Seems like nearly every April Fool's the servers who provide us with the WP:5000 decide to prank us and make this report harder to make. So through other means (and getting only one article wrong!) we compiled a list whose top topic is the sex, drugs and rock n'roll of Mötley Crüe (#1, #3-6), currently documented in a Netflix biopic - the streaming service also gives us a true crime story (#7), matching a returning one made by Hulu (#8). The latest hit horror movie (#2), the latest March Madness revelation (#9), and the latest Marvel Studios hit (#10) complete the Top 25.

This edition is topped by the shocking murder of rapper Nipsey Hussle (#1, #2, #4), and from there we can go on another musical direction - the sophisticated pop of Billie Eilish (#6) - or similar dark and sad paths - true crime stories (#3), horror movies (#10). And while people sought the week's actual events in a new superhero movie (#5) and the ever-popular April Fool's (#7), they're also looking forward for an upcoming supervillain movie (#9) and a big wrestling event (#8).

It's mostly the same thing as last week, including a highly-anticipated wrestling extravaganza (#1), a superhero movie (#3) and a rising female singer (#7), but at least the end of life (#2, #8) is matched by where all matter ends (#6), a recent arrest (#4) counters a past crime (#5), which for being the inspiration of a Netflix movie also gets the company of an HBO show (#9, #10).

The world, and by proxy the perusers of Wikipedia, was struck by three stories this week - the incendiary damage sustained by the celebrated, hunchback-less Parisian cathedral of Notre-Dame, the venerable victory of Tiger Woods on the hallowed greens of Augusta, and the return of HBO's fantasy mega-hit Game of Thrones to the small screen. This trifecta of disparate tales accounts for a large quantity of entries to the report, but do not detract from or diminish its overall diversity; the remainder of the entries revolve around K-Pop, streaming series, and various superhero films, both released and forthcoming. I hope that the report is as entertaining to read as it was to compile.

Without further ado, for the week of April 14 to 20, 2019, the 25 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the WP:5000 report were:

Most Wikipedians are proud of their creation – a huge, up-to-date, good quality encyclopedia that may last for the ages. Our encyclopedia is certainly not a social media site. But let's see what the rest of the media say.

"Wikipedia Isn't Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly" writes Julia Jacobs in the New York Times.

[Wikipedia] is a kind of social network where users debate the minutiae of history and modern life, climb the editorial hierarchy and even meet friends and romantic partners. ...
It is also a place where editors can experience relentless harassment.

The focus of the article is on harassment of transgender and women editors.

Jacobs reports that trans male editor Pax Ahimsa Gethen suffered personal attacks for several months in 2016. Gethen's anonymous harasser called them "insufferable" and "unloved" adding that they belonged in an internment camp and should kill themself. Other examples are given about LGBT and women editors on French and Persian Wikipedia.

Harassment reports on Wikipedia are handled mostly by unpaid volunteers on Wikipedia, unlike similar reports on Facebook and Twitter. On English Wikipedia, complaints are often handled publicly, which can result in undesirable confrontations.

Katie Bouman became famous soon after a photo of her was tweeted as she watched the very first image of a black hole being processed, an image she helped create. The Wikipedia article on Bouman was created a few hours later by Wikipedian Jess Wade.

• Writing in a Washington Post op-ed "It matters who we champion in science", Wade and her co-author Maryam Zaringhalam explained the origin and importance of Bouman's fame as part of a social network that will help inspire future women scientists.

This week, millions of girls and women around the world who have been told science is not for them found a new role model in Bouman — a new data point that told them yes you can.

• In Slate's "How Katie Bouman Shook Wikipedia" Stephen Harrison writes about those who tried to delete the article, and how the article survived the attempted deletion.
• In The Atlantic, "The Dark Saga of Katie Bouman" follows the ups and downs of the internet battle over Bouman's depiction and compares the Wikipedia article on Bouman to that of Nobel laureate Donna Strickland.

The redacted Mueller Report, released April 18, has a strong focus on the internet and social media. The Internet Research Agency (IRA), which Mueller indicted, was mentioned over 100 times. WikiLeaks was mentioned over 200 times, Facebook and Twitter were mentioned several dozen times each. Wikipedia was mentioned only twice as part of a fairly bizarre, perhaps trivial, affair.

According to the report (see Vol. I, pages 147–158, especially pp. 151–155), after the 2016 U.S. presidential election Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to establish unofficial "back-channel" communications with Trump. A connection was attempted through the following series of links:

• 
  Vladimir Putin
• 
  Kirill Dmitriev
• 
  George Nader
• 
  Erik Prince
• 
  Steve Bannon
• 
  Donald Trump

Dmitriev, who reports directly to Putin during his day job as an investment banker, asked Nader, a Mideast go-between, to contact somebody in the Trump entourage. Nader convinced Prince to meet with Dmitriev on January 3–4, 2017, in part by sending Prince the link to Dmitriev's Wikipedia article. Prince then talked with Bannon, showing him a screen-shot of Dmitriev's Wikipedia article. Bannon does not remember this meeting with Prince, and this back-channel communication seems to have ended there.

But, why did Nader send Prince a link to Wikipedia? And why did Prince show Bannon a screenshot of the Wikipedia article on Dmitriev? Why not just send a resume?

• What do J. S. Bach and Mötley Crüe have in common?: Answer – spikes in Wikipedia page views and inclusion on Billboard's Social 50 chart which ranks entertainers based on their popularity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and Wikipedia.
• Used by YouTube: Bloomberg News reports how YouTube executives ignored warnings, letting toxic videos run rampant before sloughing off much of the responsibility for screening videos onto Wikipedians.

So perhaps we might conclude the Wikipedia is not so different from social media sites, sharing both the ability to change social perceptions and problems like harassment.

In the comments section below please let us know how you answer the question "Is Wikipedia just another social media site?"

• In Akan it says ... : Translating Wikipedia into Akan in Ghana
• In Irish it means ... : "The Irish-language version of Wikipedia is going strong" by Darach Ó Séaghdha, author of Motherfoclóir, an irreverent Irish dictionary. (What did you think it meant?)
• Systemic bias covering recent years: "The Four Eras of Wikipedia and Visualizing History Without Maps" in Forbes raises awareness of Wikipedia's bias against one of the most under-served classes of article subjects: people from past centuries. The article describes a tipping point after which Wikipedia's coverage of contemporary issues achieved a high level of quality, and thereafter editors began to fill in temporal and geographic gaps.
• Doxxing senators on Wikipedia: "Former Senate staffer admits to doxxing five senators on Wikipedia" in The Verge. Sophos' Naked Security describes how the Wikipedia vandal, who also broke into congressional offices and computers, will likely receive a jail sentence in a plea agreement.
• Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: "'A strong campaigner': the beauty of Wikipedia" an Australian politician explains "the beauty of Wikipedia" is how her staff can update her page with her intended messages for the public.
• Better democracy?: "Want to know how to build a better democracy? Ask Wikipedia" by Wikipedia beat reporter Noam Cohen in Wired analyzes Wikipedia's response to declared paid editors on Wikipedia.
• What does a Wikipedian in residence do all day?: Long-time WiR Mary Mark Ockerbloom who works with the Science History Institute explains.

Everipedia, which claims to be the "world's largest online English encyclopedia" posted a press release on why they are better than Wikipedia. Everipedia's 6 million plus articles include about 5.5 million old Wikipedia articles. Searching for "main page" on Everipedia will take you to a page titled "Everipedia, the encyclopedia of everything" with the text starting "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 5,532,166 articles in English" followed by the rest of Wikipedia's Main Page from December 16, 2017.

The press release immediately invites skepticism by stating that "a third of (Wikipedia's) content is created by just one man", apparently referring to Steven Pruitt. Pruitt has made over 3 million total edits on Wikipedia and edited more than 1 million of the nearly 6 million English-language articles, but has not contributed all of the content to those articles.

The core of the press release is based on a survey of 1,000 Americans. Neither the methodology or a full set of results are given. Decrypt reports that the survey is informal and "not an academic, peer-reviewed report or study", quoting an Everipedia spokeswoman.

Everipedia reports 13 survey results, including:

• A majority of Wikipedia "users" have never edited an article. They apparently mean that a majority of Wikipedia readers have never edited an article.
• 75 percent of respondents said they'd be more likely to contribute to Wikipedia if they were paid.

The only unexpected survey results, in the eyes of this reviewer, is that the results conform completely with information that is already widely available or at least suspected. In a survey with this many questions at least a few unexpected results are to be expected.

Everipedia's response to the reported problems involves paying their editors with their own cryptocurrency called "IQ", a type of electronic wooden nickel.

David Gerard, Wikipedia's own expert on all things about cryptocurrency, remarks that there are "real problems with Wikipedia" that the survey notes "and we're very aware of them. But that doesn't mean Everipedia's paid-editing model solves a single one of them, and they've given no evidence that it does."

The Signpost's request for further information about the survey has not been answered.

Starting on April 11th, a new special page was introduced on meta wiki, a URL shortener. Though it can only be accessed on meta (at m:Special:UrlShortener), it can make links to any wikimedia project. For example, w.wiki/U3 links to User:DannyS712, while w.wiki/UE links to The Signpost.

Once a shortened URL has been created, {{Short URL}} can be used to create a link with only the redirect's unique URL ending. Thus, {{short URL|UE|''The Signpost''}} creates a link to The Signpost.

Read more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 173#URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects will be available on April 11th and at Meta:Wikimedia URL Shortener.

What does 9% get you these days? Not much, you might think. That 9% is the proportion of editors who are women according to the 2018 Community Engagement Survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, and by all accounts that 9% gets us a distribution of biographies that is heavily slanted toward males.

But that 9% gets Wikipedia more than you think. It gets dozens of local projects across multiple languages working to address the issue. It got a piece in The New York Times and a peer-reviewed publication or two. It gets widespread attention and concerted community effort online and in real life, and it might just get a coherent strategy, because we have a pretty good idea what the problem is, why it needs to be solved, and we have many creative, dedicated people working on solutions. We've got edit-a-thons, outreach, and people from all backgrounds making friends through their computer screens and shaking hands in real life, coming together to address an issue that they all care about.

That's the value of knowing our gaps. Like an uncomfortable seat in a folding chair in the back of a 12-step program, the first step in fixing a problem is realizing that we have one. But we have some gaps in our gaps. In the same 2018 survey by the Foundation, they measured diversity among our contributors according to four points: gender, age, education and geography. That's not a very diverse diversity. I don't know about you, but there are many things about myself and the people I know, what we're interested in, what we read about, and what we write about that aren't captured by gender, age, education and geography.

How many of our articles on a wide range of subjects are being written without input from the wide range of groups they represent? We don't know the answer. We haven't even asked the question yet.

Some people claim to know Wikipedia's ethnic make up ("mostly white"), but the source of that information is not clear.^[a] Even so, "mostly white" doesn't tell us much in a global context, as if a white guy from Georgia is the same as a white guy from the other Georgia. Admittedly, some geographic regions are more homogeneous than others, and asking about the distribution of African-American or First Nations editors may only make sense in one national context, but that doesn't mean that context isn't important. Some groups like the AfroCROWD are hard at work, reaching out, writing, and teaching others. But without any information on the groups they're trying to reach and represent, in many ways they're working in the dark.

Wikipedia

World

class=notpageimage|

Approximate barycenter of Wikipedia biographies for those born after 1970^[1], and the approximate global center of population as of 2001^[2][b]

Perhaps most worrying is that wherever we look for gaps we tend to find them. Beyond the gender gap there's a geography gap. Antarctica has as many articles written about it as almost any country in Africa, with African content including "only about 2.6% of the world’s geotagged Wikipedia articles despite having 14% of the world’s population and 20% of the world’s land".^[c] There may be an urban/rural gap as well, at least if our editing population reflects our readership, with one study on Mexico finding that only a quarter of readers lived in rural areas.

There may also be a class gap, at least as far as the speculation of Katherine Maher, as she told Slate:

We don’t actually know much of the background of Wikipedia editors ... But it is true that we tend to assume that folks editing Wikipedia have what we think of as disposable time, and disposable time tends to correlate with higher socio-economic status.

An uneven distribution of editors across socio-economic status has its own implications, since social class is itself unevenly distributed among ethnic groups, urban and rural populations, and educational level. For other measures of diversity among editors, for example across religions or sexual orientation, few if any people have even pointed out that we really don't know, we aren't looking, and few people seem bothered by that.

I reached out to Jonathan Morgan, who unfortunately said that the person who coordinated the Community Engagement Insights Survey is no longer with the Foundation. So it's not clear that we may ever get a definite answer on the rationale behind studying only four-point-diversity. I also reached out to Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, one of the founders of WikiProject Women in Red, and when asked about the importance of editor demographics to WiR, she drew a distinction among gaps, between those in our content, and those in our community:

[W]e are gender-neutral online editing community which does not focus on or care about the editor's gender. "Just write the articles." ... [T]he "content gender gap" is a "people" issue, not a "woman" issue ... Women in Red focuses on the content gender gap. It doesn't focus on or treat editors differently based on their gender. Everyone is welcome to participate in any way that is comfortable for them.

And I do agree that we don't want some situation where we partition articles with only in-group members writing articles on in-group topics. In fact, quite the opposite, and research has suggested that we get better articles precisely when we have editors with a diversity of perspectives working together on them. It is a people issue, and the more people we have on our issues the better off we are. But if we've got a pretty good idea that diversity is beneficial both to article content and community health, and on that point there seems to be a general agreement, then it seems that the natural next question is, "why aren't we measuring our progress on goals we all fairly well agree we are trying to achieve?"

Well, when I spoke to Isaac Johnson, who is facilitating the current study of reader demographics and looking toward planning a future study on editors, he expressed a sentiment that was echoed by both Rosie and Jonathan, of an apprehensiveness about the subject of group identification, of a feeling that these types of questions may be overly intrusive or alienating. As Issac put it, a concern that we will "end up excluding the very people we're trying to support with this work".

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, in feeling that, in much of the world, most people are fairly secure in their identities, and that sharing who they are and what makes them unique in an anonymous survey wouldn't be overtly threatening. Maybe not. At the end of the day, it's difficult to tell because we haven't had a very robust discussion on the matter as a community. Hopefully this can be an opportunity to do so.

So I'm interested to hear what you think, and from what I'm told, at least a few people from the Foundation are as well. What demographics do you feel are important to your identity and your editing interests? Do you feel that there are any gaps you've personally experienced anecdotally in community and content that we might better address with a greater depth of understanding? Do you think that asking such questions would be overly intrusive, and if so, are there any ways to minimize this? Do you think the cost of intrusiveness is worth the potential benefit? Are you comfortable with some topics but not others? Does it make a difference that it's the Foundation gathering this data as opposed to someone else, and how do you feel about the fact that such data might influence decision making in grant funding or staff?

Is there something else here we're missing entirely? Let us know. Now's your chance, before we start the next survey, and we miss something we didn't know we weren't looking for.

• Primefac filed an RfB on 31 March 2019, a mere 2 weeks after DeltaQuad was promoted as a result of her RfB. Primefac's RfB was closed as successful with a final tally of 151/7/5. This makes 2019 the first year since 2014 with 2 new bureaucrats, and there are still 8 more months to go!
• Bishzilla filed a (serious) RfA for RexxS on 1 April 2019. After a 'crat chat, Dweller closed the RfA as successful. The story continued, however; Pudeo then proceeded to file a request for Arbitration, arguing that the RfA should have been closed as "no consensus to promote" instead. More coverage in the Arbitration report.
• On 12 April 2019, 'crat Wizardman retired from the project. An active editor, he even participated in Rexx's crat-chat.
• Just a few weeks after the last RfA, Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni nominated HickoryOughtShirt?4 for adminship. As of writing, the RfA is still open for discussion.

– D

After last month's very serious discussion of humor in The Signpost, Wikipedians responded in a way that I did not expect. They started telling jokes. A few of them were actually pretty good. A search through some user pages and articles reveals that humor still lives on Wikipedia. I've hijacked some of it for this column. More will be found in the comments section. My appreciation to Levivich, Atsme, and EEng.

"Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge asks.
"Yes, your honor," the jury foreperson replies. "The result of the discussion was jailify."
The wikilawyer jumps from his chair. "NOTAVOTE!" The judge shakes her head: "CONSENSUS has been reached."
"REVERT!" exclaims the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head: "0RR."
"DRV!" the wikilawyer demands. The judge shakes her head: "No FORUMSHOPPING."
"There is NORUSH!" argues the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head: "The deadline is NOW."
"DTTR!" the wikilawyer asserts. The judge shakes her head: "TTR."
"NOSPADE!" pleads the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head: "SPADE."
"IAR!" the wikilawyer shouts. The judge shakes her head: "DROPTHESTICK."
"NOTBUREAUCRACY!" retorts the wikilawyer. The judge takes a book from a shelf: "PAGs."
The wikilawyer cries "ANYONECANEDIT!" and tears out a bunch of pages.
"BLOCK!" orders the judge.
As the court officers move to handcuff the wikilawyer, the defendant bolts for the door, yelling, "Wikipedia does not need me!" - L

• An inclusionist and a deletionist walk into a bar. The deletionist rips out the taps for any beers not nationally advertised and smashes all the bottles not on the top shelf. The inclusionist offers everyone a lukewarm Diet Dr Pepper. They both ask the bartender for a donation.
• In Russia, the Kremlin reads what you write on Wikipedia. In America, the Kremlin writes what you read on Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia: You have two cows. After discussion, your neighbors reach consensus that the cows belong to them, dismissing your objections per WP:1AM. You call the police. The police give the cows to whoever touched them last.
• A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a desert island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft. That night the vandal destroys it. The second day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. The third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds it again. The vandal destroys it. The fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to help with the raft, and rebuilds it once more. The vandal destroys it. On the fifth day, an admin arrives with the navy, declares that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees on whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.
• An editor applies to the Wikipedia Factory for a job. "We have two positions open," the administrator tells him. "The first opening involves building the machines, operating the machines, oiling the machines, cleaning the machines, repairing the machines, and also answering the phones and handling all administrative tasks necessary to run the factory. This position is unpaid, and workers are strictly prohibited from receiving any form of compensation whatsoever. Occasionally someone thanks you. Oh, and if you display any knowledge of our products we'll fire you."

"What's the other opening?" the editor asks.

"The other opening involves telling the workers what products the factory should make, how to make them, what they should look like, and what to call them. You'd be strictly prohibited from building the machines, running the machines, touching the machines, or doing any other work, but it's a paid position. Which job do you want?"- L

	How To Avoid Pricks
	When you land in a place that is prickly at best, And feathers get ruffled – you've disturbed someone's nest; Be cautious when offering friendly advice, Lest you suddenly find your two orbs in a vise. Lessons are learned, but to do so takes practice, To avoid getting pricked when you land on a cactus. - A (reflecting on this)

• Do you want to make money from Wikipedia? It's easy! Log out and go to work!
• Wikipedia: where anyone can edit and enjoy the benefits of income equality.- A

• What do you call a paid editor who won't accept cash? - A check user. -S

An editorial artist or cartoonist.
No captions, funny words in bubbles, or artistic talent required.
Benefits: standard Wikipedia vacations, insurance, and pay (up to twice your monthly average, provided it doesn't exceed our annual budget).
Apply at the Newsroom talk page or leave a sample in the comments section below. -S

Still waiting for Jimbo and Larry to walk into that bar? Sorry, that screenplay's still in development. But this is a wiki, so feel free to add your own version in the comments below, or to edit the versions of others.