Dear Signpost readers,
Thank you for reading. We would appreciate your input about what you like about the Signpost and how we can improve. Please take this anonymous Qualtrics survey that we link below. We don't ask for your username, email, or real name. We appreciate your honest opinions. The survey may take five to ten minutes to complete.
Our thanks go to the Wikimedia Foundation's Learning and Evaluation Team for letting us use Qualtrics.
Sincerely,
Pine, Signpost Publication and Newsroom Manager
Reader comments
In the ongoing saga of Wifione allegedly using sockpuppets and his tools as an administrator to edit with a major conflict of interest, the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee is in the final stages of closing its case on the matter. With his proposals in the workshop receiving little support, he now faces significant sanctions from the committee. Wifione has already resigned his adminship under a cloud, and as of press time, ten arbitrators have voted in favor of a twelve-month site ban, at minimum, in addition to the desysopping. Many arbitrators discussed a so-called "Super Mario Problem"—essentially, conduct that would get a non-administrator banned only gets an administrator desysopped. Although Guerillero initially commented that "even keeping the 'Super Mario Problem' in mind, I do not feel that this reaches the level of a site ban," he later changed his vote on the site ban to support, noting that administrators should be held to a higher standard.
While a site ban appears to be a foregone conclusion at this point, arbitrators continue to discuss the wording of an associated restriction that would ostensibly remain in effect if Wifione returns to the project. The case appears to be nearing closure, and this is one case of alleged long-term abuse that the committee appears ready to put to rest. "Based upon duration, severity, etc.," wrote NativeForeigner while supporting a site ban, the "level of deception and manipulation of [point of view] rises to a very high level over a long period of time."
Wifione first edited in April 2009, racking up over 16,000 edits since. He became an administrator in September 2010, passing with about 80% in support.
Jimmy Wales will be one of the recipients of the 2015 Dan David Prize. First awarded in 2002 and administered by Tel Aviv University, the prize "recognizes and encourages innovative and interdisciplinary research that cuts across traditional boundaries and paradigms. It aims to foster universal values of excellence, creativity, justice, democracy and progress and to promote the scientific, technological and humanistic achievements that advance and improve our world." Each year winners are selected for their work affecting the past, present, and future in a different broad category for each time frame. A US$1 million prize is awarded to the winner or winners in each time frame. This year's categories and winners were:
| Past | Retrieving the Past: Historians and their Sources | Peter Brown, Alessandro Portelli |
| Present | The Information Revolution | Jimmy Wales |
| Future | Bioinformatics | Cyrus Chothia, David Haussler, Michael Waterman |
Last year, Wales shared a separate $1 million prize—the Knowledge Award—with Tim Berners-Lee, but was criticized for accepting money from the United Arab Emirates due to that nation's human rights abuses (see previous Signpost coverage). In a similar vein, an IP editor has asked Wales if he will turn down the award from an Israeli organization, though it remains to be seen if this award will attract as much criticism as the Knowledge Award.
In "The Wikipedia Ouroboros" in Slate, David Auerbach (Auerbachkeller) writes (February 5) that "the Internet finally ate itself". He comments on The Guardian article, since corrected, that made some factually inaccurate claims about the recently closed Gamergate arbitration case (see previous Signpost coverage). (Note: this author was a named party to that case and Auerbach himself had a long-running public spat with another named party, Ryulong.) Auerbach engages in a lengthy discussion of the process of "citogenesis", a neologism invented by Randall Munroe of the webcomic xkcd to refer to the circular reporting of incorrect information inserted into Wikipedia articles. Auerbach claims that "Wikipedia has a policy of 'Verifiability, not truth,' which means that citations, even wrong citations, trump all else." WP:VNT is an essay, not a policy, and Wikipedia policy does not require editors to cite information known to be inaccurate. Auerbach brings up the frequently cited example of Philip Roth and The Human Stain article. He inaccurately writes that Roth "tried to correct an error about one of his books", but Ironholds decisively showed in a 2012 blog post that Roth wanted to remove the observations of critics instead of factual inaccuracies (see previous Signpost coverage). Auerbach writes that "Wikipedia is dragging us all down to its level" through its propagation of "bad facts". While Wikipedia certainly has issues to address with accuracy and verification, he fails to make a case that journalistic errors in reporting and fact checking can be laid at its door.
The Star Tribune reports (February 5) on an edit war on the article for Edina, Minnesota when a novice editor repeatedly attempted to insert information regarding Edina's history as a sundown town. A relic of America's racist past, sundown towns were segregated places where African-Americans could not live and were forced to leave before sundown or be faced with harassment, violence, or lynching. Students in an African-American studies class at the University of Illinois taught by Professor James W. Loewen, author of Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (2005), were assigned the task of adding to a Wikipedia article the history of such racist discrimination to the article for a particular town. The student who chose Edina added the information about its past as a sundown town numerous times last year, but it was repeatedly removed. While the edit contained citations to a number of primary sources that were clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, such as an interview and an email message, other sources such as Loewen's book and webpage were removed as well.
The Star Tribune attributed the removals to Juno, and while Juno did remove much of the material in question, he told the Signpost that he "was not the first or only editor to deal with this". The center of the dispute appears to be the work of Professor Loewen, who has a PhD in sociology from Harvard University and is the author of eight books. Juno noted that editors have attempted to enter references to Loewen's work as early as 2009, well before the class discussed by the Star Tribune. Juno disputes the accuracy of Loewen's work in general and his discussion of Edina in particular, telling the Signpost that Loewen was "not a historian" and his work was "the recipient of media criticism for sloppy research" and "can not be considered a Reliable Source". Another editor supported Juno's assessment in 2009, but it is disputed in a current talk page discussion with other editors writing that he is "a well known, respected, and successful writer/scholar" and "a very reliable source on the subject".
The editors attempting to insert the material citing Loewen, including the student interviewed by the Star Tribune, did not participate in any talk page discussion and may not have even known that any discussion existed. Beyond brief edit summaries, it does not appear there was any attempt at further discussion between Juno and the student, such as links to or explanations of relevant policies or dispute resolution procedures. The student told the Star Tribune she gave up her attempts at editing at the end of the course. Juno told the Signpost "I probably should have reached out to one of the ips or pushed for dispute resolution but I honestly thought it was just the same person" who had been inserting the material since 2009.
The publication of the Star Tribune article attracted the interest of other Wikipedia editors and some of the information the student attempted to add has been restored to the article in modified form. A March editathon will be held at the Southdale Library in Edina.
At a January 23 TEDx event at the University of Nevada, reporter Sharyl Attkisson delivered a talk about astroturf and manipulation of media messages. (TEDx events employ the format of the renowned TED conferences but are otherwise completely independent.) Attkisson called Wikipedia "astroturf's dream come true" and alleged that Wikipedia editing was part of astroturfing and public relations efforts by pharmaceutical companies to create the illusion of a consensus that particular medications are safe and effective. She said:
| “ | Anonymous Wikipedia editors control and co-opt pages on behalf of special interests, they forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda, they skew and delete information in blatant violation of Wikipedia's own established policies with impunity, always superior to the poor schlubs who actually believe anyone could edit Wikipedia only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact or correcting a fact error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages and poof! sometimes within a matter of seconds you’ll find your edit is reversed. | ” |
While advocacy editing has long been a concern on Wikipedia (see, for example, last week's op-ed in the Signpost), Attkisson did not present specific evidence regarding editing by pharmaceutical companies, and the evidence she presented regarding Wikipedia's reliability was dubious. She recounted an inaccurate version of Philip Roth's 2012 complaint (see above) and claimed that a study showed that "Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time". This may be a reference to a 2014 study in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association which actually concluded that nine out of ten Wikipedia articles on the costliest medical conditions had factual errors. This conclusion was disputed by editors from WikiProject Medicine last year in an article called "Is Wikipedia's medical content really 90% wrong?" on the blog of the Cochrane Collaboration.
Attkison has previously alleged that the pharmaceutical industry has edited Wikipedia. In 2014, she wrote in an article on her website "They monitor and edit Wikipedia pages in an effort to downplay research that demonstrates associations between vaccines and autism, and to disparage those who investigate the links." In 2012, an editor purporting to be Attkison complained on the talk page of her Wikipedia article about citations and information in the article from critics who labeled her "anti-vaccine".
The most recent in a series of Canadian investigations into Wikipedia editing from government IP addresses comes from the Department of National Defence. The Ottawa Citizen reports (February 9) that the DND are investigating edits to the article Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons which appear to attempt to cast doubt on her alleged sexual assault and subsequent suicide. Parsons' 2013 suicide at the age of 17, which her parents blame on Internet harassment following her alleged gang rape at 15 by four teenage boys, caused a nationwide outcry against cyberbullying. The editing may have legal implications as well, because in Canada, a publication ban is in place to prevent the revelation of any identifying information about Parsons, including her name, due to the fact that the criminal case involved child pornography.
Last summer, Dean Del Mastro, then-MP representing Peterborough in the House of Commons of Canada, demanded an investigation into vandalism of his Wikipedia biography (see previous Signpost coverage). In November, Del Mastro resigned, but the fallout from the investigation continues. The Citizen reports (February 11) that the investigation narrowed down the source of the edits, which labeled Del Mastro a "Dealer of Used Cars with Bent Frames" who "formerly sold crippled mules" and a "perjurer", to a small number of computers, some used by visitors to the Library of Parliament and others by journalists in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. As a result, journalists will now be required to use a login and password to access Parliamentary computers.
In the blog of the journal Social Text, Michael Mandiberg (Theredproject) writes of the Gamergate dispute on Wikipedia as "a clash of online civilizations" (February 1). The Wikipedia model of peer production—"utopian vision of simpatico collaboration, controlled through social and technical mechanisms"—clashes with the more Anonymous-like group who "are not interested in Wikipedia per se, other than to try to control the message on that page." He notes that despite the "failure of the system" to address off-Wiki behavior, "peer-production seems to manage to persevere" at the Gamergate controversy article. But, he concludes: "This perseverance comes at an emotional cost, measured in stress and fear: stress felt by the editors who are willing to log the hours reverting the trolls who attempt to insert clauses that cast doubt and skew the content towards the pro-GamerGate position; and fear and anxiety that the anonymous horde might choose them as their target next to dox, intimidate IRL and harass on wiki."
In Overland, Jason Wilson asks "Are misogynists running Wikipedia?" (February 11). He writes that the Gamergate dispute on Wikipedia is important because "Wikipedia possesses considerable cultural authority", citing poll results that 64 percent of Britons trusted Wikipedia entries more than any media outlet and a Pew Research Center survey that the more educated a person, the more likely they are to use Wikipedia. Wilson connects Gamergate to largely right-wing and male fringe groups like men's rights activists, pickup artists, and race realists and notes their early adoption of technological means to spread their messages, such as a white nationalist BBS founded in 1984. Wilson concludes "To go along with the liberal assumption that new technologies lead us only in the direction of collaboration and consensus is not only to deny this history, but the lived experience of those who are pursued by reactionary culture warriors. The left should affirm the persistence and importance of political conflict online, and develop strategies for combatting the right in those places where fact and history are rendered."
Two featured articles were promoted this week.
Three featured lists were promoted this week.
.jpg)
Twenty-five featured pictures were promoted this week.
Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves
Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe:
All mimsy were ye borogoves;
And ye mome raths outgrabe.
Es brillig war. Die schlichten Toven
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben:
Und aller-mümsige Burggoven
Die mohmen Räth' ausgraben.
Mae'n brydgell ac mae'r brochgim stwd
Yn gimblo a gyrian yn y mhello:
Pob cólomrws yn féddabwd,
A'r hoch oma'n chwibruo.
,_koning_der_Nederlanden,_Nicolaas_Pieneman,_1856_-_Rijksmuseum.jpg)
Wikipedia presents itself as a repository for the world, and while that is a noble sentiment, it is still true that, as far as viewers are concerned, the English language Wikipedia is very often the American Wikipedia, and never has that been more apparent than this week. The Super Bowl, a sporting event of negligible importance to most of the world, so uplifted the people of America that they flooded the Top 10 with six articles on the subject. With the addition of Chris Kyle, the subject of yet another trivial media storm over American values, and Bruce Jenner, an American reality TV star, it's clear that American obsessions are paramount this week.
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 February 1 to 7, 2015, the 25 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tom Brady | 
|
2,144,681 |  |
Prior to this week, the New England Patriots quarterback with the all-American name had led his team to the Super Bowl six times in the last thirteen years, and won thrice. This week adds a seventh Super Bowl and fourth win to his credit, after being named MVP for Super Bowl XLIX for scoring four passing touchdowns. |
| 2 | Chris Kyle |
|
1,585,185 |  |
If there's one thing America loves, it's a good, old fashioned culture war. Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort American Sniper may not be wowing the critics (Rotten Tomatoes places it 13th among the films he has directed), nor drawing the crowds overseas (its international box office take is currently less than a third its domestic take) but it has played spectacularly well in America's conservative heartland, leading politicians on the left and right to, well, snipe at each other about what the film and its popularity say about America, its people, and in particular its subject, the now deceased sniper Chris Kyle. While interest seems to be winding down (viewing figures for this article peaked at 5.3 million two weeks ago) the topic still has enough oxygen to keep it near the top of this list. |
| 3 | List of Super Bowl champions | 
|
1,480,853 | This list invariably pops up once a year, as Americans first scramble for facts to determine which team will win, then rush back to see if their dream/nightmare came true. | |
| 4 | Super Bowl XLIX | 
|
1,396,896 | I loathe American football, but even I would have been captivated by this game; with the teams tied at half time, the Seahawks built up a ten-point lead in the 3rd quarter, but the Patriots pulled into the lead in the final two minutes. Almost inevitably, this was the highest rated Super Bowl in history, with viewership peaking at 120 million, nearly two fifths of the entire US population. | |
| 5 | Juan Cuadrado | 
|
974,691 |  |
The Colombian winger was signed to Chelsea on 2 February for £26.8 million ($40.8 million), but the negotiations went down to the wire, leading to a spike of interest the day before. |
| 6 | Katy Perry |
|
935,844 |  |
Super Bowl viewership rose substantially during the singer's performance at the halftime show. |
| 7 | New England Patriots |
|
930,455 |  |
The winners of this year's Super Bowl are happily ensconced in the top 25. The losers aren't, which is sad. They're the Seattle Seahawks. Very nice team apparently. Popular in Canada. Its fans set the Guinness World Record for loudest crowd noise. Twice. They've won nine division titles and three conference championships. They won last year's Super Bowl. The Patriots didn't. Seriously, they're a great team. |
| 8 | Fifty Shades of Grey |
|
713,992 |  |
The onetime Twilight fanfic that introduced 100 million bored housewives to the questionable joys of BDSM shot back into the list thanks to the imminent release of the film adaptation. |
| 9 | Bruce Jenner |
|
897,891 |  |
The former track and field Olympian and current honorary Kardashian got into the news this week. |
| 10 | Super Bowl |
|
842,313 | This is clearly becoming a trend. |
It takes half your life before you discover life is a do-it-yourself project.
This week, we bring three of the most recently created WikiProjects to come into being on the English Wikipedia. While many long-established projects are becoming inactive, (as we have covered before), that doesn't stop new ones forming every now and then to cover a topic that a group of editors feel should be better cared for. Sometimes, they are branches and task forces of existing projects, or they may be completely new, where an editor has found a niche that needs to be represented.
It is important that, to stay alive, these projects gain a reasonable number of participants so that one or two users retiring does not completely halt its progress. Once formed, they still need to be able to respond to issues and tag articles relating to their subject. This means they should ensure their focus is not too narrow or too broad, the project's goals are clear, and the project receives adequate publicity.
So, this report will be profiling three newly founded projects to give them the exposure and, dare we say, kick start to ensure long-lived success.
Many Wikipedians have come across two certain categories: Wikipedia introduction cleanup and Pages missing lead section. There are maintenance tags for them available on Twinkle, and they are plastered atop many pages. But how many of us actually work specifically on improving and removing them? This is the question asked at the Teahouse by Tetra quark and DiscantX, who, despite only having been a Wikipedian for two months at the time, subsequently created this new maintenance project on January 18 this year. As many readers choose whether to read the remainder of an article based on its lead section, creating a project dedicated to lead improvement was definitely a good idea.
Noyster has shed some light on the project's goals, and how you can help:
Over 14,000 articles need their lede (or "lead") improving. More than 2,000 have no lede at all! The lede is the most-read part of any article. It is the introductory part that tells you briefly what the article is about, what it contains, and whether you want to read further. So improving ledes is one of the most important improvement tasks you can do. And anyone can do it—normally no research is needed, as the aim is to sum up the content already in the article itself.
A new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team, has been launched to bring together those who want to help with this work. Simple steps:
Begun in late December, also by Tetra quark, this project already has around 16 members and looks as if it will continue to grow. Although one might think the subject is the territory of WikiProject Astronomy, founded back in 2006, any cosmologican (if that's the word) will be quick to tell you that this is less about the objects and places in the universe itself than the study of its actual existence, evolution, and eventual fate.
Cosmology also considers the physical forces and scientific laws at work around us, and indeed many of the projects highest-importance articles reflect this; articles such as Big Bang, dark energy, multiverse, blueshift and Hubble Bubble. Although most of the articles that come under this project have already been created, which might make some consider WP:Cosmology a latecomer with quite a few of its articles even at GA or FA status, there is still much to do. Their FAs (
) include general relativity, galaxy, redshift, formation and evolution of the Solar System and Cosmic Calendar.
The subject as a whole is actually pretty narrow, as only around 150 articles are marked with its banner at all. Many of them, though, are still at C, Start and even Stub class, so it goes without saying that there is still a whole lot of article improvement to do.
The smallest of the new projects featured so far, British Overseas Territories was formed back in November 2014 by Jaguar and so far, has acquired only two participants. Flying the Flag of the Falkland Islands with around 260 total articles within its realm, the project certainly seems as viable as any other geographically based project—except this one is spread throughout the world.
As with Cosmology, the articles in its scope were largely already created, and some had been improved to featured or good status, including British Empire (), Falkland Islands () and Hong Kong (
). The problem would seem to be that the newly-created project simply hasn't received enough exposure or publicity to gain the awareness of Wikipedians internationally who may have an interest in this area, whether that be historical or current territories. So, while they can look forward to getting their articles up to scratch and expanding their list of Featured pictures, here is a look at their recommended to-do list:
It looks as if they may become as loaded with work as most other projects—and won't ever be finished.
If you would like us to feature your underappreciated WikiProject in the Signpost with an interview, or you know of another that could use a bit more of a helping hand, contact us at the WikiProject desk. New ideas can be pitched at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. You can browse previous reports in the archive.
Reader comments
The Gallery will be an occasional Signpost feature highlighting quality images and articles from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons based on a particular theme, as well as articles you could help improve. This week, we feature subjects that are about love of all kinds.
Curator's comment: this gallery was inspired by Fabrice Florin (WMF)'s idea to have a Wikimedia blog post about love. If anyone felt that there was too little love in Wikimedia, I hope that this gallery will change their minds! --Pine✉ 00:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg)
_in_the_Celsus_Library_in_Ephesus.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Suggested articles for editing:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
