Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/In the media
MediaWiki 1.16.5, 1.17b1; 1.18 branched; UploadWizard the default; Berlin Hackathon; brief news
MediaWiki releases: 1.16.5, 1.17b1 and a branch for 1.18
This week saw a number of developments regarding the MediaWiki software on which Wikimedia Foundation wikis run. The first, on the 4 May, was the announcement of a security update to MediaWiki 1.16, the version currently considered stable enough for all major external wikis to use (wikitech-l mailing list). Version 1.16.5 closed another security loophole related to those closed in 1.16.3 and 1.16.4 (see previous Signpost coverage) and additionally fixed a flaw in MediaWiki's implementation of $wgBlockDisablesLogin that allowed users to mimic unblocked users' cookies in order to gain additional permissions (no Wikimedia wikis were affected).
| “ | Please try it out and let us know what you think. Don't run it on any wikis that you really care about, unless you are both very brave and very confident in your MediaWiki administration skills. | ” |
| — Developer Tim Starling on 1.17b1 (wikitech-l) | ||
Two substantive announcements were also made on 5 May. The first, of interest almost exclusively to users operating their own external wikis, was the release of a beta version of MediaWiki 1.17, the version already running on WMF sites (wikitech-l). The second, perhaps of more interest to Wikimedians, was the branching of MediaWiki version 1.18 (also wikitech-l). Although some changes are deployed out of process to Wikimedia sites, new releases such as 1.18 contain many smaller improvements of interest to editors and visitors alike. With 1.17 already live, branching 1.18 represents a significant step towards the deployment of another batch of improvements, already slated to include 179 bug fixes and feature requests, plus localisation updates (provisional release notes). 1.18 will now be left to "bake": no new features will be added to it as the release is purged of bugs, before going live to Wikimedia wikis ahead of a release to external sites. Commenting on the branch, former CTO Brion Vibber's post to wikitech-l consisted solely of the word "Woohooooooo!"; meanwhile, however, debates will no doubt be ongoing about the future shape of the MediaWiki release schedule.
UploadWizard to become default
After a period of being one option among many for uploading files to Wikimedia Commons, the new UploadWizard is to become the default on or around 9 May, it was announced this week (Wikimedia Commons). Local communities will then be able to adopt it as their own default method of allowing uploads.
The wizard, which has been in development for a number of months, boasts a number of improvements over the existing upload form, per Erik Möller:
| “ |
|
” |
A number of bugs linger, however, and these will need to be dealt with before the UploadWizard can enjoy widespread success. For example, uploads longer than 25 minutes still fail; thumbnails for some file formats (video and audio, for instance) are not shown during the upload process; right-to-left support is far from perfect and consistent; and there are a number of other known cases where uploads will stall and the user has no option to fix the problem. The relatively low interface translation rate (as of time of writing, it has been translated fully into only 14 languages) may also be a worry for a Foundation committed to total internationalisation. There are also worries that by making it easier to upload and removing many of the "traps" of the old upload form, a higher percentage of copyright violations may go undetected. Despite these concerns, the response to the new wizard has been largely positive.
Berlin prepares for Hackathon
Next week will see the Berlin Hackathon (13-15 May). The annual event, which began in 2009, will be focussed this year on "more hacking and less talking", say organisers. Volunteer developers and Wikimedia professionals alike will come together over a number of "core" projects (excerpted from MediaWiki.org):
- "Fixing the parser. Once and for all." Programmers will look at the promise of a new parser, MediaWiki.next, with a report and demonstrations of initial work by Brion Vibber and Trevor Parscal. A hot topic for discussion is likely to be how to mark pages as incompatible with the new parser whilst retaining its core functionality.
- Sorting out how best to handle the influx of photo uploads expected as part of Wiki loves Monuments in September
- Looking at operations issues, including the new data centre, and preparing all infrastructure and services for running two data centres in parallel; the expansion of the Virtualisation Framework for better MediaWiki testing, and the rise of IPv6.
- Discussing source code version control systems and how they affect the speed and process of code review
- Improving usability/accessibility with little skin hacks
- Discussing the development of the mobile site
- Developing "an attractive and fun tool that allows users to understand how to pick a [copyright] licence".
- Pondering the future of OpenStreetMap integration in Wikimedia sites
- Participating in a general purpose "Bug hunt"
Other projects are also likely to come up during the Hackathon, including the new Narayam extension and other work done recently regarding improving the user experience of those who write in non-Latin alphabets. Historically, the meetup has provided a focal point that invigorates projects, rather than an inclusive event where projects are begun, worked on and finished. The Signpost hopes to report the success of the 2011 event in future issues.
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.
- Gerard Meijssen blogged about improving the nature of MediaWiki's current support for both types of written Chinese (Simplified and Traditional) such that it can be ported and enabled on Wikia wikis.
- With the resolution of bug #28655,
{{#time:Y|1945}}now works properly. Other problems with the parser function remain unfixed, however, since they have their roots in the PHP programming language itself. - Gerard Meijssen interviewed former CTO and now once again paid developer Brion Vibber. Asked to comment on what non-pressing scheme he would like to work on, he responded that "the modern web has caught up with... Flash in terms of infographics, interactive timelines, maps and diagrams, and games and simulations; good collaborative tools for creating things that are both information-rich *and* move and respond to the user are still sorely lacking".
- On 9 May, version 3.0 of the Article Feedback tool will go live to 100,000 articles on the English Wikipedia (wikitech.wikimedia.org). It incorporates the new EmailCapture extension, allowing readers to provide and validate their email addresses for follow-up contact.
- Users experienced intermittent problems this week with the colouration used for diffs. The problem is likely the result of one server getting out of sync with the rest of the "pool" that handle requests. Developer Roan Kattouw said on the Server Admin Log that he "thought we [the Foundation] had measures to prevent out-of-sync servers from being pooled?"
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Opinion
More research on newbie editors; Baidu plagiarism; bin Laden coverage; brief news
New editors on the English Wikipedia: More warnings and malicious edits, but majority still in good faith
As part of the ongoing discussions about improving participation and newbie friendliness in Wikimedia communities (see previous Signpost coverage), and in preparation for the WMF Summer of Research, the Foundation's Community Department prepared another random sample of several hundred edits made to user talk pages of new registered users on English Wikipedia from 2004 through 2011.[1] These edits were made by other contributors within 30 days of a new person’s first edit. The results show "a marked decrease in praise for contributions (anything from a simple “great job on that article!” to a barnstar), and a simultaneous increase in warnings and criticism delivered via templates (e.g., third- and fourth-level vandalism warnings, copyright violation warnings with aggressive images like stop signs or red X marks, and threats of block or bans) since 2006."
The results prompted Hungarian Wikipedian Bence Damokos to do a similar study on the Hungarian Wikipedia, restricted to the current (April-May 2011) state. Examining a sample of messages from all user talk pages, including those of experienced editors, he found that 48% of them were positive and 41% neutral. For a smaller sample of new editors, 75% of talk page messages were positive (including standard welcome templates). He concluded that "the situation seems to be better on the Hungarian Wikipedia than on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this means that other explanations are needed to find out why is the retention and 'conversion rate' of new editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia very low."
A few days later, the Community Department followed up with another study, extending their above mentioned study from April to a sample containing all years from 2004 to 2011, and this time coding all of the newbies' contributions instead of just their first edit, as either "good faith", "vandalism", "spam" or as coming from accounts later blocked as "sockpuppets". Similar to the April results, the ratio of good faith edits showed mostly a decrease since 2004, with a partial rebound since 2009. The study's authors highlighted the good news: "a clear majority of new editors in the sample participated in good faith" (still 66% at the lowest point in 2009).
Chinese online encyclopedia accused of infringing on Wikipedians' copyright
As summarized in English by the website China Media News ("After literature and MP3: Baidu’s encyclopedia accused of copyright infringement in China"), "Baidu’s open online encyclopedia Baidu Baike ('Baidupedia') was accused of copyright infringement by unofficial members of Chinese Wikipedia recently". Their press release lists examples of Baidu Baike entries which are based on articles from the Chinese and English Wikipedia or were translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, without attribution and with a note "©2011 Baidu". According to one participant of the Chinese Wikipedia, Baidu copied "1636 articles from Chinese Wikipedia, including 74 FA, 44 GA, 126 DYK and 1397 normal articles". Drafts of the press release, including an English version, were circulated last month on the Foundation-l mailing list, where Wikimedia Chair (and Chinese expat) Ting Chen commented on the futility of legal action: "Fact is that Baidu doesn't care. We don't know who backs Baidu in China but with its prominent position it cannot be anyone very small. Maybe some of you remember that a few months ago there were media coverage [ cf. Signpost coverage ] about Hudong is going to sue Baidu because of copyright infringement, but that also just disappeared somewhere in the Chinese jurisdiction system. Rumor say that Hudong did it only to get some publicity. At this moment there is no point to sue Baidu, neither for any Wikipedian nor for WMF."
Coverage of bin Laden's death lauded; article approaches page view record
Wikipedia's coverage of Osama bin Laden's death received positive comments. On the blog of the Department of War Studies, KCL, a researcher wrote on May 2nd: "Who’s got the best coverage? Believe it or not, but Wikipedia is one of the candidates. In less than five hours and in an impressive 400 edits, a dedicated team of self-appointed authors and editors has come up with a pretty good (and protected) article. Of course it is largely a complication [sic] of press articles and official announcements. But the result has more detail and better sourcing that [sic] most news stories." A day later, on American Public Media's "Tech Report Blog", US journalist John Moe stated that "For bin Laden news, it's not Twitter's moment, it's Wikipedia's", dismissing claims that the event had established Twitter as a news medium, and instead recommending Wikipedia:
| “ | I think the real coverage of the event is Wikipedia. I was up early reading New York Times accounts and Washington Post accounts and other papers, often wading through a bunch of back story on bin Laden that I really didn’t need. Afterward, I had 5 minutes before I had to leave to catch my bus and my wife asked me, “So what do we know for sure about what happened?” My knowledge was pieced together and I told her things that I’ve since realized aren’t accurate. Once on the bus, I read the Wikipedia page about the attack and it was comprehensive. Wikipedia gets slammed sometimes for being unreliable and a place where any yahoo can alter reality to anything they like. The page about the attack is extensive, well sourced, and incredibly informative. [...] we’ll all lean on Wikipedia more in the future. In high profile cases like this, these pages are being extensively edited and also extensively policed. Good stuff. You should read it. | ” |
Wikipedia's biographical article on Osama bin Laden got 4.8 million page views on 2 May 2011, the day of his death. The new article Death of Osama bin Laden also got almost one million page views that day, the first day of its existence (it was previously a redirect). The main bin Laden article's nearly five million page views in one day made it second in page view records, behind only Michael Jackson, which got 5.9 million page views on the day after his death. A sharp spike in traffic on the day of Jackson's death caused Wikipedia to briefly go offline (see previous Signpost coverage). No technical problems were reported this time.
Briefly
- Wikimedia Foundation's blogs overhauled: As part of a general overhaul of the Foundation's official blogs, two new blogs have been added to WMF blogs family, namely the Community blog, and the Global blog (corresponding to the Foundation's Community and Global Development departments"). These blogs have been created to categorize the posts posted on the Wikimedia Foundation official blog to increase transparency, understanding and collaboration. Previously, the Tech blog (corresponding to the Tech department) was created in March 2009. Its goal stated then was to be "much more technical than the Wikimedia Blog (which covers Foundation issues and news)" and to cover "software updates, server changes, and other such issues".
- New Volunteer Development Coordinator: The Wikimedia Foundation has hired Sumana Harihareswara as Volunteer Development Coordinator (job description). As reported earlier, she had been hired as a contractor in February, to help out with preparations for the Google Summer of Code 2011 and this week's Berlin Developer meeting.
- Wikimedia chapter report: Wikimedia Sverige (Wikimedia Sweden) announced in their April 2011 report that they appointed Hoger Motzkau as treasurer and reappointed Axel Pettersson as press contact. The chapter got a grant of €1,000 for sponsoring a photohunt.
- Mobile traffic statistics: A report on mobile traffic to Wikipedia servers was published by Erik Zachte, Data Analyst at the Wikimedia Foundation, on his personal blog.
- Milestones: The Basque Wikipedia reached 90,000 articles on May 1.
Logo of the GLAM newsletter - New edition of GLAM newsletter: The fourth edition of This Month in GLAM, a newsletter produced to help keep track of collaboration between Wikimedia projects and galleries, libraries, archives and museums, has been published on the Wikimedia Foundation's Outreach Wiki. Among various other items covered previously in the Signpost, it contains a more detailed report on collaborations with Derby Museums in the UK.
- Board election candidacies: Candidate submissions opened last week for the 2011 Board Elections, wherein members of the Wikimedia community will elect three of the ten members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, from May 29th through June 12th.
- Grant Advisory Committee: Volunteers are currently being sought to form the (GAC), which is "to help evaluate grant requests [to the Wikimedia Foundation, cf. m:Grants:Index ] and to benefit from a wider movement perspective"
- New chapter: Wikimedia Macau: The WMF Board of Trustees has provisionally recognized Wikimedia Macau as the newest Wikimedia chapter.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/In focus
AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases and closed one case. Two cases are currently open.
Open cases
Racepacket (Week 2)
During the week, 44 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while proposals and comments were also submitted in the workshop by arbitrators, parties, and others. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 14 May 2011.
Tree shaping (Week 2)
During the week, 30 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while in the workshop, proposals and comments were submitted by parties and others. The parties also submitted responses to the questions posed by drafter Elen of the Roads. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 12 May 2011.
Closed case
Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling (AEsh) (Week 9)
This case was opened to review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). 24 editors submitted on-wiki evidence, and several users submitted proposals in the workshop, including drafter Roger Davies. The proposed decision which was drafted by several arbitrators, attracted votes from 13 arbitrators, and the case came to a close three days ago.
- What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
- Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is reminded to adhere to procedure, in light of his having substantially reversed an arbitration enforcement (AE) block without the requisite consensus or permission.
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.
- Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) is cautioned and reminded to discuss matters more circumspectly and to avoid drama-creating rhetoric.
- Administrators (admins) are advised and reminded to abide by the principles of this decision. As trusted members of the Community, admins are expected to follow Wikipedia policies, perform their duties to the best of their abilities, as well as learn from experience and justified criticisms of their actions.
- The Committee appreciates the work performed by admins who address AE requests; such admins handle one of the project's most sensitive and stressful admin tasks. To share the workload, the Committee encourages more admins, particularly experienced ones, to become involved in this task. More administrators are also urgently needed to handle other tasks at the front lines of addressing user-conduct issues, such as review of unblock requests on-wiki and on the unblock-l mailing list.
- Admins should exercise care and judgment when using their tools. Because of the priority given to enforcement of discretionary sanctions (delegated by the Committee), admins must be deliberate and careful in applying their discretion to impose sanctions. In general, such sanctions should be imposed in situations where there has been a serious violation or a pattern of violations of a remedy contained in a Committee decision, and prior warnings have not resolved the problem. When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or when an admin knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action, it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally.
- When giving a warning based on a Committee decision, the admin should ensure the warning is clear and unambiguous. The warning should also identify the misconduct, advise how the editor may mend their ways, and specify the link to the decision authorising the sanctions. When imposing a sanction, the admin should provide notice of the sanction imposed which specifies the term of the sanction, the misconduct for which the sanction has been imposed, as well as the process of appealing the sanction. The admin should respond to appropriate questions raised by the warned or sanctioned editor.
- Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process which must be adhered to. Overturning arbitration enforcement actions out of process is strictly prohibited per longstanding principle. Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the Community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes.
- When an admin's actions are disagreed with or overturned, the admin should assess why others disagreed with or overturned the action, and take this into account in future decision-making. The admin should not take this as a personal rebuke; over time, every active admin working anywhere on the project will have some of his or her actions disagreed with or overturned (just as every arbitrator sometimes finds himself or herself in the minority on an issue voted on by the Committee).
Motions
Two motions were passed in this case:
- The case remedy that banned YMB29 (talk · contribs) from editing the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics topic has been terminated. YMB29 is now subject to a 1RR restriction from the relevant topic area ("articles about the Soviet Union and former Soviet Republics, and all related articles"). YMB29 was reminded to abide by the principles discussed in the decision, as well as all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in his future editing, and that he remains subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of related decisions, should he violate them.
- An editor who is restricted from editing in a topic area under a Committee decision "may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. In considering such a request, the Committee will give significant weight to, among other factors, whether the editor in question has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project."
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/Humour