The Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge Program has for a number of years been the Wikimedia Foundation's primary mover and shaker on the Indian subcontinent. This week they published a promotional blog post to the Wikimedia Blog highlighting the heritage of the center's creation of a train the trainer program. The program hosts a yearly event where the organization invites experienced editors from various distant places in the country and brings them to the center's location in Bangalore for several days' of community engagement and leadership training. The idea is that by training experienced Wikipedians in editor engagement and basic project management, the center can encourage a large population of supportive editors to organize and assist "first-generation" editors both locally and online, helping to extend the reach and the impact of the movement.
Signpost coverage of this years' event containing more information on its particularities can be found here. It is worth pointing out that this editor engagement model aligns well with the engagement paradigm currently being pursued by the WMF's, Funds Dissemination Committee and some affiliated chapters, and so the CIS-A2K event seems to have become an increasingly popular template for other events of the same type elsewhere around the world. The general comments published by the FDC this year ahead of community review of the second biannual funding round reflect this fact, containing a few words from the committee regard 'TTT' programs, reproduced below:
| “ | In this round, we noticed a focus on Train the Trainer (TTT) approaches, which builds on the interest from Round 1. With a TTT approach, organizations target and train a group of participants on specific topic areas so they may in turn train others. If designed and implemented well, this program approach may have potential to expand reach in the movement and improve relevant skills beyond an organization’s direct sphere of influence.
This approach, which takes significant resources and organizational focus, requires more clearly articulated strategies, documented/centralized resources, and measurement and evaluation of the results. Most organizations are not yet evaluating skills developed, results of trainings after the original trainings, or attitudinal shifts, and so it is difficult to understand the impact of these programs. Furthermore, we are concerned not to see plans for sustaining engagement with these trainees after trainings. We encourage organizations to document results and resources invested in these programs. We also encourage organizations to develop engagement plans before new training programs are implemented. Finally, we also encourage organizations start small before making the decision to invest in programs more significantly. |
” |
In related news, the WMF Board of Trustees this week approved the FDC's recommendations for the second annual round of annual plan grants. Funds have now been disbursed to Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimedia Italy, Wikimedia Norway, Wikimedia France, and the Center for Internet and Society.
The unusually widespread and high-level suspension of the accounts of Wikimedian vice president of engineering Damon Sicore in mid-June prompted discussion on the mailing list which at the time did not lead to anywhere in particular. Community advocate James Alexander explained at the time that "We adjust the rights of, or access to, staff accounts for many different reasons ... sometimes we can't disclose reasons prior to taking an action, or discuss them immediately." Community member Liam Wyatt clarified the issue by stating that the response he had received from several Foundation staffers was that "Damon is on two weeks leave", but also stated that this was an official statement given to all WMF staffers but were instructed not to state as such in print, only orally: "as a non-WMF employee who has asked WMF-employees for info, and have received the official response, I am sharing the official response here in writing because they are not allowed to: Damon is on two weeks leave." Although Alexander cited the account suspension as temporary, Wyatt correctly stated that per the block logs, WMF-wiki accounts are only ever permanently suspended when an employee leaves the Foundation; if they are rehired, the block is lifted as a part of the on-boarding.
Whatever the issue was at the time, the two weeks have now passed; executive director Lila Tretikov posted on the mailing list that Sicore is indeed leaving the Foundation. Not quite illuminating the reason for the sudden departure. Tretikov said: "Damon's departure is a personnel issue, so we are not able to comment on it." In the interim, teams will directly report to Tretikov and/or to chief operating officer Terence Gibley—Sicore was in charge of the engineering and product department, employing the lion's share of the WMF's funds, so this is a significant executive shortfall to fill.
The Foundation is thus now accepting applications for three new executive positions. Two were planned more in advance: the first position is the VP of staff experiences (a modern term for HR); the hiring form indicates the future creation of a new department called "Staff Experience". The WMF has not had a chief HR person since chief talent and cultural officer Gayle Karen Young left the organization in March; current (then incoming) COO Gilbey has already been overseeing those responsibilities in the meantime. The WMF also put out forms for a chief technology officer (a position that is, in fact, already set up but blank at the WMF's internal staff and contractors page). This hiring is consistent with a letter from executive director Lila Tretikov to the community posted on the mailing lists in April. A new vice president of engineering will now need to be hired, but only afterwards—Tretikov indicated that filling the CTO role would be the first priority.
| “ | Ironically, ... the "decision" to not have a US chapter was made around 10 years ago at the strong urging of other chapters. The theory (as I understand it) was that the US was the home of the WMF itself, which in the view of the era, meant that the US didn't need the "protections" that came from a chapter; the WMF itself was perceived to speak for US Wikimedians. (Given the times, back when there were literally only enough employees to run the servers and sort of keep an eye on MediaWiki, this was perhaps an incorrect assessment.) Then US regions started to form chapters, first New York then DC; there are now a significant number of user groups. If there had been a US chapter formed back at that time, there would only be one US chapter; the rest would never be recognized at the chapter level. Instead, we now see the specter of what could come, since the US alone as a nation with a large number of Wikimedians does not have the opportunity for a single chapter: given a little bit more organization, and the ambition to do the paperwork to become a chapter, the US could have as many (or more) chapters than exist in all of Europe in a few years. One has to wonder if some other countries, especially those with a large number of Wikimedians or a massive geographic area, might wish they had gone with regional affiliates rather than a national one. | ” |
A week now remains until the vote, expected on 9 July, when the European Parliament will express either its approval, disapproval, or lack of opinion on the question of freedom of panorama in the European Union, and battle lines are being drawn. (See earlier Signpost article "Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe", and review of initial press coverage last week).
Following approval at Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015, sitenotice banners have now been activated above articles, warning readers of the over 40,000 images currently on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons of modern buildings and public art that depend on the Freedom of Panorama copyright exception (drawing coverage including from BBC World Service Spanish, as well as an acerbic piece in The Register by frequent Wikipedia critic Andrew Orlowski); while a petition at Change.org supporting freedom of panorama has been steadily growing and (as of 1 July) is now approaching 200,000 signatures.
On 2 July, the French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada, who had proposed the text effectively calling for an end to commercial freedom of panorama in the EU, announced that he would no longer be supporting this proposal, and would now be calling on all MEPs to delete it. With the direct threat averted, Dimitar Dimitrov (dimi_z), Wikipedia's person on the spot in Brussels, called for the banner campaign to be stood down.
Earlier in the week, Cavada, whose text, adopted by the legal affairs committee, proposed that
had slammed defenders of freedom of panorama as acting "under the guise of defending free access to works on behalf of users", when their fight was "actually one conducted primarily to allow US monopolies such as Facebook or Wikimedia to escape the payment of fees to the creators".
Cavada's position closely reflects that of the French copyright collecting society ADAGP, the Society of Authors in the Graphic and Plastic Arts. For ADAGP, the "cultural patrimony" of its members is at stake: their rights to be in control of the commercial utilisation of their works, and to refuse to see them modified, misrepresented, or used in the advertising of products or causes of which they disapprove. ADAGP has strongly been pushing a line of "no reuse without remuneration" in the Parliament, and a key current objective of the society is to negotiate an agreement with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr, Pinterest, Picasa and others similar to the arrangements that Google has with music labels, to acknowledge and pay out for copyrights in user-taken images of buildings and sculptures uploaded to the sites. The society retains approximately 25% of the gross of copyright licenses that it administers. According to ADAGP, it believes that between 10–20% of image rights, currently generating net payments of between 3 and 6 million euros per year, relate to sculptures or buildings in France that would be affected by freedom of panorama. This would also represent a loss of income to ADAGP itself of between about 1 and 2 million euros per year. The society has been circulating a Q&A flyer on the "Panorama Exception" to MEPs, to which the Wikimedia Brussels team has prepared a rebuttal. Some of the maps used by ADAGP have also been called into question.
According to Cavada, Wikipedia's insistence on providing images "in high definition format, open for editing, with the ability for use for commercial purposes" was "a deliberate attempt to avoid paying rights to authors, heirs or collecting societies", and contended that MEP Julia Reda's original proposals "especially for the benefit of those service providers" would "do nothing more for consumers, but would formalize the pursuit of their activities with impunity to the detriment of the entire European cultural and creative sector". (26 June)
In a rejoinder posted on 1 July, Wikimédia France hit back that the bracketing with Facebook showed that Cavada "completely misses the collaborative movement and the commons", and added that
We understand why rightsholders like to have their works on Wikipedia. Without the possibility of commercial reuse, we are a great free advertising brochure, so long as Wikipedia changes the rules that have made it the world cultural site by accepting [non-reusable] non-free content, according to the wishes of these private companies.
The stakes are clear enough. Freedom of panorama can lose some income to certain authors or assigns, which is fairly easy to calculate. But it can also generate economic activity, by removing obstacles, including for the transformation of works and "unforeseen" reuse. The impact is more difficult to assess because all the possibilities and therefore earnings are not known at the time the decision to open the valves is taken. Gains are not only economic, but also societal. The free dissemination of knowledge is not just about money. The possibility of commercial re-use and economic innovation that may result are for us a way to reach our true goal: improving the well-being of all, through better dissemination of knowledge.
For herself, Reda, writing in a blog-post (1 July), considered that the Cavada proposal should not be seen as the product of an evil lobby, but rather was symptomatic of a general approach by the MEPs on the legal committee,
She also condemned a tendency of much of the media that she considered had jumped on this as an opportunity to "bash the European Union":
Contending views of freedom of panorama were presented by Wikimedia's Dimitrov and ADAGP, together with five other witnesses, on the morning of 2 July (agenda) at a hearing of the working group on intellectual property rights and copyright reform of the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament, with Jean-Marie Cavada in the chair. Unfortunately it would seem that the meeting was not covered by broadcast streaming or recording, although some slide-packs may be available after the event.
Meanwhile, with the deadline for amendments (1 July) having passed, it is now confirmed that the Parliament will be faced with a three-way choice in the vote itself next week:
With the apparent collapse of support for the Cavada text, Wikimedians are still encouraging editors to contact their MEPs to confirm the MEPs' support for its deletion; as well as to suggest individual support for the Schaake amendment, on the basis that (for example) freedom of panorama encourages greater cultural sharing and vibrancy across Europe (and more complete Wikipedia articles!), whereas the present patchwork of laws is unhelpful and creates confusion, whether for photographers, for websites, or for small publishers trying to operate in multiple countries. However, due to various procedural deals that have been made across the report as a whole, it is likely that group lines (in particular that of the centre-left S&D group) will be for deletion only, without addition of new text. The advice from Dimitrov is not to push this, as at this early stage of the legislative process winning goodwill is more important than trying to win a vote that will be essentially symbolic—the essential thing was to show the depth of resistance to the Cavada text, to stop that in its tracks, which with luck it appears we will have achieved. Moving forward, the priority ahead will be to try to build up relationships that may be valuable when the detailed copyright reform dossier comes into the parliament, some time in the next 12 months. J
June 26 edits regarding Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India and a widely admired figure in India and around the world, sparked outrage in that country. The edits, which were quickly reverted, made a number of disparaging and inaccurate claims about Nehru's background and career in the articles on Nehru, his father Motilal Nehru, and his grandfather Gangadhar Nehru. The IP address responsible for those edits, 164.100.41.28, belongs to the National Informatics Centre, a government agency responsible for its information and communications technology.
The edits claimed that Nehru was born in a "red light area", was "more interested in political power and women", that his grandfather was born Muslim and later changed his name and became a Hindu, and that Nehru had been sexually blackmailed by Lady Edwina Mountbatten, the wife of the last British Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten. The first claim seems to originate from the fact that Nehru's birthplace Meergunj is now a red-light district. The blackmail claim is based on the alleged love affair between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten, attested by Mountbatten's daughters, who insisted that it was unconsummated. The claim that the Nehrus were Muslims stems from a conspiracy theory popular among certain Hindu nationalists, who accuse the Nehru–Gandhi family and their Indian National Congress of being pseudo-secular and anti-Hindu. According to this theory, Gangadhar was a Muslim who adopted a fake Hindu identity to avoid an arrest during the British Raj.
The edits were brought to widespread attention via the Twitter bot AnonGoIWPEdits, which tweets links to edits from IP addresses belonging to the Indian government. AnonGoIWPEdits was created by Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society. It is one of many similar Twitter bots created beginning last August to monitor Wikipedia edits from government entities and other organizations (see previous Signpost coverage). Prakash told The Times of India that "I think it is interesting to see what government people are editing anonymously...Most edits are inane. A great number merely introduce spelling errors." In this particular case, he noted "These changes were reverted in minutes, in one case in one minute."
Politicians with the Indian National Congress expressed their outrage, directing it towards their principal rival, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, which has close links to Hindu nationalist organizations. The Hindu reported that Abhishek Manu Singhvi claimed that the Bharatiya Janata Party was responsible in an effort to influence upcoming elections in Bihar. He demanded an investigation and said that "Prime Minister Modi and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad should tell us what action they are taking on the editing on Wikipedia pages by a government agency."
In a related article, Scroll.in discusses what kinds of edits Indian government employees have been making over the last year. G, U
British political blogger "Guido Fawkes" writing for The Sun reports (June 28) that the BBC has apologised to UK Conservative politician Grant Shapps for giving much pre-election airtime to damaging allegations that Shapps had edited his own Wikipedia biography as well as those of other politicians, while giving comparatively little coverage to the fact that a subsequent Wikipedia arbitration case found that the allegations could not be substantiated and were in violation of Wikipedia policy (see previous Signpost coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4).
ConservativeHome comments that reporting by the BBC and some newspapers reflected a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia:
| “ | [...] it’s a salutary tale of monolithic media organisations like the BBC (and some of the newspapers, who lapped up the story as well) not understanding how more diffuse bodies like Wikipedia work. The online encyclopedia is collaborative and crowd-sourced, including in its process for making and judging allegations like this, not a top-down body where senior executives and committees decide everything. In short, the Beeb mistook Wikipedia for itself, and thus overestimated the importance of the story. To take the word of one person involved and portray it as the authoritative opinion of the whole outfit, apparently without checking who the person behind the handle might be, was a major error. | ” |
Shapps has reproduced the letter he received from the BBC on his website. The story has also been picked up by The Independent (June 29) and The Register (June 30), with the Press Gazette, a UK media trade magazine, also weighing in on June 30 with an article titled "BBC's James Harding says 'sorry' to Grant Shapps over scant coverage of Wikipedia story 'correction'". AK
Our disabilities may impose limitations, but physical, economic, and political barriers impede us far more.
This week's report focuses on an aspect of life that never really affects 90% of the world's people, but for the remaining, it can have a profound effect on how their life plays out - but not always. It's disability, a wide ranging topic which encompasses everything from physical impairments to mental disorders. There are many debates that are always associated with the topic, such as sports opportunities and suitable accessibility for the impaired, and problems with discrimination, ableism and disability abuse.
As a "crowd-sourced" writing platform, Wikipedia is generally representative of society and certainly has its share of people associated with disability, whether that be a disability that they themselves have, or merely being involved with care or campaigns. For them to coordinate, we have WikiProject Disability, which has been interviewed to see how they are getting on. Here to share their wisdom are Dodger67, Penny Richards, LilyKitty and Mirokado.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Disability? Do you have a disability or know someone who does? Have you contributed to any of the project's Good or Featured Articles?
Can you explain your scope: what sort of articles qualify to be tagged under this project and what areas you don't cover?
What is your most popular topic or article, measured by reader page views? Should it be a project aim to improve your highest visibility articles?
Does WikiProject Disability collaborate with any other projects? If so, how do you split the workload between these projects?
How can a new contributor help today?
Anything else you'd like to add to the interview?
Next week we hope to be delving into geopolitical history with WikiProject Former Countries. Please leave feedback on the talkpage of this article so we know how we can improve!
Reader comments
Four Featured lists were promoted this week.
Twelve Featured pictures were promoted this week.
Recently the wise and benevolent programmers of WMF did something that the lay people of the internet probably barely noticed. They made that "http" thing that still shows up in some browsers, though everyone forgot what it meant in about 1999, well, they changed it to "https". Apparently this has something to do with security. I would assume it was for more security, but it certainly harmed the security of this report (last seen in the June 10 Signpost), as the change broke many tools including the WP:5000 reporting system on which this report is based. The brilliant West.andrew.g has now fixed that report, as well as the other cool projects on which he works, including the WP:STiki vandalism tool and WP:TOPRED report showing the most-visited red links on a weekly basis. We are now backfilling the three Top 25 reports that have been delayed by these technical difficulties, so please see Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/June 14 to 20, 2015 posted by Serendipodous for the week immediately prior to this Traffic Report. And Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/June 7 to 13, 2015 will be coming soon as well.
For the full top-25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions. For a list of the most edited articles of the week, see here.
For the week of June 21 to 27, 2015, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
| Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Flags of the Confederate States of America | 
|
1,997,063 | .svg) |
It took the horrific act of the Charleston church shooting on June 17 to refocus the attention of South Carolina politicians and public at large to the fact that South Carolina was still flying the battle flag of the Confederate States of America near their state capitol. This flag causes a lot of controversy in the United States, though its general modern use as a symbol of racist oppression of blacks is undeniable. Will the flag of ISIS/ISIL be similarly used in the Middle East one hundred years hence? In any event, on June 22, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and other politicians called for the flag to be taken down, so it appears that the flag will be officially lowered soon. |
| 2 | Jurassic World | 
|
1,413,831 |  |
Down from #1 last week. In this era of duelling gargantuas, when Hollywood risks $200 million budgets on a whim and triple-digit opening weekends are a seasonal event, the financial achievements of the first Jurassic Park seem somewhat pallid. And yet, it was for a time the most successful film ever made, and more importantly, formed the prototype for the modern blockbuster; massive, frontloaded opening weekend, brushfire earnings and supercharged ancillaries. And now, after Furious 7 and Avengers: Age of Ultron made substantial dents in the US GDP, Jurassic World has arrived to show that its aging franchise is perfectly capable of holding its own in today's hostile environment. Its $208 million opening weekend was the biggest of all time, though at just $1 million above the previous record set by Marvel's The Avengers back in 2012, it wasn't exactly a killing blow. Still, it managed to also claim the highest second weekend gross of all time as well, showing that it may well be on the way to repeating the performance of its ancestor. Today, the Jurassic franchise is just one monster among many, but it has shown that it still has the right to reign. |
| 3 | 2015 Copa América |
|
1,119,824 |  |
Up from #7 and 991,000 views last week. South America's annual international soccer competition got underway on 11 June. The final will be held on July 4. |
| 4 | Ruby Rose |
|
973,290 |  |
The Australian model and actress has been in the media thanks to her role in the new series of Orange is the New Black and her public challenging of traditional gender roles. She came out as a lesbian at the age of 12 and identifies as genderfluid. Her androgynous appearance has led many straight women to declare an attraction to her, which has angered some gay activists, who argue that homosexuality is not a choice. |
| 5 | World's littlest skyscraper | 
|
904,962 |  |
On June 22 and 23, folks on Reddit learned about this small building in Texas which was built in a 1919 confidence scheme. Investors fat with oil money thought they were getting in on a 480-foot building, but the plans clearly showed it was to be 480 INCHES. And so it was. |
| 6 | Batman: Arkham Knight |
|
826,703 |  |
This action-adventure video game was released on June 23, and has received critical acclaim, though a buggy PC port led to the game being suspended from Steam, to much consumer rage. |
| 7 | Orange Is the New Black |
|
696,668 |  |
The third season of the women-in-prison TV series premièred in its entirety on Netflix on 11 June. |
| 8 | 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup |
|
632,971 |  |
This site caters mainly to the English-speaking world, and despite having invented soccer (and most other major team sports come to that) the Anglosphere hasn't had much to sing about as far as that sport is concerned. Until now. I'm playing crystal ball here a bit, but this marks the first time both the English and American national teams have reached the World Cup semi-finals, something the English men's team hasn't done since 1990 and the US men's side hasn't done since 1930. Here's hoping they inspire their nations enough for them to start taking women's football seriously. |
| 9 | James Horner |
|
601,956 | This American film composer, who scored popular films including blockbusters Aliens, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Braveheart, Titanic and Avatar, died on June 23 when his airplane crashed in Los Padres National Forest in California. | |
| 10 | True Detective (TV series) |
|
592,368 |  |
The second season of this American crime drama television series debuted on June 21. The whole new cast includes Colin Farrell (pictured at left). |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Problems
Changes this week
.jpg){kind=link}
_10_Toman.jpg){kind=link}
action=query doesn't work any more. [12]Meetings
Future
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
.jpg)
Students in the United States and Mexico are often required to learn about the history of the Texas Revolution, the outcome of which foreshadowed a much larger war and the loss of a significant portion of Mexico’s territory in what is today the American Southwest. The tales of individual actions and the Battle of the Alamo—the symbolically pivotal event in the conflict—have persevered in the nearly 180 years since the conflict.
For those less familiar with this narrative, a hurriedly assembled rebel army was able to separate themselves from Mexico in large part due to the crucial Battle of San Jacinto, when they captured the Mexican president. They used this advantage to force an end to the conflict.
Wikipedia editor Karanacs grew up in Texas and is therefore well-acquainted with this tradition. "During a family vacation to see the Alamo Mission in San Antonio when I was 10, we watched the film Alamo: The Price of Freedom," she says. "For the first time, I understood the impact that war had on ordinary people. I cried for a little boy who lost his father in a battle fought 150 years before I was born." Two decades later, this interest manifested itself on Wikipedia. Like many editors of the world's largest encyclopedia, she was browsing the site's articles and found that they were of relatively poor quality—and that the traditional narrative she'd learned was not necessarily accurate.
The real descent down the rabbit hole, however, began when a group of volunteer editors called for collaborators to rewrite the article on Texas A&M University, Karanacs' alma mater. She joined them "even though I had no idea what they were talking about." It wasn't long before this snowball grew larger: she was soon "in love with Wikipedia—the research, the writing, the teamwork, the satisfaction of knowing that something I helped create would help assuage someone else's curiosity, and hopefully dispelling some of their misunderstandings of the topic."
Between 2006 and 2010, Karanacs wrote 23 featured articles, the highest article rating on the site and only reached after a rigorous peer review process. She branched out from Texas history at times with articles like Irish Thoroughbred, Nora Roberts' first romance novel, or Gumbo, a Louisianan soup. Still, the grand majority focused on her home state, such as the French colonization of Texas, and its revolution against Mexico, like the Grass Fight or the Battle of the Alamo. She was "most fascinated by the human elements", she says, "and the people on both sides who made decisions that cumulatively led to the place I live."
Still, the challenges proved daunting. The host of editors who enticed her to join Wikipedia in 2006 had dwindled by 2011 to just her. When combined with the amount of work required and three young children at home, Karanacs made the difficult decision to quit the site. "My Wikipedia time turned into 'chase-the-toddler' time," she said.
More than three years went by before Karanacs was tempted back to the site by an email from fellow native Texan editor Maile66—who started editing Texas-related articles in 2006. She alerted Karanacs to an enticing offer: the History Channel's then-upcoming Texas Rising wanted the article on the Texas Revolution to run on the English Wikipedia's main page on the day of the show's premiere. In return, the channel would point viewers and interested fans to the page for more information.
Karanacs' reaction was two-fold: she was intrigued by the opportunity, which offered outside interest and a long deadline, but cautious. Readers of Wikipedia may not be aware of the struggle of writing wide-scope articles; many editors are quick to espouse that articles on a war, for instance, are more difficult to write than articles on the individual battles and skirmishes that occurred during that war. Karanacs told me that her research for these battle articles would require reading three to four books on the general topic—the war, in our running example—and anywhere from five to twenty articles on the battle itself. The actual writing could take anywhere from twenty to forty hours and could be done alone.
A big picture article, on the other hand, requires a great deal more effort and people. "I have been researching the Texas Revolution off and on for seven years," Karanacs said. "There have been literally thousands of books written on that topic, and I likely spent more than eighty hours just identifying appropriate sources to consult." The actual reading of these sources took a good deal longer—and most didn't make it into the article. Karanacs believes that covering these works was important, if only to "establish scholarly consensus and ensure that I wasn't missing any of the more focused angles scholars delved into."
.jpg)
And there were a lot of them. Karanacs recalls that many of the books she could acquire were written by American and Mexican scholars, as one would expect, but there was also one written by a German (albeit translated into English) and one by a Scottish researcher. Her local librarians were an invaluable resource, as they were able to point out monographs that she missed and put in dozens of inter-library loan requests, as was the relatively new Wikipedia Library, which helps connect editors to outline journal and reference databases that Wikipedia editors can cite. Karanacs called the latter a "tremendous resource"—"I am blown away by how much easier it is now to do some of the research."
Karanacs also undertook a physical journey to several of the areas where significant events occurred. "It made it all just a little more real," she told me. "Both sides fought for something they believed was important, and it was important to me to present each of their perspectives fairly and with respect."
Over a three-month span, Karanacs and Maile66 worked together to develop the Texas Revolution article itself. Their plan of attack included scrapping the entire existing article, all 5,243 words of it, and starting anew. This allowed them to not worry about where existing content had come from and instead concentrate on including facts and views from the principal sources on the topic. They had to decide how much weight each view should receive, similar to when an academic historian evaluates a topic's place in historiography. This differs from primary source research in that it evaluates historical narratives that have emerged from the event. Using the Texas Revolution as an example, historians once portrayed the Texans as white, from the US, and universally in support of the rebellion. Contributions from Tejanos (native-born Texans of Spanish or Mexican heritage) were overlooked. Time often plays a significant role in historiography, and this is no different: here, the revolution's traditional narrative, upheld by many of the television and film productions of the last fifty years, has since been been superseded with the recognition that a good percentage of Texans actually supported the Mexican government, not the rebel side, and that Tejanos featured in many significant roles.
National narratives came into play as well. Supporters of the revolution portrayed themselves as fighting for a just cause against an oppressive overlord, while Mexicans, after the Mexican–American War of 1845, thought that the region was stolen from them by the United States. After their initial assessments, Karanacs and Maile identified areas that required more research and each returned to the library.
When satisfied the article was comprehensive and balanced, Karanacs and Maile nominated Texas Revolution for featured status. Having already received comments from three editors, ten more editors commented during the review period. "It really did take a village," Karanacs told me, and estimated that she personally spent an estimated three hundred hours on the article, underlining just how difficult it can be to write these sorts of big-picture articles. Finally, Texas Revolution became a featured article on April 18—more than a month before the deadline requested by the History Channel.
The History Channel's historians suggested only minor changes in the article's wording; overall, they were very pleased with the article, which has now doubled in size to over 10,000 words. It ran on Wikipedia's main page on May 25, and about 54,000 people read the article over a four-day period—and possibly thanks to the popularity of Texas Rising, more than a thousand people per day viewed it for nearly all of the first half of June.
For Karanacs' part, she told me that "I am extremely proud of this project. First, that we created one of the best short(ish) yet still comprehensive overviews of this topic that exists anywhere on the web, in my opinion. Second, that we brought an article that is on a broader topic—an entire war, rather than a single battle—to featured status. Third, that real paid historians thought we did a good job, and fourth, that we achieved this through a collaboration, rather than as individual editors." When asked why they are so important in the greater context of North American history, she replied:
| “ | In the nineteenth century, the Texas Revolution fit neatly into the United States philosophy of manifest destiny. According to that narrative, Americans went to what was then Mexico to show a poor, backwards group of people a better way to live. Of course, they chose to break free of their shackles and embrace freedom—interpreted as annexation to the US. Texian independence and subsequent annexation to the United States directly led to the Mexican-American War and Mexico's loss of half of its territory to the United States. In Mexico, focus was placed more on the Mexican-American War, and the Texas Revolution, when discussed, was often framed as American intervention in Mexican affairs.
The Texas Revolution is also a very compelling story of a small group of underdogs defeating a quasi-established power. Logically, the Texians should not have won that war, yet they did. Even the Texian defeats were romanticized; from almost the moment that the Alamo fell to the Mexican Army, the battle was compared to the Greek Battle of Thermopylae. A small group of men deliberately turned down the chance to retreat, knowing they faced annihilation, in order to defend their homeland against a larger invading force. Historians have shown that this narrative is inaccurate, but the general public does not accept that new interpretation. |
” |
Perhaps most importantly, Karanacs' interest in Wikipedia is now rekindled—and it's for the "same reasons" from her the first time around: "pride in a job well done, the joy of teamwork, and pure nerdiness." Maile has already started a new collaboration with Karanacs with the Battle of San Jacinto, although the former is taking the lead role this time. They hope to have all thirteen Texas Revolution-related articles at featured status by next year.
