Chaim Gartenberg of The Verge watched US Inaugural proceedings live in real-time edit-wars and observed that Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales lost his mind on Twitter over "alternative facts", and then engaged with replies. Kastalia Medrano with Inverse asks How Will Wikipedia Navigate the Trump Era? and while discussing "fake news" and editorial bias, notes that, "...Wikipedia editors can't share a bias precisely because of the way the site is structured...". Meanwhile, writer Adrianne Jeffries for The Outline says that The whitehouse.gov reset broke Wikipedia links en masse, and interviews Signpost editor-in-chief Pete Forsyth for his opinion. (January 20-February 2) T

Astronomer Jennifer A. Johnson created a version of the periodic table of elements, mapped to the composition of the human body. The table improves upon a similar one added to Wikipedia in 2014, and present in nine language editions of the site, and many different articles on English Wikipedia. Johnson elaborated on the errors in the Wikipedia version in her own blog post.

The editor who created the now questionable graphic, Cmglee was contacted and replied about the matter. After looking over the new image, Cmglee requested that Jennifer A. Johnson's corrected version be used. Johnson was also asked to release her table for public use, which she now has.

Cmglee's version was well documented and sourced at the time it was uploaded in 2014, incorporating some feedback from the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Cmglee, who used data from Northern Arizona University Meteorite Laboratory and elsewhere, also pointed out that the "incorrect" version was selected as the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day in January of 2016, and noted the "subsequent criticism of its veracity" (in two pages of discussion there about the table). (January 9, January 23) T

A new way to export pages to PDF files has been developed. The current method of creating PDFs uses the Offline content generator (OCG) service. However, it can be quite problematic for many articles, as tables–including infoboxes–are completely omitted.

There have been multiple requests for table support since the OCG was introduced in 2014. The issue was also raised in 2015 as part of that year's Community Wishlist Survey and German community technical wishlist. Since then, the German Wikimedia chapter (WMDE) has been leading the initiative on enhancing tables in PDF. It was discussed at the 2016 Wikimania Hackathon, where a solution was proposed: offer an alternative PDF download that replicates the look of the website, using browser-based rendering instead of the OCG's LaTeX-based rendering.

• 
  The current (OCG) PDF rendering
• 
  Browser-based PDF rendering

The new PDF creator uses the Electron Service to render pages (using the Chromium web browser as a back end). When enabled on a wiki that already uses the OGC service, clicking "Download as PDF" on the side menu will display a choice of which service to use. The Electron Service was enabled by default on Meta and German Wikipedia last week, and is planned to be deployed to more wikis later.

A community consultation is open on MediaWiki.org regarding the future of PDF rendering. It is proposed to retire the OGC by August this year, once "core" OGC features are available with the Electron service. One such feature is the book creator, which collates multiple articles into a single PDF via the Collection extension. However, there are no plans to provide a two-column option, nor any plans to support conversion to plain-text or other file formats. E

Concerns were raised earlier this week on the wikimedia-l mailing list about the "back-up plan" for Wikimedia.

The most well-known backups are the data dumps of MediaWiki content. Operations Engineer Ariel Glenn, who focuses on the dumps, doesn't consider them to be a form of backup though: the dumps only contain public data that is viewable by all, and just run twice a month.

Glenn further explained that the dumps are currently stored on two servers in the Virginia datacenter, and the most recent ones are also on a third server. They are also mirrored by other organizations, placing copies in California, Illinois, Sweden, and Brazil.

Glenn noted that there are no dumps of images currently. Operations Engineer Filippo Giunchedi said, "We're looking at 120 terabytes of original [files] today." Giunchedi added that files are stored in both the Virginia datacenter and one of the Texas datacenters, so there is some redundancy.

The databases themselves have a high level of redundancy according to Database Administrator Jaime Crespo. The servers themselves use RAID10, and there are about 20 active database replicas across the Virginia and Texas datacenters with the same content that can be cloned if one server goes down. For cases of accidental data loss, there is one server that has a delayed replica by 24 hours in each datacenter.

As far as actual backups, Wikimedia uses bacula as its backup software.

"As far as content goes, we do perform weekly database dumps and store them in an encrypted format in order to provide a pretty good guarantee we will avoid data leak issues via the backups," Operations Engineer Alexandros Kosiaris said. "We've had no such issues yet, but better safe than sorry."

The backups are stored in the Virginia and Texas datacenters, and are deleted after about 45–50 days for privacy policy compliance, Kosiaris explained.

As for improvements, Glenn has been looking for new mirrors for the dumps. Crespo noted that work on selecting a location for a new Asia datacenter is in progress, including discussions with legal. L

The popular Twinkle tool (available as a gadget in Special:Preferences) celebrated its tenth birthday on January 21. Originally started as the rollback script "Twinklefluff" by AzaToth, it now automates or simplifies a plethora of common maintenance tasks, including responding to vandalism, tagging articles, welcoming new users, and admin duties. It is likely that over the past decade, millions of edits have been made using Twinkle. Thank you to everyone who has made Twinkle possible, your efforts are very much appreciated! E

On 30 January, Katherine Maher published a WMF blog in which she branded the new US administration's executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries (an action now partially stayed by several federal judges) as one that "threatens our freedoms of inquiry and exchange", and "infringes on the fundamental rights of our colleagues, our communities, and our families".

Maher's statement continues a trend for the Foundation to assume a more active role in advocacy. Unlike the coordinated service blackout by Wikimedia and other sites to protest against the copyright-related SOPA bill before the US Congress in 2012—a bill with substantial support from both major political parties—the blog concerns an action by a specific US administration. Maher's statement illustrates the difficulty of insulating the movement's visions from politics. As one Wikimedian put it on the Wikimedia-L mailing list: "writing an encyclopedia is a political act". Another person cast this in a broader perspective: "being in favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as freedom of sharing knowledge is not something which is accepted by all political regimes (please remember the globality of the movement".

The SOPA incident marked the WMF's hiring of a DC lobbying firm, Dow Lohnes, which advocated for the Foundation from then until the end of 2013, when it merged with law firm Cooley LLP 2014. The WMF retained Cooley to fight the lawsuit Internet Brands brought against two Wikimedia volunteers later in 2012. The Foundation hired a second lobbyist, Thompson Coburn, to monitor copyright legislation.

Maher's blog was variously supported and condemned on the Wikimedia mailing list. There were several complaints of a lack of community discussion beforehand. One contributor wrote that "needlessly and divisively injecting this kind of politics ... is neither healthy nor appropriate". Another replied to a comment that had supported the blog: "I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position didn't match your own. ... taking political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk".

The ban has threatened the situations of many people working in the US technology sector, on the basis of their countries of origin; the Signpost understands that this may include several WMF employees or contractors. As well, the action may create difficulties for the Wikimedia community offline. According to one contributor: "There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the current ban. I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so." Other Wikimedians were supportive: "Having a truly 'neutral point of view' when it comes to anything regarding Donald Trump is not really possible. I support and applaud Katherine Maher's statement on the WMF blog." In a post entitled Politics, Christophe Henner, the chair of the WMF Board, weighed in with a strongly worded statement, ending with this proposition:

... as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is political".

Just before publication, Michelle Paulson, the WMF's interim general counsel, posted a follow-up announcement to the list, including clarifications of the WMF's views on taking policy positions. Among Paulson's comments was this:

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in State of Washington v. Trump currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order issued in the United

States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal.

T

The Wikimedia Foundation announced two grants in January 2017: US$3 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, announced January 9; and $500,000 from two charities affiliated with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, announced January 26. The Sloan grant will fund improving the data structure of Wikimedia Commons, and has been discussed here; the Newmark grants will fund tools to assist in the prevention of harassment and "toxic behavior" on Wikipedia, and have been discussed here. The substance of each grant was greeted by Wikimedia community members with enthusiasm, though commentators also expressed skepticism on several points.

Discussion extended beyond the grants' substance, as some questioned the WMF's approach to restricted funding. Memories of the WMF's pursuit of restricted funds for the Knowledge Engine, which was widely understood to represent a substantial but undisclosed strategic shift for the organization, may drive some of the concern. One participant made pointed and repeated requests that the WMF publicly release its high-level product roadmap, and pointed to the initial announcement as evidence that such a document exists.

In response to a request from the Signpost, Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, the WMF's chief advancement officer, confirmed that the Sloan grant is the second-largest restricted grant in the organization's history, behind only the Stanton Foundation's $3.6 million grant to fund the VisualEditor software.

As a side note, this answers an open question about the VisualEditor grant. Community members had asked upon the grant's 2011 announcement whether or not it was restricted, but to our knowledge, no official answer was ever supplied. The WMF has a longstanding policy of publishing restricted grants' documents when possible, and a 2010 Stanton grant's plan was published; Seitz-Gruwell confirmed, however, that no grant documents from the 2011 VisualEditor grant have been published.

Shortly after the initial announcement of the Sloan grant, the WMF published three detailed documents from the grant application. The Signpost is not yet aware of any public documents from the Newmark grants; if any are published, we will link them in the comments or in a future update. (Update: See the comments below for two relevant links.) PF, Feb. 6, 2017

As the WMF continues to pursue funding restricted to specific programs and projects, it will likely continue to face questions around the philosophy driving its approach, the plans establishing the context for the restricted funds, and the level of influence exerted by funders or WMF staff pursuing funding. PF

Pete Forsyth was an author of the 2010 Stanton grant plan linked in this article.

In December 2016 Peter Gallert wrote an op-ed (Operation successful, patient dead) about the Wikipedia workshops he ran in Namibia. He asserted that while the workshops are fun as events, and may even produce a bunch of good edits, they are not effective tools for recruiting new people who will keep editing after the workshop ends.

I have run dozens of workshops for new editors myself since 2009, and sadly, I have to agree with Mr Gallert: Though there are pleasant exceptions, I rarely see people sticking around as editors after the workshop. Research from 2013 arrived at a similar conclusion. I know some workshop organizers who will beg to differ and say that applying certain techniques will make workshops more predictable and measurably effective; but I think everyone will agree that there is no known recipe for running a workshop that is truly efficient at creating new long-term editors.

There is, however, one way in which new editor workshops and other similar real-life events, such as edit-a-thons, are consistently highly effective: Observing new users of Wikipedia and other projects and learning about the technical and social challenges they face, challenges that are too easy for experienced editors to forget. It is very sobering to watch…

• … people trying to create an account and struggling with CAPTCHAs and other oddities.
• … people searching in Spanish in the English Wikipedia's search box.
• … people clicking on footnotes in Visual Editor to try to edit them.
• … people trying to publish an edit and trying to decipher warnings from AbuseFilter.
• … people creating a pretty OK article, seeing it deleted after a few minutes, and then trying to decipher the notices from administrators.
• … people not seeing notifications about talk page messages at all (and yes, it happened in the days of the big orange bar, too)
• … people trying to copy text by right-clicking and failing (you may be wondering why would people do it by right-clicking instead of using a keyboard shortcut, but it's just unbelievable how often I see this).
• … people having no clue what to write in edit summaries.
• … people clicking the "History" tab expecting to learn stuff about the Napoleonic Wars.
• … people staring blankly at the instructor talking four-tilde signatures and templates.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years I saw many, many more issues of this kind. Whenever relevant, I reported them as software bugs or started discussions in appropriate talk pages or mailing lists. Some of the bugs were fixed, and it's great; this is, very clearly, a thing for which workshops are useful.

But it does raise a few issues to consider and to remember.

First, it must be thoroughly remembered that it's not these people's fault, and there isn't something they were "supposed" to know. In the vast majority of those instances, they were trying to do rather sensible things, and to do them in good faith. Lack of computer expertise must also not be blamed—people who contribute to wikis are supposed to be good at the subject about which they are writing, more than they are supposed to be IT professionals. Besides, Wikipedia is different in many ways from a lot of other modern websites, and even people who are IT professionals often find it surprising. These problems are caused by mistakes in software design, by software bugs, by sysops fighting perceived vandalism too eagerly, and by other things inside the project. You organized the workshop for these people, so complaining about them is not productive. Neither is saying that learning all these features is a filter that good Wikimedians will be able to come through—this filter is artificial to say the least.

Furthermore, if not watched, such people will probably remain silent and go away. Thanks to my being there, I was able to address their problems immediately, by explaining what to do, or at least by working around them. The point is not to create a chance that they will remain good editors; most likely, as Mr Gallert says, they won't anyway. But at least they saw a human face that explained them the problem, rather than something totally robotic. And in some cases there is a chance that this problem will be fixed, so that it won't happen to other people at all.

And this brings me to the last point, which sums up all of the above: During the workshop, do make quick notes about the problems people report, and pass them on. Don't ever think that when a user complains or is confused by something, your job is done when you explain why the user is wrong. The user isn't wrong. Neither is your job done when you help the user overcome the problem on the spot. The user might complete the edit, and that is nice, but if the user is unlikely to stick around as an editor anyway, no significant impact will be made. If it confused this user, it may confuse thousands of others. Unless, that is, you report it. Reporting will create a chance that it will be fixed, and this will be an actual, undeniable positive outcome from your workshop.

How should you report it? For posting software bug reports, suggestions for changes and new features, and ideas for better design or workflow, Phabricator is usually the best place. When in doubt whether to report a bug or not to report it, do report it. For issues that are more about community, culture or local templates on your wiki, the appropriate talk pages and mailing lists are the right forum.

Should you treat your editing workshops as just user testing in disguise? No, you absolutely shouldn't. I don't. You should keep treating them as editing workshops, and it won't hurt to keep thinking of ways to make them better recruiting tools. But you should start thinking about them not just as opportunities to change people into being Wikimedians, but also as an opportunity to change your own project into one that is easier for good people to join—and this is in your hands.

The firm—whose website advertises expertise in "public policy, politics, philanthropy, communications and global development"—was noted in August 2016 for having crafted an ambitious public relations plan for the University of California, Berkeley, one of the world's elite universities. UC Berkeley's chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, announced his resignation that month following sustained criticism over financial matters and over his reponse to a string of sexual misconduct cases. One widely reported example was the university's construction of a $700,000 fence around Dirks' residence, as well as an "emergency exit"—reported as a manifestation of mutual mistrust between university leadership and its students and community. Williamsworks crafted a plan to "improve the Chancellor’s strategic profile nationally and internationally", and aimed to secure speaking engagements at prominent venues like TED Talks and the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Like UC Berkeley, the WMF had substantial difficulties in 2016, and has since sought to rebuild trust in its community, in part through its promotion of former WMF communications director Katherine Maher to the post of executive director. Introducing his March 2016 Signpost interview with Maher, reporter Tony1 observed: "Getting people to trust each other and work together appears to be a hallmark of her style." Subsequent Signpost interviews with several Wikimedia volunteers echoed the theme of trust.

Whether or not Williamsworks pursues top-tier speaking engagements for WMF leadership, it does appear to bring experience in one critical area beyond those explicitly identified in the WMF's published criteria, which centered more on the international Wikimedia movement than the organization.

Williamsworks was one of several small organizations considered for the role by the WMF, starting in late 2016. Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, the WMF's chief advancement officer, responded to a Signpost inquiry, confirming it was she who initially proposed the firm, along with several others, for consideration. Gruwell, who shares roots in Montana politics with Williams, said "Whitney is in my professional network", but added that they have no family relationship, nor has she worked for Williamsworks.

Maher published her fifth update on the strategic planning process on February 2. In addition to Williamsworks personnel, the core strategy team will include Suzie Nussel, an executive marketing consultant initially retained by former WMF executive Lila Tretikov in her previous strategic planning effort, and Guillaume Paumier, a Wikimedian since 2005 and WMF staff member since 2009. The update also describes the core team's initial plan for engaging Wikimedia community members.

The WMF has advertised for 17 language specialist strategy coordinators who are bilingual in English and at least one of a list of other languages. Interim chief of community engagement Maggie Dennis announced that these Wikimedians will be expected to:

• conduct deep outreach to the specified non-English communities;
• liaise between these communities and others to maximize participation of their communities in the movement strategy process;
• monitor and summarise discussions about strategy topics; and
• produce a summary report at the end of their contract.

Three further positions are available for Meta Wiki strategy coordinators, who will work alongside the language specialist coordinators and others to facilitate the Foundation's inclusive strategy processes. Successful applicants will take up a three-month contract for up to 20 hours per week, beginning in early March 2017. PF & T

The Wikimedia Foundation's Interactive team has been put "on pause" pending further determinations about its future, according to an announcement initially published on the Discovery email list on January 20. A subsequent discussion on the more widely read Wikimedia-L email list revealed concern from a number of Wikimedia volunteers, who—in contrast to extensively covered pushback on a number of WMF software rollouts over the years—expressed enthusiasm for the team's recent offerings.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

See or edit source data.

The Interactive team is part of the WMF's Discovery department, which may be best known for its origin as the team charged with executing the ill-fated Knowledge Engine project in 2016. But the Interactive team's work bears little resemblance to the Knowledge Engine. The team's two most recent outputs enable interactive maps and data-driven graphics on Wikimedia sites. The latter, built on data sets that can be stored on Wikimedia Commons, appears to have the strongest readership of any Signpost Technology Report in the last year Technology report, driven in part by unusually popular Facebook and Twitter posts illustrating an interactive graphic. Social media responses praised the feature, its origins in a readership survey that found especially strong interest in "rich content", and the lead developer's sustained focus on addressing that interest.

Posts on the email list expressed dismay over the news and the manner of its announcement, which was initially explained by a Discovery product manager in a discussion on the Phabricator site for bug reports: "There were expectations that were set regarding things such as team goals, working collaboratively with stakeholders, and advance notice to communities, that were repeatedly not met by the [Interactive] team." Wikimedia volunteer TheDJ, who first brought up the incident on Wikimedia-L, described the team's work as "more productive and groundbreaking than many other teams have been able to do in 5 years". However, progress in the discussion was gradual, due in part to the absence of the person responsible for the central decision; Katie Horn, Director of Discovery and Fundraising Technology, was out on a scheduled vacation. As the discussion evolved, speculation emerged—later confirmed by Wes Moran, WMF's vice president of Product, in an email to the Signpost—that the Interactive team's lead developer had left the organization.

Responding to a request from the Signpost, Moran addressed the various concerns raised. He said he was "happy that there was respect and enthusiasm for [Interactive's] work." His department is "reviewing how this work is done," and has not made a decision to end it entirely. The immediate focus, he told us, will be to complete work toward goals in the 2016-17 Annual Plan, which runs through June 2017. A review of the annual plan, as well as the Product department's Funds Dissemination Committee application for funding, suggests that the remaining work for the present fiscal year may consist of ways to "connect Wikimedia projects" and enable users to "interlink interactive content across projects." He also pointed to successful projects by other teams in the Product division, noting that Discovery plans to improve the successful search suggestion capability.

A Signpost review of the Discovery department's meeting notes from fiscal year 16–17 (see update below) revealed no obvious related goals for Interactive; the justification for the claim that Interactive had missed goals and expectations remains somewhat opaque. One email from a team member added some context, with the following introductory remarks:

Work on Interactive was led by very energetic and talented technical folks for a good chunk of time without a lot structure around the work. Then,

about a quarter ago, the team tried to start with more planning—a roadmap, team roles, checklists for deployment—the usual stuff. It didn't go well.

Moran expressed confidence that volunteer developers involved in the work of the Interactive team would remain engaged, and stated that further information about work in the Discovery department would be forthcoming: "Wikitech-L and team lists will remain the standard for updates about Wikimedia engineering. We will also be adding a FAQ on MediaWiki.org about the pause and changes to help with the communication." Watch the comment thread below for an update. PF

Update: Chris Koerner, community liaison for the Discovery department, emailed us following publication, to point out that we missed important meeting notes in our review. He suggested these two additional collections of notes. Indeed, some of these notes—particularly those from a December 2016 meeting—do appear to inform the questions raised in the discussions covered here. We regret missing these messages, and thank Chris for the update. -PF, Feb. 6, 2017