• These lists exclude the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.

December can be a slow month for news, as many journalists repeat the old saw that buying Christmas presents is good for the economy or otherwise promote their advertisers' businesses. We feared that we'd need to fill this space with some boring old history stories. We got history, all right – but it isn't boring. As William Faulkner wrote: "The past is never dead. It's not even past." This month's stories discuss the first edit on Wikipedia, strife over a massive deletion discussion, and even a critic who 17 years ago described Wikipedians as "Khmer Rouge in diapers."

Media sources called it the sale of Wikipedia's first edit: Christie's auctioned a non-fungible token (NFT) of an artistic recreation of the Wikipedia website displaying the "Hello, World!" message which co-founder Jimmy Wales entered as the first edit to Wikipedia in January 2001. Wales said he will use the proceeds to support WT.Social or other free culture projects. Also included in the auction was a strawberry colored iMac that Wales used from his home to make other early edits.

Early coverage of the auction quickly mirrored the Christie's announcement. The Verge took its time and featured a good interview with Wales. Slate included in-depth coverage of many community concerns, and performed the invaluable service of defining – as near as humanly possible – what an NFT is. An article by Vice investigated the murky depths of the community's reactions.

See more coverage in this issue's News and Notes. – B, – S

Adding to the "Wikimedians of Mainland China" imbroglio that The Signpost has been reporting on since July, Alex Pasternack in Fast Company reports that in 2018, "three WMC members beat up a colleague to deter him and others from breaking the group’s de facto rules. Among other things, the victim had publicly disclosed that police officers had questioned two other WMC members about their Wikipedia work."

Fast Company was not the fastest in covering the story. Slate also had exceptional coverage, as did an article and a video from the BBC. But with more time and a longer article, Fast Company's coverage is more detailed and more comprehensive. There's more information on the physical attack, and longer statements from the WMF's Maggie Dennis. Serious consideration is given on how open Wikipedia is to state-sponsored attacks, and some of our current defenses. – B, – S

"Wikipedia threatens to purge 'communist mass killings' page, cites anti-communist bias" according to commentary in The Daily Signal, the right-wing news outlet of the Heritage Foundation. The article was reprinted by The Christian Post and other outlets. The op-ed, by Douglas Blair, discusses disputes on the Wikipedia article Mass killings under communist regimes, and notes that the article was recently put up for deletion. Though that discussion is now closed, it continues to be subject to debate about issues such as its neutrality and the reliability of some sources. Blair's view is that "efforts to delete the article represent a dangerous combination of censorship and communist apologia".

Throughout much of the 20th century, large swaths of the world were governed by communist regimes, which advocate for the common ownership of property and industry. Some of the most brutal regimes of the last hundred years were communist. – L, – S

Disclosure – Smallbones voted "Strong keep" at the AfD and has previously edited the article extensively.

In "Education Is Like a Beautiful Garden", The New York Times opinion writer Peter Coy lists his recommended end-of-the-year charitable donations with Wikipedia Foundation as his top choice, followed by Khan Academy, Children International, and the International School for Champions in Kenya.

Coy states that he uses Wikipedia almost every day, and that "The Wikimedia Foundation correctly calls the site 'the largest collection of open knowledge in history.' How cool is that?" He continues with reasons for giving to the WMF:

Although most of what makes Wikipedia work is the free labor, the Wikimedia Foundation needs money for technology and initiatives such as WikiProject Women in Red, WikiGap and AfroCROWD, which aim to create more and better pages by and about women and other underrepresented groups.

While this statement is generally correct, folks from WikiProject Women in Red have noted that their project does not receive direct financial support from the WMF, beyond the WMF paying hosting bills for the website.

In contrast to Coy, Andrew Orlowski presents the WMF as one of the worst causes to donate to. Wokepedia’s greed makes a mockery of the season of giving (paywall) published in The Telegraph (archive), Orlowski insists that the WMF does not need any money because it has ample financial reserves, as well as an endowment fund. His argument reduces to a statement that charities should not raise funds unless they are broke. And why the shrill labeling, "Wokepedia"? Orlowski has been going on like this for a long time. In 2004 he labeled Wikipedians as "Khmer Rouge in diapers." Perhaps he is just offended by the idea of an encyclopedia being given away free to the world. – S

• AI argues for and against itself in Oxford Union debate: The BBC reports that an "artificial intelligence engine" (a large Transformer-based natural language generation deep learning model), Megatron (see the October Signpost) carried out an Oxford-style debate on the "future of AI" - arguing both sides of the motion "This house believes that AI will never be ethical." Language generation models need a corpus of information to be trained on, and in this case (as with many large language models) Wikipedia was supplied. Arguing for the motion, the model output "AI will never be ethical. It is a tool and like any tool, it is used for good and bad." Arguing against the motion, it said "The ability to provide information, rather than the ability to provide goods and services, will be the defining feature of the economy of the 21st Century. We will be able to see everything about a person, everywhere they go, it will be stored and used in ways that we cannot even imagine." It was not reported who "won" the debate.
• Another language model trained on Wikipedia: MIT Technology Review discusses the energy-saving technology in DeepMind's "retrieval-enhanced Transformer" model, "RETRO". The twist is it "only" has 7 billion parameters – compare this to over 500 billion in Megatron or the 13 billion neurons in the human cortex – yet "rival[s] the performance" of larger models.
• It isn't the size of your schoolhouse that counts, it's what you do with it: The Wall Street Journal interview with Jimmy Wales. Highlights:
  • Q: Do you constantly monitor Wiki entries?
  • A: I'm not the most active editor by a wide margin.
  • Q: Wiki entry post you created?
  • A: Mzoli's restaurant near Cape Town, South Africa [created in 2007 – eds.]. I was taken there by a journalist.
  • Q: Worried about the accuracy of Wiki?
  • A: We make it as good as we possibly can, but we know it isn't perfect. On the other hand, it's pretty good.
• My company provides this service (repeat ad nauseam): Forbes on how to get your business a Wikipedia article – Use these simple tricks to flagrantly violate Wikipedia's undisclosed paid editing policies! Includes gems like "You can build brand recognition and credibility by obtaining links and mentions from other Wikipedia pages", and of course "My company provides this service". Call in the next 15 minutes and we'll throw in a lifetime membership to WP:SPI and WP:COIN – a $499 value, yours FREE!
• Australian music project: Wikipedia 'edit-a-thons' set to amplify Australian music scene's Wikipedia presence, ABC reports on Wikimedia Australia's plan to host four "Edit-a-thon" events to improve coverage of Australian music on Wikipedia. The hope is that by training new volunteers to create and develop articles on the subject, they can boost the profile of the Australian music scene internationally.
• Don't throw out that old Game Boy yet: A cartridge lets you browse Wikipedia on Nintendo Game Boy. (Hackaday)
• Cancel culture mafia versus Texas Nationalist: 'Texit' Leader and Lt. Gov. Candidate Daniel Miller Thinks 'Cancel Culture' Is Attacking His Wikipedia Page, in the Dallas Observer. We're not comparing it to the Alamo, but you can visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Miller (politician) – still active at time of writing – should you wish to see the purported Texit battle arena for yourself. Miller is one of four long-shot candidates (the incumbent, Dan Patrick, is leading in early polls with 56% support).
• Quick quiz – Is global warming caused by a secretive Communist organization, or by burning fossil fuels?: BBC News, in "Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia", features several members of WikiProject Climate change speaking about the group's efforts.
• Bitterness and tears from billionaire: Elon Musk calls his Wikipedia article a "dumpster fire" after learning it was a top-three viewed article in 2021. Or was he embracing its "uncurated" purity? At any rate, we're still not going to let him call himself a "business magnet". (The Tech Outlook)

In a controversial move, Jimmy Wales auctioned an NFT of the "first Wikipedia edit", as well as his personal iMac which he used during the early days of Wikipedia, through the Christie's auction house. The NFT included a reconstructed website based on how the Wikipedia website appeared to him after its first edit, which Jimbo recalled in 2019 as him typing as "Hello, World!" before erasing it. However, some pointed out that the original timestamp of his reconstructed "first edit" was a couple minutes after a separate edit previously recorded as the first.

NFTs are controversial because they require proof of work in order to be recorded on a blockchain, an extremely energy-intensive method of recording transactions, and because they depend on cryptocurrencies (controversial for their use in ransomware attacks and their association with a large number of other scams). Other criticisms of the NFT sale include objections to the idea of Wales trying to create a type of ownership, or artificial scarcity, of a freely-licensed work − "Hello, World!" − whereas Wikipedia is dedicated to breaking down barriers to public access to knowledge. A recent Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network discussion grappled with this issue, as well as its implications for the Wikimedia Movement.

The final auction hammer prices were $150,000 for the iMac and $600,000 for the NFT, according to Wales. The more commonly reported prices of $187,500 and $750,000 include the buyer's premium.

See also coverage in this issue's In the media – S

Three veteran ArbCom members (Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis and Beeblebrox) were again elected to two-year terms on the committee in this year's elections. Five other editors were elected for the first time, all for two-year terms: Wugapodes, Enterprisey, Donald Albury, Izno, and Cabayi. The Signpost congratulates all these recently elected arbs, and also thanks Guerillero, Thryduulf, and Banedon for their participation in the election.

Our special thanks for a job well done go to the arbitrators who have completed their arbitration service and declined to run again. Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad and SoWhy will also relinquish their oversight and checkuser permissions. KrakatoaKatie will retain these permissions, which she received before becoming an arbitrator, to work in areas which require them.

See more coverage in this issue's Arbitration Report. – S

For the sixth month this year, there were no successful RfAs in December, with only seven new administrators chosen all year: Hog Farm, TJMSmith, Ashleyyoursmile, Less Unless, Trialpears, BusterD and Blablubbs. There were only four unsuccessful results, with the most spectacular RfA being that for Eostrix who gained 123 supports against only one oppose and two neutrals before being blocked as a sockpuppet. (See earlier Signpost coverage).

This year's seven represented the lowest number of new administrators appointed in one year since 2003, when the RfA process began. The previous low was ten, in 2019; the all-time high was 408, in 2007. There are currently 1,066 administrators, with only 463 considered active (having made more than 30 edits in the last two months). – S

The general health of the administrator community, as demonstrated by the figures above, appears to be low. In an effort to fix these problems, a process of RfC-based reform began earlier this year (see earlier Signpost coverage). The 2021 RfA reform ended with the passing of a modest list of proposals:

• 5A, to revise Standard Question 1
• 6C, to set up a formal process for administrative action review
• 7D, to unbundle "autopatrolled" from the default administrator toolkit

Proposal 8B, the "admin elections" scheme involving an express method of selecting admins via secret ballot, was closed with a controversial "no consensus" and a review of the closure at the administrators' noticeboard. – B

An audited Fiscal Year 2020-2021 financial statement was posted by the Wikimedia Foundation on December 15, as well as a FAQ published by WMF for its interpretation.

Highlights from the balance sheet include $209 million in current assets – of which $87 M were in cash or cash equivalents and $117 M was in short-term investments. Total assets amount to $240 M, which includes $20 M of long-term investments and only $10 M in property and equipment. Note that we're leaving out several of the smaller categories.

Total support and revenue was $163 M, which mostly comes from $153 M in donations and contributions. Total expenses were $112 M, which include $68 M for wages and salaries, $10 M for awards and grants, and $12 million for professional services as well as other categories. This resulted in an increase in net assets by $51 M, raising total net assets to $231 M as of June 30, 2021.

The 2020-21 Fundraising Report, released in October, breaks down contributions across several categories. Across continents donors in

• North America gave $89.6 million
• Europe – $45.9 million
• Asia – $7.8 million
• Australia and New Zealand – $5.6 million
• South America – $1.05 million
• Africa – $61,999

Note that anonymous donors are excluded from the totals and this report is not formally audited. The English language campaign, which covers Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK, the US, and New Zealand, contributes almost half of all donations. – B, – S

• Research grant applications due January 3, 2022: The Research & Technology Fund hopes to award at least six grants of up to $50,000 each. See Wikimedia Research & Technology Fund for more complete information.
• Affiliations Committee is looking for new members and advisors. Candidates may apply January 1-31 at affcom@lists.wikimedia.org or the link above. Endorsements and comments on the candidate are also welcome. If you want to work with international user groups, this is what you are looking for.
• New user-groups: The Paiwan Wikimedians User Group, which is located in Taiwan, and the Wikimedia Community of Saint Petersburg User Group – located in Russia, not Florida – were both recognized by the Affiliations Committee for a one-year renewable period.

In the 1960s and 1970s Austrian pianist Ingrid Haebler was arguably one of the best performers of the piano works of Mozart. After a concert at Hunter College in 1976, The New York Times wrote about her “peculiar blend of geniality and warm sentiment”. That review, by Donal Henahan, started with this line: “Ingrid Haebler is regarded by many people, including many Viennese, as the quintessential Viennese pianist.” Henahan was right. Haebler’s respectable and quiet style was less favoured in the 1980s (as too “prim and proper”), though music lovers in Japan and elsewhere kept adoring her. Haebler was asked by Denon Records to record all of Mozart's piano sonatas. Haebler still performed in the 1990s, when she was in her sixties.

In October 2008 someone started an unreferenced short but nice Wikipedia article about Ingrid Haebler. Of course Mozart, Bach and Beethoven were mentioned. The article even included a line about the cycle of recordings by Haebler later falsely attributed to Joyce Hatto and published under her name by Hatto's husband, William Barrington-Coupe. Ingrid Habler's date of birth was given as 20 June 1929.

In 2010 another contributor came along, and changed the birth year from 1929 to 1926, with a reference to a German source. ("Ingrid Haebler zum 65. Geburtstag (20. Juni 1991)"). The Oxford Dictionary of Music (2013) also took Haebler to be born "Vienna, 1926". One of the best German newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, congratulated Ingrid Habler on her 90th birthday on 20 June 2016.

An authority control template was added to the article in 2012. This template lists several recognized authorities such as national libraries who give data such as preferred spellings of a person's name, and their birth dates. We can consult these sources now, but we can't say what they said back in 2012. In the meantime, the English language Wikipedia changed the date of birth to 1929, before changing it back to 1926 (in March 2017) and finally turning again to 1929 in August 2019, with a new reference.

So what is the truth? Was Haebler born in 1926 or in 1929? All of the fuss could have easily been prevented, if the Wikipedia community had listened better to an early contributor to the German language Wikipedia, who argued that 1926 was wrong and 1929 was the correct year of birth of Ingrid Haebler. In October 2008 Gerhard Kiefl argued at the talk page of the German Wiki article: "her brother Hilmar Haebler was born on 27 September 1926, from the same mother ... if that isn’t convincing, what is?" (my translation). Instead of checking this, people pointed to some wrong old sources, and consequently didn't want to change the (wrong) birth year 1926 to (the correct year) 1929.

The authority control VIAF lists Ingrid Haebler's birth year as 1929 in 12 references, and as 1926 in 3 references. Another authority control OCLC's WorldCat simply lists the birth year as 1929.

If "alternative facts" find their way to the real world, Wikipedians should be aware of the problem of circular referencing and different ways of resolving these apparent contradictions.

Ingrid Haebler has given her life to music and Mozart, and in 2021 reached the respectable age of 92.

P.S. Shortly after this piece was published I received an e-mail from "the boy dressed like young Mozart" (now a man in his 60s). He still has vivid memories of that day back in 1966. He visited several concerts given by Ingrid Haebler later on- the last one in Concertgebouw Amsterdam, 2003. He lives in a street named after Mozart, and works in the flower bulb industry.

In the previous issue, we covered the 2020 elections, so in this one it's only fitting that we cover the 2021 elections. From November 22 to December 6, 2021, elections were again held for Tranche Beta of the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, and the results were formally announced on the 20th. There were a total of eleven candidates (Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes, Guerillero, Thryduulf and Banedon). A total of 1,633 ballots were cast, including 63 duplicates; out of the 1,572 votes, two were invalidated by scrutineers, leaving 1,570 votes. While ten of the eleven candidates met the 60% approval threshold for a two-year term, there were only eight open seats to be filled, so only the top eight were appointed:

I, for one, welcome our new protostome overlords.

• Beeblebrox
• Cabayi
• Donald Albury
• Enterprisey
• Izno
• Opabinia regalis
• Worm That Turned
• Wugapodes

There were three additional editors in the election who we thank for their candidacy: (Guerillero, Thryduulf and Banedon).

Of the eight selected, three had been arbitrators at some time in the past: Opabinia regalis (2016–17 and 2018–19), Beeblebrox (2014), and Worm That Turned (2013–14 and 2018–19). The latter two also served on the previous Tranche Beta in 2020–21.

The new arbitrators' terms are to begin on January 1. On the same day, the terms of five current Tranche Beta arbitrators are to end: Casliber, David Fuchs, KrakatoaKatie, Newyorkbrad and SoWhy.

Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC, Policy, the Universe and Everything

A clarification request was made on December 1, related to some implications of a global rename request made by a former English Wikipedia administrator banned by the Arbitration Committee in 2013. The user's original request for a rename of the blocked account had been declined, after which they challenged the decision. This eventually made it over to Meta-Wiki. Ultimately, the Committee decided that the issue was outside of their bailiwick, that no action from the English Wikipedia ArbCom was necessary in this issue, and the account ended up globally renamed to El Sandifer.

Keeping a close eye on Horny editors

On November 29, WP:ARBHORN was amended after a clarification request regarding remedies in the Horn of Africa case was closed; the Committee declined to open a full case, but ruled for discretionary sanctions in that area to be made permanent.

Épine unblocked, checkuser issue forgiven

On December 10, the user Épine was unblocked following an appeal to the Committee. Épine is to be restricted to the use of one account. Some discussion at the talk page followed, in which arbitrator Maxim said: "this is isn't a case of someone creating a bunch of obvious inappropriate accounts, as most appeals of Checkuser blocks are, but just one other account, and this result is very much 'please don't do this again and stick to one account in the future'". Here's hoping we can all get along.

Open-mic night cancelled on the functionary email list

On December 11, a "review of current practices involving email lists" led the Committee to conclude that the functionaries email list would no longer accept incoming email from any rando who dropped it a line; only list members and WMF staff will be allowed to post to it, whereas other senders will get a message directing them to send to the normal ArbCom list. Functionary TonyBallioni said on the talk page there "wasn't a huge volume, but it's been a while since I've seen a useful email come through to the list from a non-member". We are left to speculate about whose lunch pics were the final straw.

Former admin El Sandifer unbanned

El Sandifer, whose username was changed earlier in the month, submitted an appeal of her 2013 ban and desysop for publishing material that revealed "non-public personal information about a Wikipedia editor with whom [Sandifer had] been in dispute on-wiki." The decision, posted on December 17, was supported by eight arbitrators and opposed by six. Bradv said: "I have no interest in re-litigating anything that happened in the past and I look forward to my skepticism being proven unfounded".

We flattened the curve, no new cases!

Not a single new case was listed for December 2021. Keep washing your hands and maintaining a six-foot distance, folks!

Denied requests

Two arbitration requests were denied: "One sided fight with Huldra" (removed as premature on December 1) and "LGBT parenting" (removed as premature and its filer blocked on December 11). An amendment and clarification request concerning "all past cases regarding ethnic feuds" was declined on December 26.

• American politics 2: 5 actions
• Armenia and Azerbaijan 2: 1 action
• Biographies of living persons: 3 actions
• COVID-19: 2 actions and 2 page protections
• Eastern Europe: 1 action
• Gender and sexuality: 1 action
• Horn of Africa: 2 actions
• India, Pakistan and Afghanistan: 5 actions
• Palestine and Israel: 4 actions and 9 extended confirmed protections applied
• Race and intelligence: 2 actions

Six enforcement requests have been closed since the last arbitration report:

• "AmirahBreen 2" (December 05): AmirahBreen was blocked for a week, and banned from the article Gaza flotilla raid for a month.
• "Inf-in MD" (December 10): Inf-in MD was blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100.
• "Nableezy" (December 12): Filer Bob drobbs was topic-banned from Palestine/Israel content for six months.
• "Bringtar" (December 18): Closed as not actionable.
• "The History Wizard of Cambridge" (December 18): The History Wizard of Cambridge was blocked for 1 week.
• "Barecode" (December 24): Barecode was indefinitely topic banned from the area of post-1992 American politics.

As of press time, there are two open enforcement requests: "Maneesh" and "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy", both covered under remedies of the Gender and sexuality case from February 2021.

Originally posted as the humorous essay Help:Buying Wikipedia, by Sdkb and 10 other editors. You may edit this essay, but only on the original page. – eds.

Howdy! Are you a government sick and tired of being described as a state sponsor of terrorism? Or an autocratic regime that wishes a few pesky articles would just go away? How about a multinational corporation that could use some nifty advertising? Well, you've come to the right place! As of 21 January 2025, Wikipedia is officially FOR SALE!!!

That's right! All 6,942,770 articles on English Wikipedia (including this one) could be yours to do with as you please. You could delete rival products, win presidential elections, change national borders, anything at all!

If this sounds expensive, we suggest you purchase immediately, as the price is only going to go up. Make your payment here.

Q: Why are you selling Wikipedia?

A: Someone told us that we're mean bullies for deleting their page. That hurt our feelings, so we're passing on the problem to someone else.

Q: Who can buy it?

A: Anyone! Whether you're an insanely wealthy stock broker with $87,898,704,711,138,420.69 spare cash on hand or a lowly peasant with $87,898,704,711,138,420.69 spare cash on hand, we won't discriminate.

Q: What can I do once I own it?

A: Anything you want, so long as you don't delete the main page.

Q: Won't this sale rob the project of its credibility, its main asset, effectively rendering it worthless?

A: Don't worry about that.

Q: Why is it so expensive?

A: Shipping, we think.

Q: Are the contributors included?

A: No.