas Kolbe)
The Guardian published a number of articles timed to coincide with Wikimania, in addition to the two mentioned above. One (August 6) was a profile of Lila Tretikov, which noted some of her early troubles in her role as Executive Director. This was followed by an unusually critical assessment of Wikipedia in an editorial titled "The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth" (August 7). Noting the drop in editors since 2007, the problem of "self-selecting cliques", and that Wikipedia seemed to lavish more care on a list of pornographic actresses than on a list of women writers, The Guardian opined:
| “ | The deep problem for Wikipedia is that an encyclopedia must not just be accurate in its treatment of factual subjects. It must also have sound judgment about what matters. The apparently insatiable demands of the public for lists is a plea to know what is important in a world of trivia. That's a judgment that Wikipedia hoped to avoid, or to render "objective", but it can't in reality be evaded. Notability is a necessarily subjective quality, which doesn't make it arbitrary nor mean that it doesn't exist.
It matters that Wikipedia should get better. For one thing, it has killed off all the competition. People are no longer willing to pay a premium for the views of experts and rival encyclopedias have shrivelled off the web. Like it or not, Wikipedia is now the starting point and all too often the terminus, of almost any attempt to research online. The problem of ensuring that collaboration among volunteers will produce accurate information can be solved: online discussion works very well to produce answers to questions that have clearly right answers. Computer programming, for example, would be almost impossible without the resources supplied by Google and Stack Exchange. But much of the world's most valuable knowledge is not of that sort, and is lost when it is treated as if it were. The real danger of Wikipedia is not that it contains errors of fact, but that it reinforces a flawed understanding of knowledge. The dream of freedom became rule by a thousand Gradgrinds. |
” |
There were three further Guardian pieces the same day. One asked, "Whose truth is Wikipedia guarding? This vast tree of knowledge is nurtured predominantly by young white western males with a slight personality defect". The second was a profile of Wikimedia UK chief John Davies, who pointed out that the "UK produces 20% of all articles" in Wikipedia, while the third noted that "Wikipedia edits made by government sought to minimise high-profile killings".
The following day, August 8, an article by Julia Powles in The Guardian said, "Jimmy Wales is wrong: we do have a personal right to be forgotten"; there was also a profile of Erik Möller and Wikipedia Zero, and Dan Gillmore, who spoke at Wikimania, invited people to "waste a day on Wikipedia. It's good for the future of humanity."
This was followed by John Naughton's article "Wikipedia isn't perfect, but as a model it's as good as it gets" (August 10) and a piece on "Histropedia" (August 11), a "tool to visualise history unveiled at Wikimania." (Andreas Kolbe)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Accessnow.org have raised questions over whether Wikipedia Zero, the Wikimedia Foundation program to provide free access to Wikipedia to Internet users in the developing world, violates net neutrality.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation stated its views on the issue on July 24, saying:
| “ | The zero rating of a Internet service is negotiated between the content provider and the network, and in most cases the terms of this negotiation are kept secret. An exception is the non-profit Wikipedia, which although certainly also a big Web property, does operate transparently in its negotiations with providers, and neither pays nor receives payment in exchange for its zero rating.
It goes without saying that users will be much more inclined to access a zero rated service than one for which they need to pay, and that this tilts the playing field in favor of the zero rated content owner. On its face, this isn't neutral at all. Yet some have argued that it is worth allowing poor consumers to access at least part of the Internet, even if they are shut out from accessing the rest of it because they can't afford to do so. However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for decades to come. Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or billions) of first-time Internet users. [...] Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the digital divide. But do you know what most stakeholders agree is a better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we can foster through rules that reduce the power of telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking. This is the vision of net neutrality that EFF is working towards, both in the United States and around the world. We firmly believe that all the world's citizens deserve access to an open, neutral and secure Internet, in all its chaotic, offensive and wonderful glory. Whilst we appreciate the intent behind efforts such as Wikipedia Zero, ultimately zero rated services are a dangerous compromise. |
” |
This was followed by a Wikimedia Foundation blog post by Erik Möller (August 1) outlining the operating principles of Wikipedia Zero—no exchange of payment, no selling of Wikipedia Zero as part of a bundle, no exclusive rights granted to any carrier, and openness to collaboration with other public-interest sites. Möller argued,
| “ | These principles are designed to balance the social impact of the program with Wikimedia's other values, including our commitment to net neutrality. We will continue working with the Wikimedia community and with net neutrality advocates to evolve the program's design, with the goal to make it possible to replicate these principles for other public interest projects in a manner fully consistent with net neutrality policy objectives.
We believe that as the world comes online, ensuring free access to important resources like Wikipedia is a social justice issue, as illustrated by the petition by South African students. We believe that free access to public interest resources can be provided in a manner that keeps the playing field level and avoids net neutrality issues. The Internet has tremendous potential to bring education and services to people for free. Beyond Wikipedia, this includes potentially life-saving access to health and emergency services or disaster relief. |
” |
Accessnow.org's Raegan MacDonald strongly disagreed with Möller's reasoning:
| “ | In making the case for Zero, Moeller argued that the Wikimedia Foundation is committed to net neutrality—the notion that all online data should be treated equally—and that Zero doesn't violate this fundamental concept of the open internet. We respectfully disagree. We believe that Zero clearly violates net neutrality and is an attack on the future of the open internet.
Wikimedia is not alone in forging "zero-rating" deals with telcos. Facebook has also struck deals to offer low-data versions of its services in both developed and developing countries. But Wikimedia argues that unlike Facebook Zero, its service is non-commercial, and therefore deserves a special Wikipedia carve-out because no money is changing hands in exchange for prioritization over other services. No money, no net neutrality violation. This reasoning fails to pass the smell test. The company's own recently updated terms of service recognize that payment and benefit need not be monetary. In fact, Wikimedia is using its well-known trademarks as currency in deals with telecom partners as it seeks to acquire more users via Wikipedia Zero. Current users understand that the revolutionary nature of the internet rests in its breadth and diversity. The internet is more than Wikipedia, Facebook, or Google. But for many, zero-rated programs would limit online access to the "walled gardens" offered by the Web heavyweights. For millions of users, Facebook and Wikipedia would be synonymous with "internet." In the end, Wikipedia Zero would not lead to more users of the actual internet, but Wikipedia may see a nice pickup in traffic. [...] Wikipedia Zero and similar services are playing into the hands of incumbent telecoms, who already have a stranglehold on markets around the world. Zero-rated offerings make these telcos' services more attractive, solidifying their already overly-dominant positions in most markets, and further advancing the idea that websites should have to pay extra to reach users, which once again runs afoul of net neutrality principles and further hurts the development of online content and services. Wikimedia has always been a champion for open access to information, but it's crucial to call out zero-rating programs for what they are: Myopic deals that do great damage to the future of the open internet. |
” |
The debate is sure to continue. (Andreas Kolbe)
E J Dickson from The Daily Dot reported (July 29) her amazement that a joke about children's book character Amelia Bedelia that she and her friend Evan had added to Wikipedia more than five years prior was still in the article—and that in the intervening years, it had come to be quoted as far away as Taiwan by an English professor, cited in "innumerable blog posts and book reports", and was now even spread by the current author of the children's book series, who had taken over writing duties when his aunt Peggy Parish, the originator of the series, had died.
| “ | It was total bullshit: We knew nothing about Amelia Bedelia or the author of the series, Peggy Parish, let alone that she'd been a maid in Cameroon or collected many hats. It was the kind of ridiculous, vaguely humorous prank stoned college students pull, without any expectation that anyone would ever take it seriously. "I feel like we sort of did it with the intention of seeing how fast it would take to get it taken down" by Wikipedia's legion of editors, Evan says.
But apparently, it hadn't been taken down at all. There it was, five and a half years later, being tweeted as fact by relatively well-known members of the New York City media establishment. [...] Ultimately, what I learned from my inadvertent Wikipedia hoax was not that Wikipedia itself isn't reliable, but that so many people believe it is. My lie—because that's what it was, really—was repeated by dozens of sources, from bloggers to academics to journalists. |
” |
Even though the vandalism was over five years ago, a Wikipedia administrator blocked the IP address responsible for the edit after Dickson's article appeared. John E. McIntyre of the Baltimore Sun lamented that "a lie is halfway around the world before truth has got its boots on". (See also How many more hoaxes will Wikipedia find? and the related book review in the July 30 issue of the Signpost.) (Andreas Kolbe)
On July 11, John Seigenthaler died at the age of 86. Obituaries in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Tennessean, The New Yorker, and many other media outlets describe him as a crusading newspaper editor and "one of the towering figures in modern American journalism." Seigenthaler's eventful life included spending 42 years at the Nashville newspaper The Tennessean, working for US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and getting beaten with the Freedom Riders in Mississippi, being founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the First Amendment Center, writing books on US President James K. Polk and the Watergate scandal, and even saving a would-be bridge jumper from suicide as a young reporter. Seigenthaler is a significant figure in the history of Wikipedia due to the 2005 Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident (see previous Signpost coverage on the event and its aftermath). Following the creation of a fallacious Wikipedia biography by an IP editor which falsely accused him of being a suspect in the assassinations of both U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert F. Kennedy, Seigenthaler brought media attention to bear on the issue of what Seigenthaler called "Internet character assassination". In the wake of the controversy, Wikipedia enacted numerous significant changes, including the wide-ranging biographies of living persons policy and preventing IP editors from creating new articles. The Nashville Scene presents a conversation with Seigenthaler regarding his experience with Wikipedia. (Gamaliel)
The Bangalore Mirror and the New Indian Express reported on demands for a police investigation into vandalism to the Wikipedia article of renowned Indian actor and politician Ambareesh. Ambareesh starred in 208 films before turning to politics and currently serves as Minister of Housing for Karnataka. On June 16 and 17, an IP editor vandalized a number of articles related to Indian film, including slurs about Ambareesh alleging that he was an insane alcoholic whose "TV interviews offer comic relief to those who are fans of other actors." The vandalism to Ambareesh's article was not removed until July 5. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) promised that "We will take up the issue with the cyber police." (Gamaliel)
Minnesota Public Radio reported on the discussion regarding the notability and proposed deletion of an article about Cam Winton, fourth place candidate in the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election with 11 percent of the vote. MPR spoke with User: Antonymous, who added the proposed deletion template to the article on July 17, and Winton, who has edited the article as User:CamWinton. Winton's article was created in 2013 by User:Mnmln, who has edited no other articles and, according to Winton, was a friend of his who created the article to promote Winton's campaign. Last year, the article was submitted to Did You Know by a different user and appeared on the front page of Wikipedia on October 24, 2013, twelve days before the November 5 election. Following the publication of MPR's story, the proposed deletion template was removed by another user on July 21. (Gamaliel)
.jpg)
Actor and teen heartthrob Ansel Elgort (Divergent, The Fault in Our Stars) lamented on Twitter on July 12 "I would do anything to get my wikipedia page to not say i am a model. just because ive done photo shoots for acting like any other actor [...] doesnt make me a model. can one of you amazing people take that shit off there? I will be forever thankful" [1] The listing of Elgort's occupation as "model" was inserted into the article in February by an editor who also added a section titled "Modeling Work" which included information about these photo shoots. When Elgort tweeted, the article was already semi-protected following an edit war over who got to hold the occupation of Elgort's girlfriend, so the talk page was inundated with edit requests to the point that one editor joked "The next IP that makes an edit request should have a needle stuck in his or her eye". Protection expired and over the next two days, established editors argued whether or not the sources supported calling Elgort a model while they clashed with IP editors and new accounts over the issue, some trying to assist Elgort and others to prolong the edit war by inserting "model" as occupation again. The edit war seems to have died down following further protection and a growing consensus by established editors that the occupation of "model" seemed inappropriate. Cosmopolitan reported on Elgort's dilemma and he tweeted a link to their article with the comment "Hey guys!! No one ever buy @Cosmopolitan again! [...] and you you follow them unfollow them! They write stupid articles like this..." (Gamaliel)
Andrew Jacobs, the New York Times correspondent for China, wrote in the Times on August 2nd about a sentence in his Wikipedia article claiming that "Since 2008, Jacobs has written over 400 articles, the vast majority of which portray China in a negative light," which was first inserted into the article in November 2013 and has been repeatedly been removed and restored. Jacobs connects the sentence to a general sentiment in China against Western media and "hostile foreign forces". The account inserting that sentence was indefinitely blocked for violating the Biographies of living persons policy on May 25. Following the publication of Jacobs' piece in the Times, Jacobs' biography was submitted to Articles for deletion; it was ruled a "keep" on August 10. (Gamaliel)
.jpg)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Opinion
Wikimedia Foundation staff members have now been granted superpowers that would allow them to override community consensus. The new protection level came as a response to attempts of German Wikipedia administrators to implement a community consensus on the new Media Viewer. "Superprotect" is a level above full protection, and prevents edits by administrators.
A community Meinungsbild, or Request for Comment, resulted in agreement that the new Media Viewer should be deactivated for now, until such time as existing problems had been fixed, but that logged-in users should have the ability to switch it on in their preferences. But when an administrator on the German Wikipedia attempted to turn off the Media Viewer, the Wikimedia Foundation turned it back on, using the new superprotect user right to lock in the WMF's version. In turn, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller was blocked for a month on the German Wikipedia for ignoring the RfC outcome.
Developments surrounding the Media Viewer have been reported in the German press at "'Superprotect': Wikimedia behält das letzte Wort bei Wikipedia" (Super Protect: Wikimedia has the last word at Wikipedia), "Superschutz: Wikimedia-Stiftung zwingt deutschen Nutzern Mediaviewer auf" (Superprotection: Wikimedia Foundation forcing Media Viewer on German users), and "Wikipedia: Superprotect-Streit spitzt sich zu" (Wikipedia: Superprotect dispute escalates).
The German Wikipedia community responded by starting a "user survey", as the Foundation had already said it would ignore an RfC/Meinungsbild; it is scheduled to run until 21 August. In the first 72 hours of the survey, over 500 users voted for the main proposal to remove superprotect from the German Wikipedia.
| “ | [W]e've clarified in a number of venues that use of the MediaWiki: namespace to disable site features is unacceptable. If such a conflict arises, we're prepared to revoke permissions if required. | ” |
| — Erik Möller | ||
The four proposals, which are all passing by wide margins, are:
The Media Viewer technical group stated publicly on the German Wikipedia—before the RfC even started—that they would not implement a rollback, so the actions of the WMF should not have come as a surprise.
An individual with knowledge of the situation told the Signpost that there have been a significant number of valid complaints about the Media Viewer, but the technical group has committed to tackling them by September. Furthermore, the WMF has implemented a separate system for all their tests ("Beta features"), where the technical department can experiment with new projects and asks for community feedback. Logged-in users will see it next to the preferences section. While the beta was introduced right after the VisualEditor was removed as the default from the English Wikipedia, it was disabled for the last nine months on the German Wikipedia—a consideration in the recent WMF actions on that site.
A request for comment at Commons has already resulted in the Media Viewer being disabled for logged-in viewers as the default.
A similar situation on the English Wikipedia resulted in the Arbitration Committee agreeing to open the Media Viewer RfC case. The ArbCom case has been inactive since the superprotect announcement. Interestingly, the evidence page has several links to usability tests done on the Media Viewer before it was released, including three videos (between 10–20 minutes each) to learn more about the understanding of reader experience the team developed before deploying the software: User 1, User 2, User 3.
Oddly, none of the users was ever able to click on the link to the file description page—something one would expect to need in order to use an image to write a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Serendipity
Erythrophobia is the fear of, or sensitivity to, the colour red. Recently, I have seen more and more erythrophobic Wikipedians; specifically, Wikipedians who are scared of red links. In Wikipedia's early days, red links were encouraged and well-loved, and when I started editing in 2006, this was still mostly the case. Jump forward to 2014, and many editors now have an aversion to red links.
In a few places, a dislike for red links has been codified. The featured list criteria require that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". The main page does not contain red links, even when they would otherwise be appropriate. Similarly, the featured portal criteria require that "[r]ed links are limited in number and restricted to aspects that encourage contribution". While these kinds of requirements are not found in the English Wikipedia's featured article criteria, they are found in the criteria on other Wikipedias.[1] Moving away from written guidelines, through participation in review processes, I have encountered numerous editors nervous to add red links to articles they've written, and editors who have asked me to remove red links from articles I have written.
The aversion some people feel to red links is at odds with our central guidelines on the subject. To summarise Wikipedia:Red link:
| “ | Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. | ” |
So, removing red links to topics which should have an article is contrary to our explicit guidelines on the topic, and red links should be added to articles where appropriate.
It might be clear by now that I like red links, and I share the view common on Wikipedia several years ago that red links are a really good thing. Red links serve many important roles on Wikipedia, and any sentiment against red links will reduce their effectiveness and damage Wikipedia.
So, if red links are such an important and positive part of Wikipedia, why do some people dislike them? There seem to be a few reasons, but all, I think, are mistaken.
I have mostly focused on discussing articles up until this point, but articles are not the only kinds of content on Wikipedia. The featured list criteria and the featured portal criteria both contain mentions of how red links should be limited. It is worth asking whether that is a good thing. Perhaps lists and portals serve a particular navigational purpose to which red links can be detrimental. However, disambiguation pages and navigation templates, both of which serve a navigational purpose, routinely contain red links; indeed, it is one of their advantages that they can contain red links, while categories cannot.
Given that portals and red links share an aim of encouraging contribution, they should surely go together naturally. Restricting red links to areas of the portal specifically geared towards encouraging contributions means that portals follow the lead of the main page, which is really a portal itself. That said, some portals do contain red links, so it seems that the criterion is not too strictly enforced.
As for featured lists, the potential consequences of a requirement that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked" are strange, if the criterion is properly enforced. An expert lichenologist could spend many hours producing a list of all known lichen species in Scandinavia. The list could contain all pertinent information, impeccably sourced to the most up-to-date literature on European lichen. Each species would warrant a link to its own article, but Wikipedia's coverage of lichen is a long way from complete. Would it really be right for us to deny this list featured status just because of the presence of red links? Surely not: red links are a part of Wikipedia, and a positive thing. This list would serve to encourage further work on Scandinavian lichens, and red links could only help with that.
"But wait," I hear you say. "That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with me?" Well, hopefully, you'll want to join me to bring red links back. There are three easy steps we can take.
And there we go. If we all take these simple steps, we can bring back red links, and all of the benefits they bring to Wikipedia. So, are you with me? Is it time to bring red links back into fashion?
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/In focus Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Arbitration report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Humour
