As usual, a gallery (#1) of dearly departed humans (#8, #14, #23, #25, #29, #32, #36, #50) raised the highest spikes of interest this year, although nothing compares to the 2016 hecatomb.

The British royal family headed by Elizabeth (#7) and Philip (#47) enjoyed its annus mirabilis, as a popular prince (#19) married an American actress (#4), reminding the world of his father's (#40) wedding to the princess of hearts in 1981, and for the oldest among us, Prince Rainier's wedding to Grace Kelly in 1956.

The British Crown remains so beloved that two recent TV series have reignited the popularity of its elders Queen Victoria (#31) and Princess Margaret (#42). We also followed a celebrity royal wedding of sorts, between Quantico actress Priyanka Chopra (#29) and the still-technically a Jonas brother Nick Jonas (#46).

Cinema fans were treated to a new crop of superhero movies, including Avengers: Infinity War (#3) and Black Panther (#6), that earned billions at the box office (#17); real-life superhumans Freddie Mercury (#5), Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (#39) and Winston Churchill (#49); the less-than wholesome antiheroes Deadpool (#27) and Venom (#30); and Aquaman, here represented by his portrayer (#22).

Meanwhile, Elon Musk (#12) was dubbed the "real-life Iron Man" as he launched his car towards Mars. Finally, the superheroes of football (#10, #26) delivered a stunning spectacle in the World Cup (#2, #48), and India (#33) celebrated its national superhero with by far the world's largest statue.

Without further ado, here is our special report for the 50 most-viewed articles in 2018. We aim to educate, engage, entertain, and enthrall. Enjoy!

• General Impressions

• 1. Which entry in the Top 50 struck you the most?

• The (fittingly) superb performance of Freddie Mercury's article. It was a welcome surprise to be sure, but nonetheless a shock. For Mercury to crack the Top 10, ahead of any recent death, ahead of any politics, is testament to the enduring legacy of the musician, and his persistent, perennial place in the popular zeitgeist. All it took was a catalyst to reinvigorate the captivation of Wikipedians in Mercury. Given that he is my favourite artist, this is a pleasant sign, and points to the timelessness of Queen's music. It is also a welcome sign, as the biopic which inspired all the resurgent interest in Mercury outright lies at several junctures, tarnishing and diminishing Freddie's legacy. It is good to see moviegoers turn to Wikipedia – we aren't always accurate, but in this case, Wikipedia has helped stem the propagation of myths surrounding one of my heroes, while also returning him to the spotlight he so richly deserves. Seeing that made me quite happy. Similarly, I was touched by the massive amount of interest in Stephen Hawking shown by those who use Wikipedia – Stormy clouds (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• An odd one, perhaps, but Donald Trump. In 2016, he got 75 million views. In 2017 he got 30 million. In 2018, he got barely 17 million. At this rate, there's a strong chance he won't be on the list next year. Given how utterly, and consciously, Trump has dominated both traditional and social media over the last three years, it is somewhat boggling that his Wikipedia views have plummeted so precipitously. There are many ways to read this trend, not all of them pleasant. Perhaps it is indicative of the essential shallowness of interest in Trump; that for all his bombast and carnival barking there is, at the core, very little interest in actual knowledge about him. On the other hand, it may indicate that Trump's followers do not view Wikipedia as a valid source of information, likely considering it just another fount of fake news. Serendi^podous 12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from The Greatest Showman replicating its sleeper hit status here and I, Tonya and Darkest Hour inspiring entries when the fish romance that beat them at the Oscars couldn't, how India keeps on getting more and more present, replicating how some weeks of the Top 25 Report force us to take a crash course in South Asian affairs. 2016: India itself and the yearly Bollywood releases. 2017: both plus their biggest movie and their blockbuster list which it entered. 2018: those two entries, a big Bollywood death, and an Indian celebrity along with her American husband that would never enter the top 50 otherwise! Sure, a country with over a billion people can never be subestimated. But when English, in spite of being an official language, isn't the first one of most of the population, you wouldn't expect them to have a foothold here instead of focusing on Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, etc., and even making it grow whenever possible. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't really be a surprise these days that the top two living people are both members of the British royal family and yet, it is. Elizabeth II has managed to maintain 19M views despite The Crown taking a year off. That's the power of getting one-time CSI: Miami guest star Meghan Markle to do a turn as Duchess of Sussex, I suppose. I'm not surprised to see the Marvel Cinematic Universe taking the top spots film wise, not at Cristiano Ronaldo being the top sportsperson, although I am surprised at how close to beating him Cardi B, someone whose songs I have never knowingly heard (that's my fault, not hers), came. I am surprised by the high rankings for Ariana Grande and Dwayne The Rock Johnson, two individuals who have been prominent over the year but not massively more so than many of their colleagues, but seem to have a popularity that eclipses their fellow musicians/actors. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2. Which entry frustrated you to the greatest degree?

• Perhaps it is because it undermines my preceding answer, but probably 6ix9ine. There are no particularly egregious examples of despicable people in the list like Charles Manson last year, and nothing that has been as inescapably irritating as the malevolent music of Ed Sheeran. However, the massive interest in 6ix9ine is symptomatic of the issues inherent in modern music, and the presence of Freddie Mercury in the report only highlights the gaping discrepancy between the calibre of music then and now. Granted, much of the intense intrigue stems from recent months, where 6ix9ine was arrested and engrossed the internet. However, seeing him elevated to the same platform as legitimately groundbreaking musicians leaves me somewhat seething – even his stage name is juvenile and disrespectful, and the less said about the aural excrement he has released, the better. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No one entry frustrated me, but the overall patterns I saw did. (see below) Serendi^podous 12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After a year where only the worst possible dead guy entered the Top 50 (see above), there were eight this year, double the ones from the 2016 which we note had more high-profile deaths. Sure, there were icons (Hawking, Stan Lee) and shocks (X's murder, Bourdain and Avicii's suicides, and Sridevi, both for India and we outside there seeing such a commotion), but still seems too much, specially when Aretha Franklin missed it despite being such a beloved and influential musician. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Last year I said that I was frustrated from the "seeming lack of political interest from Wikipedia users". This year I am increasingly beginning to think they might have a point. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 3. Many of the entries in the report share similarities and recurrent themes, with movies, sport, royalty, and death proving especially prominent. What did you make of these developments this year?

• We saw royalty rise to a high position of prominence amongst the loyal subjects of Wikipedia last year, and the Windsors are fixed staples of the report each time a new season of The Crown rolls around. It will be interesting to see if the intrigue is maintained when the new cast dons the royal robes, especially with no nuptials on the horizons. Movies are a constant source of intrigue amongst perusers of Wikipedia, somewhat inexplicably, given that the standard article tells nothing outside of the plot (useless if you have seen the film, infuriating if you have not), the cast, and the reception of the film, all easily sourced outside from Wikipedia. Similarly, there exist superior channels for following sport than Wikipedia, and sporting articles often become editing battlegrounds, or are too often left deserted. Death is always going to intrigue, of course. What it ultimately says, and what was alluded to last year, is that Wikipedia is not necessarily used as the trove of knowledge that it is, but for trivial stuff and news. Unfortunate, as it calls into question the point of all the effort spent editing, but the rise of articles like Mercury, or the sheer quality of those of McCain, the Queen, and the general article for the World Cup, should bring pride to all those who edit them. In the digital age, protecting Wikipedia from vandalism and meticulously enhancing sourcing are the best way to curate and guard information, and seeing the high usage of Wikipedia, at least for me, reaffirms the utility of this mission. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not just similarity. 17 entries on the list (that's a third!) are identical to last year's. And of those that aren't, we see a strong continuity of theme: high-grossing films, sportspeople, high-profile weddings and people depicted in movies or television. If anything, this year's list is even less distinctive; at least 2017 had Bitcoin. I think this bodes boring for the years ahead. Given that this year featured a game-changing midterm election, a global movement against sexual assault, and a Saudi crown prince deeply involved in two brutal wars and perhaps guilty of murder, it seems people are using Wikipedia to escape, not to stay informed. Serendi^podous 12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The world is screwed enough that looking for what is on the movies, TV, music and sports instead of being confronted with the reality of politics and such. And of course, the fascination for celebrity, none bigger than an actual royal family. People sometimes seem more interested in the personal lives of artists than what the celebrity produced – sure, Cardi B, Jason Momoa and Donald Glover entered simply for their successful work; but while Ariana Grande's new album and hit singles helped, the view peaks were mostly because of the engagement that ended up broken, and the death of her ex which some stupid fans blamed her for. It even has a cross with the sad affair no one can escape, death: when someone with a big following ends up dying, sometimes surprisingly even when they were over 90, people are shocked, want to make sure it happened by checking Wikipedia, and eventually remember all their accomplishments by reading the articles and everything related to the deceased. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• People like whimsical topics like movies and sport (and royalty apparently). People don't like serious stuff like politics. Can't blame them TBH. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 4. What entries do you anticipate making their way onto the list in 2019?

• Last year, I speculated that Wikipedians would become far more familiar with the Egyptian King. Not an altogether terrible guess, if I may say so myself. In fact, I was one thuggish Spaniard away from all my predictions transpiring (something that I am still not entirely over). However, things are looking up at Anfield, so I will refrain from jinxing the Normal One again. Outside of football, it is difficult to predict. Avengers: Endgame and the final season of Game of Thrones are certain to feature prominently. Politics will also feature heavily, with the repercussions of Article 13 and Brexit being felt in Europe, and the political machines gearing up for 2020 stateside. Again, death is likely to feature – but why? Stormy clouds (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• With Game of Thrones, The Crown and Stranger Things returning next year, I expect next year's list to be almost identical to last year's. Serendi^podous 12:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Movies (Star Wars: Episode IX and most if not all superhero ones – the MCU has three movies, and there is no Ant-Man to underperform and miss it; Fox will drop two X-Men movies they delayed; and DC could surprise us with Shazam and Joker – are a given), television (as noted above, three big hitters return), any big politics stuff, high-profile dead people, some sports thing (though who knows if with Juventus, CR7 will have enough success to return?)... and in a longshot prediction, some Indian affair that will get us by surprise. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Deaths in 2019 first, probably Elizabeth II second and Avengers: Endgame in third. Ariana Grande and Dwayne The Rock Johnson both to be in there. Outside chance of the August 2019 apocalypse if that happens as prophecised by me, just now. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add other questions here:

• 5. What's the funniest entry this year?

• Millennials. Seriously, English-speaking world. Grow up. Serendi^podous 12:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that. As one of our contributors noted, it's not a staple of education like the World Wars, which finally missed the report, so it shouldn't be getting 30,000 views daily. Yet "Millennials" is seemingly a buzzword that caught fire, mostly in a pejorative sense, and just won't go, something baffling and undeniably amusing. Igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that a large number of the views stem from the intricate web of links which lead to the article, but I am still always amused by the exorbitant high page hits garnered by the land of the free. I like to imagine someone seating themselves before a computer, thinking "what are these United States that I keep hearing about?". Seeing Wikipedia, a resource which we work so hard on cultivating and ameliorating, used for such trivialities, you have two options – laugh or cry. I guess that I choose the former. – Stormy clouds (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Avengers: Infinity War has the sign in the Edinburgh restaurant offering deep fried kebabs, which is funnier than any of the jokes in the actual comedy superhero film. OZOO (t) (c) 22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Prince Philip's quotes made me spit my coffee out. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From The Wall Street Journal on December 26: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker Incorrectly Claims Academic All-American Honors, "Questions about Mr. Whitaker’s claims to have been an Academic All-American were raised Monday on Wikipedia Signpost, an in-house publication for Wikipedia editors, by a user named Smallbones."

United States national media and international media covered the story as well. A sample of the publications who reported the story after WSJ includes The Hill, Newsweek and Newser in the States;^[1][2][3] Daily Mail and The Week in the UK;^[4][5] The Japan Times, the Malay Mail, and Reuters internationally.^[6][7][8] Only Newser and WSJ attributed The Signpost. – B

The Most Famous Person To Die In 2018, According To Data Science: – or Wikipedia. In a well researched article – at least some interesting stats – on 28 December James O'Malley of the HuffingtonPost reveals that 'more celebrities died in 2018 than in any year since at least 2010' – based on data extracted from Wikipedia: "...we’re here to determine who was the most famous person to die in 2018 and whether more famous people died this year than in previous years. ..." Paying tribute to Wikipedia's coverage of dead celebs, supported by numerous charts and tables, the article makes not only interesting reading but demonstrates again how useful Wikipedia can be: "The first problem when building a model for this is defining the parameters: Who exactly counts as a celebrity? Sure, we could simply pick whoever we remember dying, but this is science — which is why we turned to every serious academic’s favorite tool: Wikipedia." – K

"Olivia Colman reveals battle with Wikipedia over her age: ‘We’d have to see a birth certificate’ ", reports Amy Hunt on 29 January in woman&home. Award-winning English actress and Hollywood star Olivia Colman faced hostility from Wikipedia editors who refused to publish her correct age, making her 52 years old instead of only 44 (now 45) and then demanding her birth certificate before they would correct it. After several attempts to communicate with Wikipedia without a reply, Colman who has won over 35 major awards, retorted to the demand with ", ‘whose f****** birth certificate have you looked at in the first place to make me eight years older?’” Several other publications, including the Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Independent, Evening Standard, Sky News and Harper's Bazaar, have published the story based on a podcast with David Tennant. It would be a good story if it were true, but Wikipedia editors have thoroughly debunked Colman's claim in a discussion at Talk:Olivia Colman. Colman's birthdate has been reported correctly since 2006 with the exception of a short-lived case of vandalism.– K, S

• 9,000 photos for Wikipedia: 'Wikipedia Photog and Unsung Hero of Community News'. Jonathan Sperling writing in Queens Daily Eagle on 4 January tells how 70-year-old Wikipedia editor Jim.henderson has taken many of the photos that appear daily in the New York press. "It’s a situation any community news editor in New York City can relate to," says Sperling whose article on Jim Henderson is covered in a Washington Post opinion piece by Stephen Harrison on 14 January.
• Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up, says Stephen Harrison in The Washington Post on 14 January. "Wikipedia’s rise is driven by a crucial difference in values that separates it from its peers in the top 10 websites: On Wikipedia, truth trumps self-expression."
• Gender gap:
  • In an article in The Guardian on 12 December last year, Victoria Leonard, a University of London postdoctoral researcher in the department of history, states "...Wikipedia has a gender bias that really bites: between 84-91% of editors are men" explaining that "By illuminating positive female role models through initiatives such as #WCCWiki and the WikiProject Women In Red, we can make online spaces fairer and more inclusive, where women are allowed to succeed, and can be seen doing so. We just need a woke Wikipedia."
  • Jess Wade, a post doctoral physicist at Imperial College London gets more extensive attention from the press. In an article by Nisha Gaind in the current issue of Nature, one of the world's top academic journals, Wade is one of 'Nature’s 10 people who mattered in 2018.'
  • More coverage on Wade's Wikipedia work is provided by Ewan McAndrew, Siobhan O’Connor, Sara Thomas and Alice White in the 8 January issue of the NewStatesmanAmerica in 'From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia', while last year on 24 July The Guardian science correspondent Hannah Devlin reveals that Wade had created 270 Wikipedia articles on women: "I had a target for doing one a day, but sometimes I get too excited and do three.” This year on 2 January Dianne Apen-Sadler writing for Mailonline provides an account of Wade's increased activity to complement the encyclopedia with more biographies on people from minority groups: "Every day in 2018 I started the @Wikipedia biography of a woman, person of colour or LGBTQ+ scientist or engineer. I’m up to 450 pages so far #womeninSTEM x #HappyNewYear."
• Talking to CBS News on 20 January Ser Amantio di Nicolao, with over 3 million edits Wikipedia's most prolific editor, reveals more about his daytime job than he states on his user page and says he has written 35,000 articles. Time magazine once named him one of the top 25 most influential people on the internet, alongside President Trump, J.K. Rowling and Kim Kardashian West.^[9] "People like Steven are incredibly important to platforms like Wikipedia, simply because they are the ones that are the lifeblood," said Kui Kinyanjui, vice president of WikiMedia communications.
• Millions from Google:Google's recent gift of $3.1 million to Wikipedia and the endowment brings its total contribution in the last 10 years to more than $7.5 million according to Matsakis, Louise (January 22, 2019). "Google Gives Wikimedia Millions—Plus Machine Learning Tools". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028.
• Bertha is no longer boring:A Seattle transportation tunnel and a Wikipedia article on Bertha (tunnel boring machine), an editor and his daughter on KING-TV [5]

A new beta feature for transferring files to Wikimedia Commons was released for all wikis on 16 January. The FileExporter allows files to be transferred along with the file history (previous versions of the file) and description page history. Existing tools can copy files over, but information such as who originally uploaded the file has to be added to the description page, for example with the {{Original upload log}} template.

The feature was initially released in beta on MediaWiki.org, Meta-Wiki, Wikisource.org, and the German, Persian, Arabic, and Korean Wikipedias.

To test FileExporter, activate it in your user preferences; feedback can be left on the central talk page on MediaWiki.org.

The feature was developed by Wikimedia Deutschland's Technical Wishes project, in response to a 2013 wish from German-speaking communities. Further information is available on MediaWiki.org and Meta-Wiki.

For a short time on 10 and 11 January (Thursday and Friday), several users reported that hitting the enter key in the edit summary box no longer saved the page. Instead, it opened a menu of common edit summaries, available when the default summaries gadget ("Add two new dropdown boxes below the edit summary box with some useful default summaries") is enabled. A workaround was added to MediaWiki:Gadget-defaultsummaries.js until the issue was resolved.

An emergency server switch was performed on 17 January at 07:00 (UTC), due to a hardware failure. This impacted most wikis, but not English Wikipedia, nor Commons, Wikidata, Meta, Wikispecies, and several other Wikipedias (full list). The affected sites were read-only for less than four minutes during the switch. Further information is available on Phabricator.

A recent software update to the TemplateData extension caused some templates' data to become inaccessible to various tools. The affected templates were generally those that had been edited since the update was deployed. This resulted in VisualEditor not being able to display parameters or descriptions, as well as errors in gadgets and scripts such as ProveIt (report). The bug report, filed on 16 January, was given the priority "Unbreak now!", and a software patch resolving the issue was deployed on 21 January.

On 3 December 2018 with over 188,000 edits since 2008, COIN expert Jytdog scrambled his password and left. The details of his retirement are a separate issue but over 80 testimonials in recognition of his work demonstrate that his efforts to keep the encyclopedia clean are almost irreplaceable. A growing consensus on his talk page suggests that an essay he wrote in 2017 should be made widely available. Here it is:

This is a narrative to get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines.

This place is wide open – like a city with no locks on its doors – and anybody can just wander in, with their own notions of what they should do here. We have no training process and you don't need any license. We rely on that ancient, all-the-way-back-to-our-primate-roots human sociality for people to absorb the mission, and the policies and guidelines. Somebody could write an interesting paper about how that works (and doesn't work).

The welcome messages provide a series of links, but there really is no single narrative provided anywhere. So this is meant to sort of grease the wheels of the normal learning process here, for people who are in a hurry or who have been here a while but somehow never got the memo, as it were.

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedic content that summarizes accepted knowledge as a free knowledge and education resource for every day people, everywhere in the world who can read English, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of, working under pseudonyms if they choose. That's the mission. (!)

A lot of people come here mistaking Wikipedia for an extension of a company website, or as social media, or as some kind of directory or place to promote or denigrate people, companies, products, projects, religions, a political candidate, or some idea (like raw foodism or the paleo diet). That is not what we are about. This is described in WP:NOT, which describes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.

I cannot emphasize how important it is, to understand this! If you mistake Wikipedia for a blog or some other form of social media, or for a scientific journal or a newspaper, you are going to waste a ton of your own time, and the time of experienced volunteers. If you understand the mission, many things here in Wikipedia will make sense; if you don't understand it, many things here will just seem bizarre or arbitrary.

Probably the hardest thing for people to get used to – especially people who are used to writing scientific articles (or anything, really) – is the fundamental, well... epistemology here. In Wikipedia, you are not an authority. Nor is anybody else. Sources are authoritative. The reason for that, is that we are editors. Nobodies. Our names do not go on the articles we labor on. Please really, really think about that and take that in deep.

What we do here, is summarize sources. So, writing what you know, and sticking a citation behind that, is not OK. It is not how we work. Grabbing some research paper that excites you, or that the media is hyping, is not what we do either.

The kind of source that is most authoritative here, is a source that is a) independent of its subject; b) aiming to provide accepted knowledge – the state of play about X, whatever it is; c) written and published by people who are widely respected in the field of the subject. And again, what we do is summarize those sources. (We do fill in around the edges with what we call "primary sources" sometimes, but they don't drive content. A primary source is a person or company's own website, or a press release, etc. (A scientific research paper is also a primary source, btw). It would be really bad to have a page on Wikipedia driven almost entirely by citations to a person or company's own website, right? If that happens, the Wikipedia page is just a proxy for the person's or company's website, and that is not what we do here. We are not a PR vehicle. But sometimes primary sources are good for simple facts, like a birthday.)

That is really, really crazy hard for many people to wrap their heads around. But that is what has made Wikipedia possible. We don't argue about which Wikipedia editor is smarter or has more insight. Instead, we argue about what sources are most authoritative. And when we summarize them, we don't pick just one. We pick the best ones, and listen to them, and summarize what they say, aiming to transmit enduring, accepted knowledge, as it is understood at the time in the given field.

How did that come to be? This way of doing things evolved in the community over the past 16 years, through the decision-making process of this place. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts).

It was kind of a Mad Max world at first, back at the beginning. There was this idea – the first statements of the mission – about creating a free encyclopedia... but what did that mean? People tried to add content based on their own authority, but the community had no way to verify who anybody was, nor any real interest in trying to figure out a way to do that. (People who wanted articles to be written by experts actually split off and formed Citizendium... which was not able to attract enough volunteer experts and died). There were fierce and long discussions about how articles should be constructed here, and how to make decisions as a community at all.

One of the first group decisions that was made, and what became one of our most fundamental norms, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in some specific discussion, but includes and builds on all the discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past discussions (especially discussions about key issues) are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines – which are described briefly in the section below – you will see how they all fit together, to make the mission possible.

More high-level orientation first, however.

The policy and guideline documents (which are just writings that reflect the ongoing, evolving, living consensus) all reside in "Wikipedia space".

This gets us a bit into navigating the site. Articles exist in "mainspace". That is what almost everybody thinks of when thinking of Wikipedia. But there are other "spaces" used by the editing community. The policies and guidelines and various notice boards reside in "Wikipedia space" – pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS (Wikipedia space) is different from Consensus (mainspace – this is the encyclopedia article about this concept). There are other "spaces" here, like draft space Draft:X, where draft articles reside, and user space, for sandboxes and other things – this page is in my userspace, User:Jytdog/.... Lots of people have 'sandboxes' where they store stuff related to their work here – User:X/sandbox – please note that userspace cannot be hijacked to serve as personal webhost space – it it just for doing work here. There is also "help space" – all help starts at Help:Contents and takes off from there.

So how does this place work, governance-wise? It was founded on kind of a libertarian ethos, trying to maximize individual freedom but keeping people responsible to each other and the mission – it also has a communitarian ethos. The tension between these two is what has made this place possible as well. Like a lot of internet-based projects, each person is expected to read the manual and educate themselves about how this place works; more experienced users are happy to help, but you have to show that you are trying to engage the policies and guidelines, and not just their letter but their spirit.

This being a place built by humans, there are lots of disagreements. When these arise we try to just talk it through, as simply as possible. That discussion focuses on sources, and how to generate content from them, based on the policies and guidelines. (Not on the basis of: "I know what I am talking about and you obviously don't".) Talking to each other on the foundation of the policies and guidelines, is always the first move. We have plenty of other ways to resolve disagreements – noticeboards and the like. These are described at the dispute resolution policy page. We also have administrators ("admins") who have the power to block people as well as having advanced permissions, like deleting pages. And there is a ~sort of~ "court" system here that we can escalate especially thorny problems through, that ends up at our "supreme court", the Arbitration committee or "Arbcom".

People have tried to define the governance structure of Wikipedia and have come up with all kinds of questions and claims – is it a democracy, an anarchy, or controlled by a secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and very important text about how this place works).

At a yet higher level... there is a nonprofit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). It owns the servers that host the English Wikipedia, the many other language Wikipedias, Wikidata, and MediaWiki, which is the open-source software underlying Wikipedia and similar websites. WMF has employees who do behind-the-scenes things like keep the servers running, work on the software, as well as very public things, like outreach activities. However WMF does not get involved in the governance of the projects, except in rare cases when legal issues arise. Governance is left to the community of users in each project. Every time you make an edit to Wikipedia, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use contract between yourself and the WMF. The Terms of Use explain the governance, and that your use of Wikipedia obligates you to follow community policies and guidelines. (By the way, when people "donate money to Wikipedia", the money goes to the WMF. Which has nothing to do with content but rather, with the stuff above.)

And following on that – please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That value of openness is very important to us and editing is a privilege offered to everyone. But the privilege comes with a responsibility to pursue Wikipedia's mission and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. The community gives people time to learn, but eventually restricts or removes editing privileges from people who just cannot get grounded on the mission of Wikipedia, or who will not or cannot follow the policies and guidelines.

For people in business, you can think of the policies and guidelines as the strategy through which the editing community realizes the mission. For sociologists, you can think of the policies and guidelines as the norms that govern the community. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to understand Wikipedia's mission. (see the very top of this section, if you don't remember what it is!)

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior.

Again these were all built by the community over time, and they make perfect sense deep down... this is how a community of anonymous people can collaborate to build and maintain articles that summarize accepted knowledge.

Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines:

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not – this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a directory, not a vehicle for promotion, etc) This mission is to be an encyclopedia. Think "Britannica" not "Facebook" and not even "New York Times". It is so important to focus on the mission! Anytime you edit, you can write anything. Please keep in mind what you should do to further our mission.
• WP:OR – no original research is allowed here (you can't just make stuff up, or write what is in your head), instead
• WP:VERIFY – everything has to be citable to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!) Please note that writing content that interprets a source, and then citing the source you interpreted is not OK. Content in Wikipedia summarizes sources, it doesn't interpret sources. (this is discussed in WP:OR)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health. Generally, a "reliable source" is one with a reputation for providing accurate information that is independent of the subject. For everyday things, think New York Times as opposed to "some blog" or "company press release". For content about health, MEDRS calls for recent literature reviews in high quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies.
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think – it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" – it means that the language has to be plain and professional and not all flowery or fiery, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). (An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral.) If there are different perspectives about a topic, the one that is the most mainstream should get the most WEIGHT, and alternatives to that should get less WEIGHT. Stuff that is WP:FRINGE should get little to no WEIGHT at all. To work out what views about X are in the field, you need to do a lot of reading from high quality sources. Please be careful to select high quality sources and to listen to them. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP – this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and because people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
• WP:NOTABILITY – this is the guideline that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist in Wikipedia – it implements the WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE part of the NOT policy. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule – which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. This is a hard topic for the community, which is why this is a guideline and not a policy. There are several Notability essays about specific topics, like WP:PROF and WP:NJournals – we even have WP:LISTN.
• WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

• WP:CONSENSUS – already discussed. We make decisions based on the mission, and the policies and guidelines. WP is not a democracy – we don't decide by pure "votes" but rather !votes, which are given more or less weight when a discussion is "closed" based on how clueful they are.
• WP:AGF – assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (No personal attacks) and WP:NLT (no legal threats) – basically, be nice and focus on the work. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here – get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction, and don't personalize things. Don't try to win a content dispute by telling somebody else you are going to sue them or something. (Yes, people actually do that, and when they do, they lose their editing privileges. We have pretty much of a zero-tolerance policy for legal threats.)
• WP:HARASSMENT – really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy. You also can't use WP to harass people in the real world – this use of WP also violates WP:BLP.
• WP:DR – if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. If you are concerned about someone's behavior, don't bring that up on the article talk page – instead, bring that up on their user talk page. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up. If you cannot work the dispute out locally, then use one of the methods described in WP:DR to get wider input. There are many methods – it never has to come down to two people arguing.
• WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you have arrived at Wikipedia due to some external interest (for example – you want to create an article about your brother, or your boss told you to polish up the Wikipedia article about her or about the company, or you are a freelancer here for a client, or you are in litigation against someone and want to write about that), you have a conflict of interest. We ask you to declare your conflict of interest, and to not edit content directly where you have a COI, but rather post proposals on the article Talk page or put new articles through WP:AFC. Having a COI is not a bad thing, it just needs to be managed. Unmanaged COI is a bad thing. The PAID policy and COI guideline exist to preserve the integrity of WP and prevent behavioral problems that arise when conflicted editors push too hard for content that serves their external interest. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy. It is not OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for anything. (see WP:NOTADVOCACY, which is part of NOT)
• WP:TPG – this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like a user talk page such as User talk:Jytdog, an article Talk page like Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid, or a community notice board like WP:RSN. On discussion pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the first place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestible enough.

If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.

1. look for independent high quality sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources. Think New York Times not "some blog" and not the company website, and think New England Journal of Medicine, not Biology and Medicine. (The latter is published by OMICS Publishing Group which is the most often discussed predatory publisher. Be aware that predatory publishers exist, and don't use articles in journals they publish; you can check publishers at Beall's list.) Also beware of churnalism sources that look like they are independent but are lightly edited press releases. Once you have seen a few of these they are very easy to spot. See also WP:PUS for the kinds of sources to avoid.
2. Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there.
3. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT – be wary of distortions in weight due to recent events (see WP:RECENTISM).
4. Be mindful of the manual of style in all things (WP:MOS) but also go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other subject-specific style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) – create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography and for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines, for articles about health/medicine, there is WP:MEDMOS).
5. Create the blank article page following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles. (If you don't know how to create a new article directly... maybe wait until you do, to try, and just rely on AfC for awhile :) )
6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go. (See note about formatting citations below) Set up the References section and click "preview" plenty as you go, so you can see how it is going.
7. Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round (!) and add them back only as needed. Also write simply, in plain English. Not informally, but simply. Try to write so that anybody with a decent education can understand.
8. When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc (for external links, please be sure to follow WP:ELNO – we only do one "personal" external link, so don't include their own website and their Facebook page and their Twitter feed etc. Just one.)
9. Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. (You can look at the Talk pages of articles on similar topics, to see what WikiProjects are involved in them). If you have a COI for the article, note it on the Talk page, too.
10. The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences); there should be no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
11. If you are using AFC, submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published. If you have created the page in mainspace, make sure you have previewed several times and that everything looks OK, and click save.

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. We have a policy that requires disclosure of paid editing (WP:PAID) and further guidance in our conflict of interest guideline (WP:COI).

Indeed a January 2018 "supreme court" (our Arbcom) case stated as a principle:

2) Because Wikipedia is intended to be written from a neutral point of view, it is necessary that conflicts of interest are properly disclosed, and articles or edits by conflicted editors are reasonably available for review by others. Editors are expected to comply with both the purpose and intent of the applicable policies, as well as their literal wording.

Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

As in scientific publishing, conflict of interest is managed here in two steps – disclosure and a form of peer review.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. We do not ask anyone to disclose their real world identity, but relationships should be disclosed and for any edit where you have received or expect to receive compensation, you must disclose your employer, the client, and any other affiliation that is relevant.

There are various templates used for disclosure and there is specific guidance on how to use them, in the policy and guideline linked-to above. We generally look for the disclosure at your userpage and at any article talk page where you will be working under a COI. Please ask for help if you find anything confusing!

The form of "peer review" is the second step. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review – you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary – no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to battles with other editors, which is not good and one of the key reasons we seek to manage COI.

What we ask editors who want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, or which they are paid to work on, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) or Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the tags as mentioned above; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag, to flag it for other editors to review. In general the proposed content should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! That is why I wrote the section at the top of this page. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian – you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I want to add that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page. Please err on the side of caution.

Am not going to go into the details of this. There is training available at Editing basics. Please also see the help boxes away below, at the very bottom!

Please be aware that there are two main "text editors" used by editors. There is the new-fangled Wikipedia:VisualEditor that was built to be "what you see is what you get". There is also an old-school text editor that people use to manually type wiki markup to get things done.

I do want to talk about formatting citations a bit though.

Everything comes down to sources as mentioned above, and it is very important to provide complete citations, so that other people can use them. Other editors use them to verify the content and to build more content, and readers use them to dive deeper into the subject matter. (some readers use Wikipedia only to get quick access to the sources and pretty much ignore the content!)

There are templates for citations that are very useful. If you look at them and try to create them manually, this looks like a nightmare. I avoided templates for years and just did simple ones like this:

• Begley CG, Ellis LM. (2012-03-28) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 7391. 531–533 doi:10.1038/483531a PMID 22460880
• which looks like this in wikicode: Begley CG, Ellis LM. (2012-03-28) Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483: 7391. 531–533 {{doi|10.1038/483531a}} {{pmid|22460880}}

But then I learned that there are automated tools that will create templated citations for you super fast and this is how I work now... and it is good for you and everybody if you use them. Below is a description first of how to autoformat refs in the "Visual editor" interface, which many new users use, and then in the older Wikitext editor. In either editor, if you are writing about health, the part of the citation we care about the most is the pmid. Please be sure to use it.

We really value references that are available free-full text, so if there is free full text version please be sure to include the pmc field for biomedical refs or a URL to a free full-text if it exists elsewhere (but don't link to a version that someone has posted online in violation of copyright – see WP:COPYLINK as well as WP:ELNEVER).

• If you are working in the Visual Editor, as many new editors do, in the toolbar at the top you will find a button called "Cite". It gives you an option to automatically format a citation, using "URL, DOI or PMID". URL is the web address. DOI is an identifying number that most journal articles have, and PMID is the identifier at pubmed, the most commonly used database of medical articles. If you put in just any one of those three, the VisualEditor will create a decent citation for you.

The resulting citation will look like this:

• Begley, C. Glenn; Ellis, Lee M. (2012-03-28). "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research". Nature. 483 (7391): 531–533. doi:10.1038/483531a. PMID 22460880.

the underlying wikicode looks like this (a nightmare right? Thank goodness you don't have to generate this by hand):

• {{Cite journal|last=Begley|first=C. Glenn|last2=Ellis|first2=Lee M.|date=2012-03-28|title=Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research|journal=Nature|volume=483|issue=7391|pages=531–533|doi=10.1038/483531a|pmid=22460880}}

Please note if you use the "Re-use" function of the Cite tool in VisualEditor, it will create a "reference name" for the original instance of the citation and the subsequent ones, that looks something like this: <ref name=":0"/> Please know that this is a software bug that the editing community has tried to get the developers to fix for a long time now because those reference names are not useful because somebody editing after you, who is looking at the source text, will probably see only <ref name=":0"/> and not have any idea what reference that is, since it is often in a different section of the article. He or she will have to close out the editing window or open another tab to see what the original reference was. This is a waste of everyone's time. When you are done, please go back and change them to something that is unique and meaningful.

So if the VisualEditor did this to the original citation when you Re-used:

• <ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Begley|first=C. Glenn|last2=Ellis|first2=Lee M.|date=2012-03-28|title=Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research|journal=Nature|volume=483|issue=7391|pages=531–533|doi=10.1038/483531a|pmid=22460880}}</ref>

and did this for subsequent instances:

• <ref name=":0"/>

Please go back and change both ref names to something like <ref name=Begley2012> for the first one and <ref name=Begley2012/> for the subsequent ones. You can just search the source text for ":0" etc to find them. The VisualEditor just counts up in the reference names, so you may find ":0", ":1", ":2", etc, depending on how many references you re-used.

If you are working in the older Wikitext editor, there is a similar function. In this editor, there is also a toolbar, and on the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. If there is a pmc version of the article, this tool does not pick that up. You have to expand the "additional fields" at the bottom of the citation-creator – you will see the "pmc" field down there, to the right. The Wikitext editor does not have an automatic "re-use" function – you need to do that manually. There are auto-fill fields in the templates for news, websites, and books, too.

Here is a handy tool – you can plug in the url, isbn, or doi, and it will create a templated citation for you, that you can copy and paste into an article. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Venezuela, the country with the largest oil reserves in the world and where the population is starving and forced to eat garbage, access to Wikipedia has been blocked. The 2018 Venezuelan presidential election result was denounced as fraudulent by most neighboring countries. Both the Wikipedia articles on Nicolas Maduro, who won the election, and the article on Juan Guaidó who was declared interim president by Venezuela's National Assembly, have been protected, following edit-warring by users supporting both factions.

In January 2019, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) approved a resolution to not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro’s new term as of 10 January 2019, and, on 12 January, following political unrest surrounding President Nicolás Maduro and the National Assembly President Guaidó, Wikipedia was rendered inaccessible for most Venezuelans. According to one tweet:

Según los conspiranoicos chavistas: CANTV no bloqueó Wikipedia. Es al contrario Wikipedia bloqueó a CANTV.

"Wikipedia censura a Venezuela", es el mensaje desinformativo chavista. #InternetVE #Desinformacion#InfoDisordersVE

(Translation: According to Chavez conspiracy theorists: CANTV did not block Wikipedia. On the contrary Wikipedia blocked CANTV.

"Wikipedia censors Venezuela" is the Chavista disinformation message. #InternetVE #Disinformation #InfoDisordersVE — Iria Puyosa (@NSC) January 13, 2019

The following statement was issued by the Wikimedia Venezuela chapter (translation):

About blocking Wikipedia - Official release

During the last 72 hours volunteers of the non-profit civil association, Wikimedia Venezuela, and users of Wikipedia, have told us their inability to access the free encyclopedia through the most important Internet service provider in Venezuela, the state-run company CANTV. These allegations have been supported by the NetBlocks Internet Observatory.

As a civil association, we do not establish an editorial policy for Wikipedia or for any other Wikimedia project. We respect and support the editorial decisions made by the editors community. While we support local users of these projects, our association operates independently of the project and the international association that operates them.

Currently Wikipedia is the most important information query site in the country. Blocking access to this page leaves more than 30 million people without one of the most used educational tools by students and teachers at different levels of the academic sphere, resulting in the most affected sector composed of young people who do not have the power Purchase to acquire a school text.

Wikipedia is a neutral information source and operates independently to any government entity, news chain or for-profit entity. Its purpose is to globally distribute the knowledge generated through consensus, based on reliable sources that anyone can edit.

From Wikimedia Venezuela we urge the authorities with competence in this area to take the necessary actions to restore at the national level the free access to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. We hope that this inability to access Wikipedia has been a technical error, since no official information has yet been provided by the State.

Board of Directors Wikimedia Venezuela Caracas, January 16, 2019

Writing in GlobalVoices on the crisis on 15 January, Ellery Roberts Biddle and Laura Vidal state: 'This triggered sharp responses in public and online, and a bitter "editing war" between Venezuelan Wikipedia contributors, who were at odds over the same question: Who is (or should be) the legitimate leader of the country?' ... 'For now, the President of the National Assembly is free, and as of January 14, Wikipedia appears to be accessible once again in most parts of the country. But the episode sends a message about how authorities can react when the legitimacy of the presidency is called into a question.'

James Alexander, former Manager of Trust and Safety and long-time employee since August 2010, has quietly quit the Wikimedia Foundation. Amid much speculation on Wikipedia criticism forum Wikipediocracy, and nary a word on Wikimedia's WordPress website, Alexander has apparently made his exit from the San Francisco office using the back stairs. All mention of Alexander on the WordPress site has been carefully removed.

GorillaWarfare, an arbitrator on the English Wikipedia, appears to be best informed, and explains in one of her posts on Wikipediocracy: "Before some folks here get their conspiracy theories out, there wasn't a coup or anything. I really wish the WMF would announce these kinds of changes on the mailing lists before removing the userrights, it would save a lot of wild speculation." On 15 December, James Alexander's WMF account user page on Meta was tagged as historical by steward MarcoAurelio, while his personal Wikipedia user page, personal website, and LinkedIn entry continue to list him (as of 5 January) in his WMF capacity.

On Twitter, Alexander informed his followers that he is currently enjoying a well-earned break in Hawaii, before starting his new job as Safety Operation Manager at Twitter, working with the Periscope team.

Alexander came to the forefront for two issues during the 2018 Wikimania in South Africa when, while exercising his authority, he forbade one volunteer event helper from continuing his work as reported in our August 2018 Special Report, and withdrew the registration of a South African newsman and anti-apartheid activist from the conference, having the activist ejected from the venue. Alexander's reasons for withdrawing the registration were later confirmed to be partly incorrect, as documented on YouTube (from 26:51).

The Signpost has been informed by a senior WMF officer that Alexander's 'transition' was well prepared with German contractor Jan Eissfeldt, the lead manager of Trust & Safety, to whom Alexander's position reported, and that Eissfeldt has been working with the Trust & Safety team to figure out the best alignment to meet the team's future goals. As to the circumstances surrounding Alexander's departure or why it was not even mentioned, other than: "The Foundation doesn't discuss general personnel changes, to respect the right to privacy of our staff", the WMF has declined to comment further. Eissfeldt did not respond to The Signpost's invitation to comment.

The reasons for Alexander's departure, and why he was not publicly thanked for his eight years' work remain unknown.

Announcing her departure on the Wikitech mailing list of 11 January Chief Technology Officer Victoria Coleman is to become CEO of an artificial intelligence startup "striving for improvements in human well being through data driven insights". Coleman, a native of Greece, was employed by the WMF for two years. Her previous illustrious professional career (catch it before it is removed from the web site) started in 1998 already after 10 years as a tenured professor at the University of London, with a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Manchester, Following the announcement of her appointment in the WMF blog of 16 November 2016, she brought more than 20 years of experience in consumer and enterprise technology to the Wikimedia movement. She now moves on to an opportunity for her "...to exercise the full spectrum of my skills as the CEO of an early stage mission oriented startup."

The position of interim CTO will be filled by Erika Bjune, after Coleman's last day on 1 February.

Valerie D'Costa, a native of Singapore, joins the 300+ strong staff of the Wikimedia Foundation as the new Chief of Community Engagement, while Maggie Dennis moves on (or up?) by 'transitioning' to the post of Vice President of Support & Services. D'Costa received a Bachelor of Laws from the National University of Singapore and a Master of Laws from University College London. She received an executive MBA certification from the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, and is also certified as an executive leadership coach by Georgetown University School of Continuing Studies. Among her previous engagements, D'Costa spent 15 years working with the government of Singapore on issues of international information and communications technology (ICT) policy and trade. According to Executive Director Katherine Maher: "We were looking for someone with a global perspective, international experience, fluency in technology, and a deep empathy for community." D'Costa lives in Washington DC.

• Wikimedia gets another big(ish) donation: With a $1,000,000 gift to the Wikimedia Endowment fund, Facebook joins the list of major web sites to offer their support to free knowledge. "We launched the Endowment in 2016 as an unwavering commitment to the lasting power and promise of Wikipedia," says Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales on the Wikimedia web site "We are grateful to Facebook for this support, and hope this marks the beginning of a long-term collaboration to support Wikipedia’s future," The Wikimedia Endowment list of benefactors carries no mention of the social media site's gesture.
• Military History, with 879 active members, one of Wikipedia's largest topic projects, announced on 31 December the results of its annual awards for 2018:
  • First place: Gog the Mild
  • Second place: Sturmvogel 66 and Kges1901
  • Third place: AustralianRupert, Ian Rose and Nick-D
  • Runners-up: Hawkeye7, Indy beetle, Cplakidas, Factotem, GELongstreet, TomStar81, Zawed, Dumelow, MilHistBot, Adamdaley and Djmaschek
• The Guild of Copy Editors coordinator election results were announced on 1 January. Coords remain unchanged with the current incumbents remaining in office: Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg, and Tdslk. Miniapolis changes places with Reidgreg to become lead coord.
• New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this month's newest Wikimedia movement affiliates, the Wikimedians of Peru User Group and the Black Lunch Table Wikimedians.
• New administrators: The Signpost welcomes two new administrators to the English Wikipedia.
  • The RfA taking place over the holiday period did not daunt editors from turning out to elect JJMC89, a statistical programmer from San Francisco, as the first new admin for 2019. Since starting to edit in 2015 as a vandal fighter, he has made over 160,000 edits, specialising in account creation with around 10,000 accounts created, operating a bot, and serving the communities as an OTRS agent. Not without the multiple comments beginning to set the trend for a new RfA feature, and a flurry of opposing votes arriving after the first 73 supports, the successful RfA closed at 183/42/16 (81%).
  • Enterprisey, who has written a number of scripts and tools that the rest of us use hundreds of times a day, joined Wikipedia in 2012 and has a global edit count of around 29,000. The RfA closed with near unanimous support at 253/2/2 but not without the usual – and this time significant – polemic being raised over the three votes in opposition. One with the rationale 'Oppose: 232 Supports and 1 Oppose. That is a >99% Support rate. There must be something wrong with this guy' was struck by a bureaucrat.
  • Three administrators were desysopped under the inactivity policy.
• New deletion criteria: new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
  • G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion . This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  • R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  • G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts. Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

A proposed research project which would have randomly awarded barnstars to Wikipedia editors was recently withdrawn by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). Bending to concerns expressed by en.Wikipedians that the process was a social experiment, Ph.D. student Diyi Yang and Robert E. Kraut, Ph.D, Herbert A. Simon Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at Language Technologies Institute, CMU, withdrew their proposal. Initially approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at CMU, the proposed research entitled How role-specific rewards influence Wikipedia editors' contribution would have involved placing thousands of randomly assigned barnstars on unsuspecting editors' user pages in order to monitor their reactions.

Yang's research is supported by a Facebook Fellowship. Facebook's own research has been criticized in an article in The Guardian by Sam Levin on 1 May 2017 over research in which it sought to alter the emotions of users without their consent, and again by George Monbiot in his opinion piece in the same newspaper on 31 December 2018, stating that "universities are leading us into temptation, when they should be enlightening us". The CMU proposal came under fire at Meta from several leading Wikipedians including BrownHairedGirl, Deryck Chan, Risker, SlimVirgin, and WereSpielChequers when the discussion at Meta spilled over to the Wikipedia Village Pump in a long and heated thread.

Words used by Wikipedia editors to describe the project included:

"...Barnstars awarded among Wikipedia editors and the WikiLove messages I give and receive actually mean something. To use the Barnstars (and potentially the WikiLove system) in the researchers' proposed way devalues their meaning..." – Shearonink (diff)

"Diyiy, can you reply, please, to the part of SarahSV's question where she asks "in whose interests it's being done?" For my part, I want to know why Carnegie Mellon wants to know about Wikipedian behaviour. What benefits accrue to the university? And is the experiment to be of benefit to any of the great manipulators of public behaviour such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, or anyone who desires to sharpen their sophisticated tools even further? Does the university have corporate, government, academic, or other partners who seek to benefit from barnstar-motivation studies? Are you, yourself, a ripe candidate for recruitment by Facebook or similar, based on your current social experiment activity, or arising out of your Facebook fellowship? I am seeking full transparency about any hidden partners or researcher motivations. Cui bono? Thank you." — O'Dea

In a 455-page paper partly funded by Google, Who Did What: Editor Role Identification in Wikipedia, delivered at the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Aaron Halfaker (currently WMF Principal Research Scientist) in his capacity as WMF staff collaborated with CMU researchers Diyi Yang, Robert Kraut, and Eduard Hovy. From the abstract: "Understanding the social roles played by contributors to on-line communities can facilitate the process of task routing. In this work, we develop new techniques to find roles in Wikipedia based on editors' low-level edit types and investigate how work contributed by people from different roles affect the article quality."

"Diyiy and I should have been more precise when saying 'the proposed work has nothing to do with Facebook' and 'Facebook won't benefit at all from the research we've been describing'. We should have said that Facebook does not benefit directly from our research and does not benefit more from this knowledge than do other online platforms. We started this research on the influence of social roles in Wikipedia in collaboration with the WMF and our first paper[1] on the topic was published in 2016 before Diyiy received a Facebook fellowship. The proposed research should lead to generalizable knowledge about the consequences of bestowing recognition and the influence of social roles in online groups. This generalizable knowledge could be useful to many different types of online groups, including Wikipedia, open-source software development communities, online health support groups, peer-to-peer lending groups and many others, including Facebook's online groups."– Robert Kraut

"Every single barnstar I have came as the result of significant effort on my part. I don't understand why the researchers have decided to grant what is, essentially, one of the highest interpersonal symbols of respect on the project to people who have not made the level of contribution that the rest of the community would expect to see when a barnstar is granted. It's like throwing a parade in recognition of successfully emptying the trash baskets, very disproportionate."– Risker

"Sorry but I'm not happy about this. Please see "Wikipedia is not a laboratory". The proposal could be regarded as somewhat "disruptive to the community" in diluting the value of the barnstar, which we would hope is intended as a sincere expression of appreciation from one Wikipedia editor to another. [...] Wikipedia editors are not lab rats and should not be fed barnstars to see if they scurry round any faster afterwards! Feel free to disregard this if other contributors don't see it this way." – Noyster

Winding the clock back...

Seven years ago in April at ANI an attempt by Boing! said Zebedee to retain the dignity attached to the barnstar philosophy, by restricting its rampant willy-nilly use by IP users, a discussion on 'IP handing out random barnstars' was closed with: "Barnstar campaign and other forms of appreciation are not, other than exceptional cases, problematic or disruptive or actionable. This was not the droid you were looking for."

"If the barnstars are to have any meaning, it's probably wrong. However, the guidelines on when to hand out a barnstar are pretty liberal. I suppose you could request a change in who is allowed to give barnstars maybe. Beyond that, though it seems a tad excessive, it's not really uncivil or disruptive. – Avanu"

In April 2012 almost exactly 12 months later Softlavender filed a further ANI report on IP Barnstar spaming: 'I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason.'

"...there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well-deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions." –Arjayay

The case was closed with: 'While some find random (and inappropriate) acts of Love annoying, no consensus exists for mass action at ANI and cases can be handled one at a time. Changing policy on barnstars is clearly outside of the scope of ANI...'

The phantom barnstar bomber

The wild Barnstarist turns out in both cases to be none other than Mike Restivo editing while logged out in the pursuit of an early research agenda covered in The Signpost column 'Recent Research' from the issue of 30 April 2012. His works are cited by Halfaker et al:

1. Restivo, Michael, and Arnout van de Rijt. "No praise without effort: experimental evidence on how rewards affect Wikipedia's contributor community." Information, Communication & Society 17, no. 4 (2014): 451-462.
2. Restivo, Michael, and Arnout Van De Rijt. "Experimental study of informal rewards in peer production." PloS one 7, no. 3 (2012): e34358.

Just like Wikipedia is a representation of the collective consciousness^[a] of the world, admins here in a way represent the collective consciousness of Wikipedia. This article aims, in theory, to represent this collective here. To simplify the task, the scope has been narrowed down to merely the collective consciousness of "active admin userpages". Talking in plainer practical terms, this article picks up stuff (aka plagiarism^[b]) from the userpages of some active admins on the English Wikipedia and tries to convey it in a humorous light-hearted or serious/neutral way, as per the content. Note that everything compiled here, the respective degree of humour or seriousness, is courtesy the admins.^[c]

Admin Anne Delong is a bluegrass musician, 28bytes is a video game designer and Acroterion is an architect. J Milburn is a philosopher who still "takes part in horror-themed live action role-playing from time-to-time" while admin Antandrus is a professional pianist as well as a professional violinist, but JUST an "advanced" thereminist. Andrew Gray is a librarian working for a London university, Ausir is a freelance translator while Edgar181 is a medicinal chemist with a PhD in organic chemistry. Casliber is a psychiatrist, while Cburnett is an MS in biomedical engineering in striated muscle electrophysiology and Anachronist is a scientist who has worked mostly in the field of stealth technology. Ad Orientem has an infobox which states his occupation as "gentleman" and writes on their userpage "OK, we have the two world wars and the sinking of the Titanic covered. How much more do we really need?"

• DYK... that admin BDD used to think the metaphor of the mop was a joke, and now they know it's not?
• DYK... that admin Bumm13 was "King of IP Contributors", but now is merely a sysop?
• DYK... that admin 78.26 has 78 in his name because he listens to 78 RPM records? (Wonder what the 26 stands for!)
• DYKE^[d]... that admin BD2412 has been a Wikipedian for 30.1% of their life, Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been a Wikipedian for 37.4% of their life, but K6ka, an admin who is 20 years, 7 months, and 27 days old, has been a Wikipedian for 42.8% of their life?!
• DYK... that admin BU Rob13 doesn't know how he got into editing Canadian football biographies and is a known talk page stalker?^[e]
• DYK... that Choess uses the admin tools "very sparingly and mostly to aid in article writing/organization, so if you have a problem requiring an administrator, they are not necessarily your best choice?"
• DYK... that Bagumba, Ianblair23 and Barek have The Signpost templates on their pages, and so should you?
• DYK... that Awilley "is an inexperienced and extremely problematic editor and administrator" and that in 2014 there was a controversial rumor that Awilley is a sockpuppet of User:Jimbo?
• DYK... that Nightstallion, the male equivalent of a nightmare, stole his username from the fantasy author Piers Anthony, well-known for his Xanth novels?
• DYK... that admin Athaenara has created the Wikipedian Signature Art Gallery?
• DYK... that Catfish Jim and the soapdish tried to change their name but this upset some people, so the soapdish remains?
• DYK... that admin Graham87 has no idea what 1337 is and prefers to contribute using proper words?
• DYK... that some active admins (David Levy, Dbachmann, Cryptic) do not have userpages to plagiarise off?

• Adam Bishop has "general disillusionment with Wikipedia...", he doesn't think he "can co-exist on a Wikipedia that has articles about individual Heidi Montag songs".
• Bkell lists out things they don't like about Wikipedia which include "Drama and endless debate", "Undetected hoaxes and vandalism" and "Image names include the format".
• Admin Swarm has an infobox saying that they sometimes or always feel useless on wikipedia.
• BigDom doesn't edit as much as they used to. BigDom writes on their userpage - "Editing Wikipedia used to be enjoyable but lately I've found it's become a real chore and I just can't find the motivation to write new articles. This place has gone to the dogs in my opinion; it's mostly full of kids and people who seem more interested in bickering than building an encyclopedia. There's still some excellent editors and writers left and they know who they are, but 90% of articles are absolute drivel and with the notability guidelines as they are it will only get worse."
• Boing! said Zebedee is "getting a bit tired of acting purely as an admin and contributing nothing more than occasional minor edits to the actual encyclopedia".
• Art LaPella lists two reasons why Wikipedia can die. "An influential faction, and close to a consensus, has decided that experienced Wikipedians don't need to be as civil as newcomers," and Wikipedia:Link rot.

Admin Black Falcon has a falcon on their page and admin ferret has a singing polecat on their page. IceKarma and GorillaWarfare have a picture of a cat, while Courcelles is owned by one or more dogs and Megalibrarygirl has dogs, baby sea lions and a desert dove on their userpage. Acdixon, Sadads, and Bilby are WikiDragons while Beeblebrox is a WikiGryphon.

Admin Mattinbgn has an image of an evocative row of Pepper trees in rural Australia on their userpage, Jehochman has a beautiful view of the Talcott Mountain, Grant65 has pictures of a bobtail (Tiliqua rugosa) and a Red Kangaroo Paws and Jo-Jo Eumerus has a picture of Miñiques lake.

• On the userpage of Bongwarrior:

• As seen on the userpage of sysop Fenix down (the quote is from another userpage dated 16 January 2001):

Nifty site you have here! It may be hard to get momentum going, but I like the general idea. I've bookmarked it for some time later when I have more free time. :-)

— ScottMoonen, Early user page

• As seen on the userpage of Buckshot06:

The key turning point was the increase in emphasis on WP:VERIFY. It unquestionably improved the quality of the encyclopedia, but it just as unquestionably changed us from a large community of online users sharing everything they know to a much smaller community of scholars willing to put in a significant amount of effort researching and documenting their use of reliable sources. That was a good thing for producing a more informative and trustworthy reference work, but it was effectively the end of "the encyclopedia everyone can edit", since most people simply can't or won't make the effort to do the kind of research required to make significant edits when every such edit requires an inline citation to a reliable published source. That combined with the exhaustion of many of the easiest topics has inevitably lead to the community shrinking. --Rusty Cashman (Source:The Signpost 2011, a comment)

• BrownHairedGirl: "Some wikipedian user pages tell their life story or reveal all sorts of interesting details about themselves, whilst others define their interests and values. I want to do neither, because I do not want to tempt the reader to stereotype me — so a few boxes to the right is all you get." Two of the infoboxes -

• As seen on the userpage of Beeblebrox, quoting another admin...

Beware of users so in love with their own virtue, that they are incapable of recognizing when it has become vice; and so in love with their own eloquence, that they can not see when it has become hypocrisy. The former are those who never admit to any wrong, but yet demand apologies from others for the lapses of judgement to which all human beings are prone; and the latter are the blindest and most intractable of POV-pushers. Skill with words correlates neither with virtue nor wisdom. - Antandrus

The list of meaningful quotes related to Wikipedia on the userpages of admins is endless... check out the userpages of MastCell and Kaihsu.

Even if there are other other words longer than Antidisestablishmentarianism shouldn't the word Antidisestablishmentarianistic exist? 119.12.92.243 (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Anthony[reply]

Then maybe Antidisestablishmentarianistical, or Antidisestablishmentarianistically, as in the sentence "The man antidisestablishmentarianistically protested against the church."?119.12.92.243 (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Anthony[reply]

pseudoantidisestablishmentarianism is also longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.26.240 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I managed to include 'pseudoantidisestablishmentarianism' legitimately in a recent article in Law & Justice as a description of Gordon Brown's attitude to establishment: in his guts, he'd probably like to disestablish the C of E (he is, afer all, a Scot) but he can't very well admit to that in public. Incidentally, you can sing it to the tune of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! Kranf (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay ya'll asked for it Antineocontrapseudocontraneocontrapseudocontraneocontrapseudocontraneocontrapseudocontraneoantidisestablishmentarianists

The difference is that most people can memorise "antidisestablishmentarianism" quite easily, but I would think the word above was probably cut and pasted from elsewhere.--MacRusgail 16:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you just added contra-pseudo to the beginning. that's like having a dream, in which you have a dream, and in that dream you have a dream, in which you dream of dreaming about a dream about dreams, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.114.90 (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, u added antineo, then contrapseudo, then contraneo, then contrapseudo again, then contraneo again. THATS CHEATING!! 68.196.242.88 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is technically still a new word ...though it would be considered to be coined... also antidisestablishmentairanism is considered to be the longest non-coined and non-technicalk word in the english language. pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is the longest technical and Floccinaucinihilipilifications is the longest coined word. Koolone0 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be argued that "antidisestablishmentarianistic" is technically longer, even though it's just a variation of the word? SweetNightmares (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My teacher shared a story with me about him in his younger years. (Long story short) Him and his friends were looking for Sasquatch and ended up running away from a small man with a pointy head, and climbing inside a hallow bald cypress! The hole was big enough to hold him and his four other friends (big guys mind you)! He told our class some times an old bald cypress can develop a hallow inside and he had several of these hallow trees every where. I'm fortunate enough to go on an ecology trip where I get to see some next month!!!! SO EXCITED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.78.207 (talk)8:06 pm, 10 October 2012, Wednesday (6 years, 3 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4)

My mom pruchased a home in south subs in 1994 for 89000thousnad,and her social sercurtiy she retired in 2005 and her morgage exceded he income so she asked her morgage company for a reduction Wells fargo well they sold her morgage to Rushmore on may 30 2018 she started paying rush more now rush more contiuse to treaten to foreclose my mom has never missed a payment and now she owes 95thousand more than original parchase price — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchip48 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about how to use Wikipedia, not for discussing mortgages. -- Hoary (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jchip48: Looks like you (and your mom) need a legal help. But WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS. Turn to a professionalist. --CiaPan (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jai sri Gurudev sir
The Indian famous legendary director paramapoojya Sri padhma Sri Dr "SS Rajamouli " sir
I am from (Redacted) ,studying aeronautical engineering
I am very well interested in families
I was writing songs ,stories and I would like acting also sir
I am very interested to making historical movie s ,please can u give one chance sir
This is my humble request please sir Abhilash M Abal Swamiji (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this reply is really late, but you seem to have misunderstood the talk page to be a place to talk to Rajamouli. Wikipedia does not represent S.S. Rajamouli, nor do we have any affiliation with him. This applies to all articles. You are welcome to improve Wikipedia if you wish to. Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]