Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Traffic report
The radio show Little Atoms, broadcast weekly on London's Resonance FM, featured a lengthy conversation with journalist and author Johann Hari on its January 20 episode about his new book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs. In 2011, it was revealed that Hari had engaged in a spree of pseudonymous edits maligning other British journalists, accusing them of being anti-Semitic, homophobic, alcoholic, and supporters of Sarah Palin (see previous Signpost coverage). This, coupled with revelations of plagiarism, prompted Hari to return his prestigious Orwell Prize and leave The Independent. Before the book discussion, Hari and host Neil Denny briefly discussed the issue. Hari said
| “ | I did two things that were really awful things to do; one was when I interviewed people sometimes I would use material they had spoken elsewhere or written down and acted as if it had been said directly to me. And also on Wikipedia sometimes I would edit other people's entries under a pseudonym and I was horrible and nasty about some of them. Those are both awful things to do. | ” |
Denny asked if he would offer an apology specifically to two of his targets, Nick Cohen and Francis Wheen. Hari, who has previously published a public apology, and privately contacted some of his specific targets, asked Denny to deliver private letters of apology to the two men.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Opinion
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Serendipity
I have edited Wikipedia off and on for the past ten years. For as long as I have been a Wikipedia editor, there have been WikiProjects: sub-groups of the larger Wikipedia community dedicated to a particular subject matter or a certain task. WikiProjects are all over the map: some of them are dedicated to highly specific subjects; others are dedicated to high-level concepts like "biographies." Some WikiProjects have a very specific focus on encyclopedic content; others, like the Department of Fun, provide support in more indirect ways. There is a WikiProject for pretty much everyone, and if there isn't one for you, you can easily start one. In fact, they are so easy to start that we currently have over 2,000 WikiProjects.
Unfortunately, a proliferation of WikiProjects does not mean a proliferation of activity. Many WikiProjects that get started end up becoming inactive. What's happening? Several factors are at play. WikiProjects require significant effort to maintain, so they decline after their maintainers move on to do other things. Some arguments have been made that WikiProjects become less relevant as some subject areas get more complete coverage on Wikipedia. Others have tied the decline of WikiProjects to an overall decline of participation on Wikipedia.
Whatever the cause, WikiProjects are failing to live up to their potential. The English-language Wikipedia is huge. As with any large community, it can be hard for any one person to feel like he or she belongs. By grouping people together by their interests, WikiProjects have the potential to make Wikipedians feel like they are a part of a close-knit community. They can help Wikipedians of all levels of experience navigate our policies and procedures, ensuring that they are confident in their editing and that there is less cleanup work for the administrators. They have the potential to provide the social support that encourages newcomers to stick around and build our encyclopedia.
The potential WikiProjects have encouraged me to start WikiProject X, a new project funded by a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant that focuses on figuring out what makes some WikiProjects work and not others. Our research will focus on current WikiProjects and the subject areas they cover, determining where WikiProjects provide adequate support to the editing community and where they do not. I plan on interviewing many Wikipedians, including people who don't normally get involved on WikiProjects. I want to know what resources you need to support your editing.
Isarra, a Wikipedian and experienced MediaWiki designer, will lead our design effort. We will be drawing from our research data and other sources of inspiration, including the Teahouse and other existing WikiProjects. We should begin to think beyond static pages and lists. WikiProjects should make you feel engaged. They should put relevant information front and center, and always feel up to date. They should be easy to maintain, and no one should have to re-invent the wheel. They should be a safe space for users. They should make editing Wikipedia an easier and more satisfying experience for everyone.
This benefits more than just online users. I run many in-person editing events with my local Wikimedia chapter, usually organized around a specific theme. The experience of having a knowledgeable Wikipedia editor walk you through the ropes is difficult to replicate online. At the same time, there is only so much you can accomplish at a single event. I would like to be able to refer the people we train at our events to a WikiProject, where they can pick up where they left off. This would help bridge the gap between offline and online, where offline event organizers work with online participants from around the world, complementing each other's efforts. Very few WikiProjects are currently equipped to pull this off, but with the right tools, more should be able to do this.
We want to hear your perspective on this endeavor. We are collecting stories at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Stories and are recruiting people and WikiProjects for pilot testing at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots. You are also encouraged to sign up for our newsletter if you are interested in learning more.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/In focus
In the wake of the annual elections, 2015's arbitration committee consists of:
Additionally, outgoing arbitrators Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Timotheus Canens remain on the committee until the conclusion of the GamerGate case, which was opened during their terms. As has become customary over the years, the new committee has had plenty of work to do in its first few weeks, including several motions and clarification requests as well as three cases.
There are no pending case requests at the time of writing. Three cases remain open and one was closed by motion.
What started as an Internet row has developed into an extremely vitriolic dispute between a large number of Wikipedians and ultimately into one of the largest arbitration cases of recent times. Given the involvement of several prominent editors with lengthy track records (including involvement in multiple previous arbitration cases) and the sheer number of parties (27), the case is likely to be an important landmark with an impact reaching significantly beyond the GamerGate controversy article and its various daughter articles.
After repeated delays, the arbitrators' proposed decision was made public on 19 January (two days ahead of the revised target date), and the talk page was significantly re-structured to allow individual editors to make statements but to prevent threaded discussion. Among the proposed remedies, sitebans are proposed for five editors (two parties are currently indefinitely blocked), while other proposed remedies range from reminders and admonishments to topic bans, the breadth of which has been the subject of much discussion between arbitrators.
A much narrower case than GamerGate, but one which may also have important ramifications. The case concerns allegations that administrator Wifione (talk · contribs) has engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy to advance a public relations and reputation management campaign on Wikipedia, and that he has possibly abused his access or status as an administrator, particularly with regard to articles about and editors acting on behalf of competitors.
The evidence phase closed on 16 January and the case has now entered the workshop phase, which is open until 23 January. The target date for the proposed decision is 30 January.
Whereas in previous eras arbitration cases mainly revolved around geo-political conflicts such as Israel-Palestine, Eastern Europe, and the "Troubles", the hot topics of the current era appear to revolve around gender and sexuality, and this case is no exception. With ArbCom previously having adjudicated on disputes concerning abortion, the gender gap, sexology, and the Manning naming dispute, and the GamerGate case wrapping up, we now have a case about articles relating to the intersection of Christianity and sexuality (though the case scope was widened upon acceptance from Catholicism and homosexuality).
Although nothing on the scale of GamerGate, this is a relatively large case, with 13 named parties. The case is currently in the evidence phase, which remains open until 2 February, while the current target date for the proposed decision is 16 February. At the time of writing, only one editor has thus far presented evidence.
The Acupuncture case was accepted and closed by motion on 12 January. The motion authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, in addition to the existing discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science authorised in the 2006 Pseudoscience case.
lists.wikimedia.org).Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-21/Humour
