The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
28 March 2011

News and notes
Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
In the news
Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
WikiProject report
Linking with WikiProject Wikify
Features and admins
Featured list milestone
Arbitration report
New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
Technology report
UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news
 

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/In the media


2011-03-28

UploadWizard release; code review – should MediaWiki move to Git?; brief news

Upload Wizard release expected shortly

This week, Neil Kandalgaonkar, a developer working with the WMF, blogged about developments on a new UploadWizard the Foundation was working on. He announced that the wizard, aimed at easing new users into uploading to Wikimedia Commons, was nearing a stable release (Wikimedia Techblog). As well as noting that a deployment to Wikimedia Commons is expected "by the end of this month", he explained the project:


Why isn't code being reviewed as quickly as it's being written?

A long debate formed this week on the wikitech-l mailing list about the issue of code review. The fundamental problem will be familiar to regular Signpost readers: that the review process just can't keep up with the volume of new code being written by developers day in, day out. Readers may also be familiar with the recurrent debate about which Version Control System MediaWiki developers should be using: the incumbent (Subversion, SVN), or an alternative (such as Git, or a similar system known as Mercurial).

This week's debate combined the two, as the question was asked, "is there still interest in [preparing for a move to Git]". The debate started with direct questions about the practicalities of transferring to a new system, the benefits, and how it may change the development cycle. Critics highlighted the difficulty of submitting localisation updates to the multiple code repository system preferred by Git users, though Git's capability to handle complex updates was defended by advocates on the grounds that it merely required new automated scripts to be written. The discussion then broadened onto the impact this would have on code review times, and the process of code review.

A number of WMF developers hold that a move to Git or similar is in the best long term interests of MediaWiki post-1.17. A number of suggestions came from various developers: go entirely to Git with a separate repository for each of MediaWiki's hundreds of extensions, to maintain one SVN repository and one Git repository for "core" code (also known as "phase3"), and to do the same but have them both as Git repositories. The contra position was taken by Mark Hershberger, who suggested that rather than rely on the arrival of "the mythical GIT", developers should ask "what can we do to improve code review now?" He suggested reverting unreviewed code after a period of seven days, with effect from next week. Roan Kattouw, who supports a move to Git, supplemented the proposal with improvements to "reviewer allocation, discipline and assignment" before implementation. Simetrical also highlighted concerns that after the 1.17 release, paid developers would be moved off code review where they were desperately needed.

In brief

Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Opinion


2011-03-28

Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/In focus


2011-03-28

New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?

The Committee closed one case during the week, and opened one new case. Three cases are currently open.

Open cases

Henri Coanda (Coanda) (Week 1)

This case was opened this week after allegations of tendentious POV-pushing and a content dispute involving the usage of sources in the Coanda-1910 article. 21 kilobytes was submitted as on-wiki evidence by three users.

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling (AE sanction handling) (Week 3)

During the week, another 66 kilobytes was submitted as on-wiki evidence while several proposals were submitted in the workshop by arbitrators and others.

Rodhullandemu (Week 4)

See last week’s Signpost coverage.

Closed cases

This case involves allegations of problematic behavior relating to the Monty Hall problem article. Evidence was submitted on-wiki by 17 editors. Drafters Elen of the Roads and SirFozzie submitted several proposed principles in the workshop before submitting a proposed decision for arbitrators to vote on. The case came to a close during the week after a total of 12 arbitrators voted on the proposed decision.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
  • Article talk pages should not be used by editors for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth. Although more general discussion may be permissible in some circumstances, it will not be tolerated when it becomes tendentious, overwhelms the page, impedes productive work, or is otherwise disruptive.
  • Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained attacks on other editors may be banned from the affected articles, and in extreme cases, may be banned from the site.
  • Articles should be understandable to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means understandable to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible.
    • If editors disagree on how to express a problem and/or solution in mathematics articles, citations to reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material as presented must be supplied by the editor(s) who wishes to include the material. Novel derivations, applications or conclusions that cannot be supported by sources are likely to constitute original research within the definition used by the English Wikipedia.
  • Glkanter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned on subjects related to the Monty Hall problem.
    • Glkanter is banned from editing Wikipedia until 25 March 2012.
  • Nijdam (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from the subject of the Monty Hall problem until 25 March 2012.
  • Rick Block (talk · contribs) is subject to a 1RR restriction until 25 March 2012 when editing the article.
  • Gill110951 (talk · contribs) is reminded to follow good practice in respect of conflict of interest, when referencing or inserting his own sources of his own authoring into the article as references, namely to avoid undue weight, use reliable sourcing, and to seek consensus first if editing in a contentious segment of the mainspace.
  • Articles related to the Monty Hall problem are subject to "standard" discretionary sanctions.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-28/Humour

If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2011-03-28