The German publisher Taschen is one of the world's leading producers of art books. Among their most popular books are the Taschen Basic Art series, small (about 10 in. × 12 in.) affordable ($10 US) volumes, invaluable introductory volumes which are ubiquitous in libraries, museums, and bookstores.
In 2010, the artists Ditte Ejlerskov and EvaMarie Lindahl contacted Taschen to point out that out of 97 volumes published in the Basic Art series, only five included women: Tamara de Lempicka, Maria Helena Vieira da Silva, Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keeffe, and Jeanne-Claude (who shares a volume and a Wikipedia article with her collaborator and husband Christo). Taschen asked the pair about which artists they had omitted and should include in the series. That particular artists would be omitted through oversight or happenstance is reasonable, but that one of the world's leading publishers of art books is completely unaware of their major omissions is startling, as any art aficionado could easily produce a list of a half-dozen omissions instantly.
Ejlerskov and Lindahl produced a list of 100. This list was the basis for their exhibition last year at the Malmö Konsthall in Sweden called About: The Blank Pages. They assembled the 97 Basic Art books on two bookshelves, accompanied by covers they had created for each of the women on their list, covering books of blank pages.
The Basic Art series is not the canon. Canonicity or artistic excellence is certainly one criterion for inclusion, but artists are also clearly included on the basis of popularity, artistic influence, or representation of a particular historical moment, so one cannot argue that particular women were excluded from the list because their work is not as good as male artists included in the series. Even the most fervent adherents of Basic Art subjects Norman Rockwell or Keith Haring won't attempt to claim that they belong in the same rank as Michelangelo. One can quibble about many of the names on Ejlerskov and Lindahl's list (or ones omitted from the list, such as Remedios Varo, Tracey Emin, Kara Walker, or Sarah Goodridge), but one cannot seriously argue that artists like Mary Cassatt, Artemisia Gentileschi, Judy Chicago, and Cindy Sherman do not far outstrip some in the Basic Art series like Friedensreich Hundertwasser or Franz Stuck or the preposterous Fernando Botero in terms of artistic merit, influence, historical importance, and popularity.
Like the Basic Art series, Wikipedia serves an introductory audience, and in this particular area, Wikipedia succeeds where Taschen has failed. Of the 100 names on the list, which I've linked in my userspace, only two artists were omitted from the English Wikipedia when I wrote this editorial: The Canadian artist Helen Frances Gregor appears to be absent from Wikipedia entirely, and Russian painter Nadia Khodasevich Leger is mentioned a few times in passing as the wife of Fernand Léger, but not as an artist in her own right. We have many issues with systemic and gender bias on Wikipedia, but we also have the ability to address those biases in a way that a traditional publisher like Taschen cannot. We can question and argue about those omissions while Taschen cannot even recognize its own errors. We can form projects like Art + Feminism and WikiProject Women artists to systematically address these issues and improve our own coverage, while Taschen requires a public shaming before it can even begin to do so. It is another testament to the ability of Wikipedia to respond to omissions like these that even before this editorial was published, an enterprising editor created articles on the missing artists, articles I expect will be featured on Did You Know within a week.
Below is a gallery of self-portraits by twelve of the artists on Ejlerskov and Lindahl's list who are included in the English Wikipedia:
_-_Artemisia_Gentileschi.jpg)
.jpg)
The French government’s privacy-regulation agency decided in June to order Google Inc. to remove (or "delist") from all Google websites worldwide – not just those in France or the European Union – links that mention EU citizens who have invoked their so-called “right to be forgotten.” In doing so, the CNIL (in French, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés) demonstrates that the primary liberté it seems to care about protecting is the French government's liberty to order informational takedowns.
Google has now responded, formally requesting today that the CNIL rescind its order, an appeal the French regulator could take up to two months to review. The move marks just the latest, most expansive phase in the ongoing debate – particularly in Europe, but also in Argentina and even the United States – over the degree to which concerns about privacy, including the appearance of citizens' names in potentially unflattering search engine results, trump rights to free expression.
That debate has been gathering increasing momentum ever since the EU's Court of Justice (CJEU) ruled last year that a complainant had the right under European privacy law to demand takedown of certain links from search-engine results. You can find a general discussion of that case here and the official English-language version of the court’s decision here.
Google leadership consistently has expressed reservations and criticisms of the right to be forgotten (RTBF). Notably, Google CEO Larry Page remarked shortly after the decision that the ruling would "be used by other governments that aren’t as forward and progressive as Europe to do bad things."
While the court tried to express some guidelines for the RTBF —the opinion states that links should come down if they "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those purposes and in the light of the time that has elapsed"— it failed to state any principles that limit when takedown demands are appropriate. As a result, Google has been compelled to strike its own balances in determining whether a takedown demand should be honored.
It should be noted that Google’s search engine is even more widely used in France than it is in the US. In the United States, the desktop market share for Google search is perhaps 68 percent. In France, by contrast, Google commands a market share of more than 90 percent. (You’d get somewhat different numbers if mobile search were included in the tally.) Google’s share of the French market is particularly impressive, given that Yahoo’s French-language search was offered for years before Google got its foot in the door.
While it may have won the market’s popularity contest decisively among francophones, the French government (like many in the EU) is reflexively anti-corporate and suspicious of commercial enterprises, especially those based in the United States. That anti-corporate sentiment has led to somewhat anomalous pro-censorship decisions by a government that, only a few months ago, made a point of showing free-speech solidarity with the journal Charlie Hebdo.
Even if, as some have argued, Google has the human and financial resources to make case-by-case determinations about whether to honor a takedown demand, not every company has Google’s deep pockets. New startups that hope to be the next Microsoft or Apple or Google can’t hire whole teams of lawyers to review a huge volume of RTBF demands. And those lawyers would be in addition to the legal teams they already need to respond to copyright-infringement takedown demands, not to mention all the other legal work, from trademark-infringement claims to defamation claims to reviewing government orders to remove online listings for companies that sell drugs illegally.
In fact, most technology companies don’t hire lawyers at all in their early phases. The most prudent strategy for such startups is just to remove links or other content in response to every demand. Over the long run, it’s not hard to see how this default impulse would constrain freedom of expression and the equally important freedom of inquiry on the Internet.
On the other hand, if you were seeking to cement Google’s pre-eminence as the dominant search engine for all time, you could hardly do better than to impose the RTBF, and other soon-to-be-discovered rights, in precisely the way France now seeks to do.
Despite CNIL's claim that it is acting in "accordance with the CJEU judgement," the judgment stopped short of the new territory into which French regulators are seeking to expand. They’re seeking, expressly, to demand content takedown from anyone on the Internet anywhere in the world. Even France's ancien régime in the age of Louis XIV did not assert its powers that expansively. Properly, France and the other EU nations should be skeptical of claiming worldwide powers—just as, in other contexts, those nations ask the same of the United States.
As it happens, I’ve been dealing with RTBF issues for about six years, ever since I was general counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation was sued by German ex-convicts (you can find me discussing the case here) who wanted to suppress archived news reports of their guilt in a highly publicized murder case. It turns out to be hard to get a job when a potential employer looks you up online and the first thing he or she finds is the Wikipedia article about your murder conviction.
I understood and, to some extent, sympathized with the ex-convicts’ concerns; I do believe one should have the opportunity to start over, at least to some degree. But I knew Wikipedia could never survive volume of takedown demands I foresaw would follow if we capitulated to this demand. Wikipedia, although hugely popular, is orders of magnitude less rich than Google Inc. is.
What I opted to do back in 2009 was to take the story of their demands to the press. The result? Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, the ex-convicts, arguably became more famous as a result of their demands than they would have been if they had focused more on their job hunts than on suing Internet newspapers and encyclopedias.
But that kind of happy outcome can’t be guaranteed all the time. Only a minority of complainants will turn out to be convicted murderers, although some larger number may turn out to have been convicted on other crimes. The public interest in remembering the facts about trials and convictions (and acquittals!) is, in my view, at least as strong as any "right to be forgotten." Which means that, just as we each should feel free to state "Je Suis Charlie," each of us should also be empowered to argue, with merit, "I am not Google."
| “ | The current publication model for medical research “needs a kick up the bum” in the direction of openness. New research appears at a torrential rate that overwhelms any human reader ... this requires the scientific community to tear down barriers to access. Wikipedia, Wikidata and related projects are increasingly showing us what that transformed world of open science will look like. | ” |
For more Signpost coverage on VisualEditor see our VisualEditor series.
Can't work without 'em, if you're working on a wiki, but it seems that many Wikipedians can't work with 'em, either. Templates, of course – the backbone of every page providing layout, banners, infoboxes, and fancy links that change around when you refresh the page. Luckily, we have a team of editors super-versed in how to manipulate the markup to produce the final result that we want, providing a smooth and (hopefully) stylish appearance to the reader. WikiProject Templates, with a current membership of around 60, helps to do the following:
That's rather a big remit when all looked at together, so to give us more of an idea, we interviewed APerson, Paine Ellsworth and Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing).
What motivated you to join the project? Do you have a particular interest or proficiency in maintaining templates?
Does WikiProject Templates collaborate with any other projects?
How would you rate this project's success and participation?
What are WikiProject Templates's most pressing needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Anything else you'd like to add?
The WikiProject report will be taking a break for a couple of weeks while the regular author has a vacation. If you're interested in having a wikiproject that you work with featured in a future report, make sure to drop a note at the Signpost's WikiProject desk, and as always you may take a look in the archive to read previous reports.
If you were wondering, the title above is part of a mantra in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; it translates to, "From death lead us to immortality." Perhaps a touch melodramatic, I'll admit, but it seemed appropriate to me this week, given the milestones this list crossed. Death is no stranger to this list, but it has never cast such a pall as this week, when for the first time half the slots in the top 10 were devoted to it, including the top 3. The other milestone is, of course, India, who for the first time claimed five slots in the top 10.
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 26 to August 1, 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 | A. P. J. Abdul Kalam | 
|
3,589,713 |  |
The surge of views this former scientist and reluctant politician received upon his death this week at the age of 83 is merely a reflection of the regard in which he was held by his fellow Indians. A Muslim in a predominantly Hindu country, he rose to the very top of the political ladder, first as a developer of India's missile and nuclear programs, and then as President. Despite adhering to Islam, he considered himself an Indian and drew much inspiration from his country's Hindu heritage. As a result, his one term as President was one of the most popular in his country's history. A lifelong advocate of technology, he believed that India could become a developed country through embracing and expanding its knowledge base. |
| 2 | Yakub Memon | 
|
1,098,805 | The Muslim terrorist, believed to have played a role in the 1993 Bombay bombings that killed 257 people, was hanged this week amid speculation that he was paying for the crime of his still-at-large brother Tiger Memon. Many commentators contrasted his death with the outpouring of grief which greeted that of his fellow Muslim and national hero A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, and pondered what it augured for the future of India's society. | |
| 3 | Roddy Piper | 
|
1,086,945 |  |
Wikipedia viewers love their wrestlers, and so the death of "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, world-renowned WWF and WCW heel, at the relatively young age of 61, was bound to stir emotions. In the ring, "Hot Rod" played up his Scottish roots, affecting the rage of a Glaswegian football hooligan and entering to the sound of bagpipes, for which he was named (his real last name, incidentally, was Toombs, which you would think would be a perfectly acceptable wrestling name). While never a wrestling fan, I will always remember him as the working class hero of John Carpenter's political alien invasion allegory They Live, in which he originated the now-legendary line, "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass- and I'm all out of bubblegum!" OK, so it makes no sense, but it's still cool. |
| 4 | Bajrangi Bhaijaan |
|
948,650 |  |
Bollywood's Muslim-targeted counterprogramming to the raging box office tsunami of Baahubali: The Beginning, starring Hindu/Muslim superstar Salman Khan (pictured) and opening on Eid weekend, made Rs 2 billion ($31.2 million) in its first nine days, and earned support from legends like Shekhar Kapur. In its first 15 days, the film has grossed more than Rs 4 billion ($62.5 million) worldwide. But Khan's tweets in apparent support of Yakub Memon have led to posters for the film being defaced in some areas. |
| 5 | Bobbi Kristina Brown |
|
930,371 |  |
The eerie death of the daughter of the late Whitney Houston (found, like her mother, in a bathtub) has cast a pall of tragedy on a family already no stranger to it. Aged just 22, she had already become a focus of tabloid gossip and speculation. |
| 6 | List of highest-grossing Indian films | 
|
725,049 |  |
With the barnstorming performances of Baahubali: The Beginning and Bajrangi Bhaijaan making national news in India, people are interested to know how they stack up against the recent crop of record breakers.
NOTE: includes views for its redirect page List of highest-grossing Bollywood films |
| 7 | Baahubali: The Beginning |
|
747,036 | .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 and in just three weeks has already crossed the Rs 4.85 billion ($76 million) mark, showing remarkable stamina for an Indian blockbuster, most of which drop off by 80 percent at that point. |
| 8 | Ant-Man (film) |
|
515,092 | .jpg) |
Other than Guardians of the Galaxy, this was always going to be Marvel Studios's biggest gamble, and signs did not augur well after writer-director Edgar Wright abandoned the project when denied total creative control. And yet, while it is hardly the box-office miracle that Guardians was, it has proved a moderate domestic hit, at $132 million to date, though it is on course to become the lowest-grossing film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. |
| 9 | Deaths in 2015 |
|
482,484 |  |
The viewing figures for this article have been remarkably constant; fluctuating week to week between 450 and 550 thousand, apparently heedless of who actually died. |
| 10 | Ronda Rousey | 
|
482,298 |  |
The undefeated UFC women's bantamweight champion beat Bethe Correia in 34 seconds during UFC 190 on August 1 in Correia's home town of Rio de Janeiro. Apparently Correia had been trash talking Rousey prior to the fight, which strikes me as a rather odd thing to do to someone who a) has never lost a fight and b) won her last fight in 14 seconds. |
.jpg)
Three Featured articles were promoted this week.
.jpg)
Seven Featured lists were promoted this week.
.jpg)
Twenty-two Featured pictures were promoted this week.
What if there were a gathering place on Wikipedia for newer editors to find a mentor? What if we could match these editors to mentors based on their needs and goals? And what if we could do more to help editors beyond pointing them to documentation? This was the motivation behind developing a recently piloted mentorship space called the Co-op on the English Wikipedia.
Funded by an Individual Engagement Grant, our team assessed the current state of help spaces on the English Wikipedia and created the Co-op, a mentorship space informed by our research. For instance, we noted that newer editors are often familiar with some guidelines and policies, but are unsure of how they are implemented in practice. Consequently, we ensured that editors using the Co-op could be matched with mentors to focus on conventions and best practices in editing that are not always easily found in documentation.
Another common theme was that newer editors seeking help were initially overwhelmed by the sheer number of help pages and felt lost. In building the Co-op, we created a system to design mentorships based on concrete topics or problems, rather than leaving them too broad or unfocused.
Using the Co-op is simple: editors are matched with mentors based on how they wish to contribute, which they specify within a profile. These matching criteria include writing, image help, and technical work (such as syntax), among other topic areas. Editors can provide more specific details about why they are seeking mentorship within their profile as well. A bot then searches and matches the editor to a mentor who has volunteered to teach in that area. The two editors are pinged using the notifications system and informed about the match, where mentorship can then begin. Editors can change their profiles at anytime based on their needs and goals. Mentors can award Co-op barnstars to editors who have achieved their goals during mentorship:
Our final report details the outcomes of our background research in evaluating help spaces on the English Wikipedia in addition to the development and results of the Co-op pilot itself. The pilot was a one-month long experiment that brought in 49 participants to use the Co-op, and was supported by our team in addition to 25 mentors. Here are some key findings on the impact of mentorship through the Co-op:
Based on our findings, the Co-op appears to facilitate positive and productive experiences for editors. As such, we have reopened the Co-op for general use. Our team feels that the broader editing community can begin to take charge of the Co-op to promote its maintenance and growth. There are certainly areas where our mentorship space can be improved, some of which can be found on our phabricator task board. In order for the Co-op to succeed, we also need mentors who are willing to engage with and help teach newer editors. Mentors need not be good at everything on Wikipedia, and can choose to teach only in the areas they are comfortable. If you are interested in becoming a mentor, we invite you to sign up today.
We feel that the Co-op's model of mentorship shows promise for providing a positive experience for newer editors. Whether you are looking for a mentor, or want to be a mentor, we invite you to check out and participate in the Co-op!
[[m:User:I_JethroBT|I JethroBT
Co-op Project Manager
(1830s).jpg){kind=link}
(1830s).jpg){kind=link}
(1830s).jpg){kind=link}
(1830s).jpg){kind=link}
(1830s).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
