New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

One of the sad facts about biographies of living people is that eventually one has to update the biography because the subject has died. Sometimes we are not as quick at that as we'd like to be, but as many notable people have bios on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, there is an opportunity to share information between different Wikipedia projects. Hence the creation of meta:Death_anomalies_table in June 2010. This table and set of lists enables any project that has a category equivalent to Category:Living people to feed in data, and request a report out.

The en.wiki report is at Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. User:Merlissimo has a bot that updates it daily, and is willing to produce reports for other projects.

While data is now being fed in from over 70 different languages, reports are only being generated for the German and English Wikipedias. However, initial results on en.wiki are encouraging: well over a hundred anomalies have been resolved, with probably more out-of-date biographies fixed than incorrect wikilinks corrected. As the number of contributing Wikipedias and interwiki links increases, we anticipate that the number of anomalies this finds will increase.

• As reported previously by The Signpost, the Wikimedia Foundation's recently formed Community Department wants to fill several positions. It is specifically inviting Wikimedians to apply (a page inviting submissions has been up for more than three weeks). A post on the Foundation's blog on July 17 explained the motive for trying a different kind of job advertisement: "At Wikimedia we are always looking to innovate – to try new things and see how they work.... Rather than focus on traditional resources for hiring new talent, we have decided to put out a call to the broad, global audience that visits our projects. We’re focused on casting our net widely – in many languages and countries. Our goal is to find interesting people; people who have unique experience and skills and are interested in working with us." It was also announced that banners with a link to the submissions form would be posted on Wikimedia projects.
• The log for the July 15 IRC office hour, a public chat with Frank Schulenburg, the Wikimedia Foundation's Head of Public Outreach, has been posted.
• The log for the July 22 IRC office hour, a public chat with Sue Gardner, the Wikimedia Foundation's Executive Director, has been posted. Among the topics covered were the Foundation's plans for Africa, community hiring (see above), the concept of chapter-selected members of the Board of Trustees, and the geographical distribution of chapters. Gardner said she hoped she would be able to do IRC office hours more often – every two weeks – because the Foundation's shift to a "community giving" revenue strategy, away from large grants to small donations, means that she has more time to interact with community members instead of major benefactors.
• In June, Wikipedia – now (usually) the seventh most popular website in the world – was surpassed on Alexa world site traffic statistics by the Chinese search engine Baidu.com, which took the sixth position [1] and [2].
• Wikipedia researcher Felipe Ortega (User:GlimmerPhoenix) has posted summaries of Wikimania 2010 and Wikisym 2010, and was interviewed on the CPOV blog, commenting on his research (including the WikiXRay tool) and on the future of Wikipedia.
• Robert Harris, the consultant who was hired by the Wikimedia Foundation last month to provide recommendations to the Board later this year for the handling of objectionable content on Wikimedia projects (see Signpost coverage), has now invited Wikimedia communities to comment on a list of ten Questions for Discussion.
• In a nine-minute interview recently posted on YouTube, students from Colgate University (as Nbenfield, Mrobson1987 and Kblum201) reflected on an assignment to edit certain Wikipedia articles, part of a senior history seminar held by professor Noor Khan (apparently not yet listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects).
• In a blog post last month titled The art of editing Wikipedia, an employee of the European Commission asked "should the European Commission edit EU-related Wikipedia pages?" She started by recalling a case where the staff of the Commission's Vice-President Antonio Tajani had tried to correct what they considered to be wrong information (a "euromyth" stemming from a UK newspaper) in the article about him, reviewed Wikipedia policies and help pages such as the Organizations FAQ as well as general Wikipedia advice from PR experts. She concluded "all things considered, monitoring and editing Wikipedia entries related to the EU would be risky, time-consuming and would require substantial human resources".

← Previous "News and notes"

Next "News and notes" →

In this issue

26 July 2010 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Discussion report

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• I find it odd that a person with no experience whatsoever with editing any Wikimedia project was chosen to do a study on Wikimedia. It seems like a poor choice to me.--Rockfang (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, I think it was important that someone unburdened by our preconceptions did the study. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think they need to be experts on all things Wikimedia, but I don't think it is too much to ask that they have some sort of first hand knowledge regarding editing at least one of the various projects. That would be like someone being asked to give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read.--Rockfang (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Much as I agree with Rockfang's surprise about choosing someone with no experience to do this study, I'd say the analogy "give a report on how books are copyedited and they don't know how to read" is a little too far. Rather, I'd compare it to having someone review a given technical book who has no expertise in the field: all that the review will accomplish is determine whether the book is accessible to the general reader, not whether it is an accurate let alone good book. And far too often, an inaccurate but popular account will have a greater influence on the educated public than an accurate but difficult to read one. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your analogy is indeed better.--Rockfang (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like some reliable sources say we're the fifth biggest web site. I wonder what the difference is? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]