Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/From the editors
However coy they may be about it in public, Americans love to win. And when they do, they make no secret of it. Today saw two American triumphs in world sport: Serena Williams securing her sixth Wimbledon win and the Women's national team securing their third World Cup title. America has had little recent success in men's tennis, lorded over as it is by seemingly invulnerable demigods like Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. On the women's side though, Serena rules alone. As far as soccer goes, the US may not have a chance of ever dominating the male equivalent, but they rule the women's game, and are becoming increasingly vocal about it. Hopefully this will kickstart the one thing America is better at than any other nation in history: sales. As their ebullience translates into exposure and buzz, slowly other countries will come to treat women's football with the respect it deserves.
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.
As prepared by Serendipodous, for the week of July 5 to 11, 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 | Serena Williams | 
|
1,002,160 |  |
Serena's no stranger to this list, but this week sent her into the stratosphere. Not only did she win Wimbledon for the sixth time in a straight-sets duel with Garbine Muguruza, she also secured her second "Serena Slam" – winning four major titles in a row, and is on course to winning a Grand Slam (four major titles in a calendar year). If she succeeds, she will be the first woman to do so since Steffi Graf in 1988. At 33 she is also the oldest ever world women's tennis number 1; with 16 years between her first title and her latest, Williams has already surpassed other long-surviving legends in her sport, such as Graf and Martina Navratilova, and shows no signs of slowing down. To put this in perspective, the 21-year-old Muguruza was only five when Williams won her first title. |
| 2 | Abby Wambach | 
|
988,700 |  |
The forward for the American women's national soccer team topped this list despite only scoring one goal in seven matches during the 2015 Women's World Cup. This may be due to her declaration that this World Cup would be her last. |
| 3 | Flags of the Confederate States of America |
|
951,148 | .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 July 10, after an emotional debate in the state legislature, the flag was finally taken down. |
| 4 | Terminator Genisys | 
|
875,698 | This film marks the fourth attempt in 12 years to restart the dormant Terminator franchise without the aid of its creator, James Cameron. To date, if Metacritic and IMDb are anything to go by, the only remotely successful of these resuscitations was the hugely underrated TV series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. One wonders if audiences are wishing they'd watched that when they had the chance, because the box office numbers for this flick are bad. Really bad. As in, "made as much in its first five days as Terminator Salvation made in its first weekend" bad. Salvation, mind you, was the black sheep of the series until now. Even after two weeks, the movie has made barely $70 million. All this is rather perplexing, since the two things that usually drive movies up this list are box office and controversy, and so far the only controversy generated by this film is from the few scattered critics who don't consider it utterly terrible. Perhaps it was the presence of Emilia Clarke (currently the second Game of Thrones star to take on the role of Sarah Connor). Or perhaps, if this ageing Terminator fan could be wistful for a moment, the critics are wrong when they say the Millennial generation has no love for this franchise. Perhaps they rushed to their tablets incensed at the terrible reviews; determined to learn who and what was responsible for vandalising the legacy of this landmark work of science fiction. Or perhaps it means nothing at all. Who am I to guess? | |
| 5 | Eiji Tsuburaya | 
|
854,672 | Want a quick route to temporary posthumous fame? Become the subject of an interactive Google doodle. Which is exactly what happened to the creator of Ultraman this week. | |
| 6 | Baahubali (film) |
|
810,328 | .jpg) |
At $41 million, this sprawling, two-part historical epic is the most expensive film in Indian history (no, it isn't actually Bollywood, since it was made in South India, much to Bollywood's chagrin). Starring the Telugu actor Prabhas (pictured), the first part, subtitled "The Beginning", broke box office records upon its release on July 10, earning Rs 2.15 billion ($34 million) worldwide in just 5 days. |
| 7 | Carli Lloyd |
|
796,339 |  |
The midfielder's hat trick in the final against Japan helped clinch the USA the World Cup title, and made her a national hero in the process. Though not enough of one to top this list, apparently. |
| 8 | 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup |
|
775,963 |  |
If America wins a tournament, you can be sure it will end up on this list. And while the old US of A hasn't exactly stormed the palisades as far as men's football is concerned, it's comfortably ensconced at the top of the women's game. Perhaps this challenge to the world will lead some of the more macho footballing nations to begin to take their female counterparts seriously. |
| 9 | Ariana Grande |
|
706,116 |  |
A fixture on this list last year, the former Disney poplet has struggled to maintain a presence this year. Until this week, when she was filmed licking a doughnut on a display counter and then putting it back, before declaring, "I hate America". Not sure if this qualifies as a Britney Spears-level meltdown, but it's certainly lifted her profile. |
| 10 | United States women's national soccer team |
|
701,219 | The US national team has now secured the World Cup title 3 times. If they were counted among the men's records, they would have a legacy as secure as Germany or Italy. Perceptions are changing though. |
In The Register, Andrew Orlowski reports that three weeks ago, Grant Shapps filed a request with Wikimedia UK (WMUK) under the Data Protection Act 1998 "for all data relating to him". Shapps is a UK politician who was accused of editing the Wikipedia articles of political rivals in a matter that led to the removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools from Richard Symonds (Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), a WMUK employee, in an Arbitration case (see previous Signpost reports on the media coverage and Arbitration case).
D’Arcy Myers, chief executive of WMUK, told Orlowski that WMUK was "fufilling" Shapps' request and that "WMUK has not issued an apology to Mr. Shapps as the charity has not been involved with this issue." Orlowski wrote that he was "puzzled" by this response. Orlowski, a frequent critic of Wikipedia who has been reporting on the encyclopedia for at least a decade, outlined the separation between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and WMUK for his readers, but did not explain the distinction between Symonds' paid employment at WMUK as office and development manager, responsible for finances and reports, and his volunteer role on the encyclopedia as a functionary using checkuser and oversight tools. Orlowski did note instances where Symonds might have blurred those roles, writing that Symonds used a WMUK email address to communicate with The Guardian regarding Shapps, and claimed that Symonds "frequently" used his checkuser tool "on WMUK time". (July 13)
The Arizona Republic reports that popular Arizona State University history professor Matthew C. Whitaker was demoted following an investigation into plagiarism accusations. Whitaker was demoted from full to associate professor and from director to co-director of ASU's Center for the Study of Race and Democracy. ASU's provost wrote that an "investigation identified significant issues with the content of" Whitaker's 2014 book, Peace Be Still: Modern Black America from World War II to Barack Obama.
Whitaker has been dogged with plagiarism allegations for years. His 2008 book African American Icons of Sport: Triumph, Courage, and Excellence contained material regarding Muhammad Ali and Serena and Venus Williams taken from Wikipedia. At the time, Whitaker blamed a freelance editor working from his outline and wrote "unfortunately and unknown to me, the freelance editor inserted verbatim sections from Wikipedia and other online sources without rewording them and without quotations or attribution." In 2012, a previous ASU investigation into this and other allegations concluded that Whitaker was not guilty of "systematic or substantial plagiarism". The Phoenix New Times reports that this conclusion was the subject of much controversy among bloggers, such as the anonymous author of the blog "The Cabinet of Plagiarism", and even some of his colleagues, one of whom resigned from a tenure and promotions committee in protest. (July 13)
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
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Opinion
Wikimania 2015 is underway in Mexico City, and one of its sessions—a scheduled follow-up to the annual Wikimedia Conference that was held in Berlin in May—is good reason to provide a retrospective of that Conference.
The Wikimedia Conference gathered together leaders and staff of Wikimedia affiliate organizations, groups of volunteers such as the Affiliations Committee and the Funds Dissemination Committee, and WMF Board and staff members. The conference was held in Berlin, hosted by Wikimedia Germany, and involved 165 participants from 53 nations. Representatives were from 39 chapters, one thematic organization, and 17 user groups.
One of the highlights was the presentation by WMF executive director Lila Tretikov, in which she spoke of WMF collaboration with affiliates through improved partnerships, practices, and tools. In previous years the relationship between WMF and affiliates has been strained by financial disputes; governance issues with Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia UK; "concern by the Foundation about budget and staffing growth, lack of demonstrable impact on WMF sites, and governance among eligible affiliates"; and the drama around the now-defunct Wikimedia Chapters Association. Many affiliate representatives welcomed the positive tone of Lila's presentation, which noted that "organizations can do what individuals cannot do alone", and acknowledged that Wikimedia affiliates have important roles in building collaborations with institutions around the world.
Other conference highlights included:
An extensive report and commentary about the conference, including presentations and photographs, is available at User:Pine/Wikimedia Conference 2015 travelogue. P
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Serendipity
"How long will this take?" This is one of the first questions new clients ask. They come to us because the Wikipedia entry about the company at which they work is wrong, incomplete, or even just outdated. The answer varies, but it often comes as a shock when we explain that fixing problems on the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a project measured in weeks, if not months.
Many are speaking to us because they have tried before and failed, or were spooked by headlines about others who had tried and failed. Late last month, another firm joined the list of ignominy: Sunshine Sachs, a PR agency to the stars, was busted for removing content from Naomi Campbell's entry, among others (see previous Signpost coverage). But often, even company representatives who mean well are treated as if the fault rests entirely with them, and are reprimanded simply for not understanding how Wikipedia works.
This is something we see every day. Together, we have nearly 10 years combined experience helping brands, companies, and organizations engage Wikipedia constructively. We help them understand what they can accomplish, what they should leave alone, and how to engage with Wikipedia's volunteers. Although the process has improved over time, we believe the right balance has yet to be discovered.
The state-of-the-art in conflict of interest engagement is commonly called the "Bright Line" rule, from a quote by Jimmy Wales when he first outlined the concept in 2012. It basically goes like this: "I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us".
We immediately embraced this new development. After all, our greatest challenge over time was not the research and writing, nor aligning client goals with Wikipedia's mission, but rather the uncertainty involved in navigating a community that has as many views on paid advocacy as there are members. The Bright Line was an elegant solution, simplifying the process and making it more comprehensible for editors and clients alike.
It had other benefits, too: more feedback makes for better articles, and volunteer editors can help clarify things for a "lay audience". Sometimes clients are pushy, and it’s helpful to be able to use editor review as a backstop. Occasionally, it will even spark a great collaboration: identifying additional areas for improvement neither side would have found alone.
The Bright Line can work, and we (and others who have embraced it) are proof. But after three years of following its prescripts, we are all too aware of the times when it does not. Jimbo's elegant solution comes with its own limitations, challenges, and even contradictions. Here are several reasons the status quo can and should be improved:
These problems raise an obvious question: what needs to be done? We have one short term suggestion that would immediately relieve some of the burden on volunteer editors and the wait times for adherents: The Bright Line should include an allowance for "maintenance edits".
Currently, the Bright Line allows exceptions for "emergency edits" that are comparatively rare: missed (obvious) vandalism and libel. A simple fix would be to allow for "maintenance edits" such as de-orphaning an article and removing the template afterward.
By applying common sense and allowing for edits that do not alter previous editorial decisions, the burden on volunteer editors can be eased, and neglected entries can be improved. To assuage concerns of potential abuse, COI editors might be required to use a standard edit summary such as "COI maintenance edit" so a filter could be created for identification and review.
The nuclear option, of course, would be to abandon the Bright Line altogether. While we wouldn't necessarily encourage doing so at this time, there is one (however unlikely) scenario in which doing so would make a great deal of sense: if Flagged Revisions were to make a comeback. Especially in light of the recent GamerGate debacle, the only difference really is whether the debate over GamerGate-inspired edits should have been a public game of whack-a-mole or a semi-public queue for editorial review.
In this scenario, editors with paid conflicts would receive scrutiny, and with new community infrastructure—not to mention some valuable gamification—they would be more likely to receive it in a timely manner. The uncertainty of how to participate and the absurdity of asking for help when the correction is obvious would be reduced, if not altogether eliminated.
Given our years of experience with client requests, we are comfortable explaining how Wikipedia works even to skeptical clients. Knowing how complex even "simple" requests can be, and how important it is to get things right, sometimes the months of research, writing and discussion are necessary. But the Bright Line in its current form makes no distinction between that which deserves careful scrutiny and those requiring a lighter touch. A few common sense adjustments would make the Bright Line easier to explain, more likely to be followed, and free Wikipedia volunteers to focus on more important things.
For more Signpost coverage on paid editing see our paid editing series.
William Beutler and 16912 Rhiannon are principals in a digital consultancy that specializes in online community content, including Wikipedia.
On Friday, July 17 at 16:45 (Mexico City time), William Beutler will be leading (with Andrew Lih) the Wikimania roundtable discussion Can Conflicts of Interest (COIs) be aligned with the Wikimedia project? Please join him to discuss this idea as well as anything else related to COI/paid editing. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/In focus Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Arbitration report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Humour
.jpg){kind=link}
