Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/In the media
“ | I've started on a JavaScript-based parser implementation that can be used... for testing on existing wikis... Trevor and Inez are working on the visual editor components... [and] Neil's also putting together the infrastructure we'll need to do multi-user [simultaneous] editing. |
” |
— Brion Vibber speaking at Wikimania |
As Wikimania 2011 wound down (it officially ended on 7 August; see this week's article on Wikimania, as well as coverage in "News and Notes", for details about the conference), a number of Wikimedia and MediaWiki developers published materials related to the conference, including slides, photos and videos. For example, notes for the pre-conference Hackathon were compiled in real time using the live collaboration software EtherPad before being transferred to Wikimedia wikis. These include notes for a workshop session where "two thirds of the participants had actually done some work" despite beginning with very varied skill levels, according to a blog posting by attendee Gerard Meijsen.
During Wikimania proper, realtime collaborations were also frequent. They included the questions and answers of Wikimania's own "Ask The Developers" session. The notes show that during the session German Wikimedian and developer Daniel Kinzler outlined "Wikimedia Germany's plans to develop a central repository for factual data" while Lead Software Architect Brion Vibber referred to the ongoing project to make "[server] configuration... editable from the wiki [concerned]". Efforts to make right-to-left editing work better were also mentioned in the session, according to the notes made by a number of attendees. Brandon Harris answered questions regarding default styling by pointing people to the MediaWiki style guide which, like Wikipedia's own Manual of Style, gives instruction on how to keep contributions from many different editors consistent.
Several presenters at Wikimania have posted their slides online for public dissemination. For example, Brion Vibber's slides for his Parser 2.0 project are a useful primer on the tricky subject of WYSIWYG editing, whilst also introducing his project that "combines the best" of previous attempts and promises better mobile editing support. It is scheduled for a mid-2012 public release, with opt-in functionality available later this year. This is in contrast to the much smaller Collaborative Watchlist project, whose slides show an initiative to build small efficiencies into existing systems rather than redesign them completely. Andrew West's slides (PDF) from his talk about combating vandalism form a useful introduction to ongoing initiatives at improving artificial intelligence to prevent linkspam. Meanwhile, a few bloggers have highlighted their thoughts about their stay at Haifa: the Wikimedia Deutschland blog, for example, commented on a talk about the Article Feedback Tool (quoting the fact that it is currently receiving 10 million valuations a month, compared to "only" 3.6 million edits to the wiki).
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.
https
-friendly URLs has increased to three (test, wikimania2005 and Wikimedia's own internal wiki). The week commencing 15 August has been suggested as the date for a fuller rollout (wikitech-l mailing list). In unrelated news, there was a question about incidental redirection to http
of some Toolserver addresses (toolserver-l).Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Opinion
From 4 to 7 August, Wikimedians congregated in Haifa, Israel for this year's Wikimania conference, which also included preliminary events on 2 and 3 August. Unofficial estimates put the number of attendees at around 1,000 when both locals and visitors from 54 other countries around the world are included. The full schedule included some 125 sessions available for attendees, a large number of which were filmed and will be put on both Commons and Wikimedia Israel's own YouTube channel, which already includes shorter teaser videos of highlights from the conference. See also the dedicated coverage of some of the most important sessions in this Signpost issue.
Whereas previous conferences have struggled to make sufficient Wi-Fi coverage available to the hundreds of Wikimedians who attend each year, attendee Christophe Henner tweeted that Wikimania 2011 included "fully working wifi", helping to make hands-on sessions during the event run more smoothly.
The first registration slots for Wikimania 2012, to be held in Washington D.C., are expected to become available later this month. Suggestions for what makes a successful Wikimania are already coming in. Adam Hyland, who attended Wikimania 2011, commented that "diversity made this conference a success", while more mundane suggestions include the designation of a 24-hour lounge area and the creation of a space accessible to curious members of the public.
Further coverage of Wikimania is available from the Wikipedia Weekly podcast, which returned from a two year hiatus to publish three recordings from the conference (44 minutes, 39 minutes and a 20-minutes interview with Liam Wyatt about GLAM outreach). A summary of coverage relating to the technical side of Wikimedia can be found in this week's "Technology report".
During a board meeting coinciding with the seventh annual Wikimania conference, in Haifa, Israel, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees announced the allocation of roles and responsibilities for the 2011–12 board members, the composition of which was confirmed after board elections held earlier this year. According to the posting, Chinese Wikimedian Ting Chen retains the post of Board Chair, which he has held since July 2008, and Dutch Wikimedian Jan-Bart de Vreede regains the post of Vice-Chair that was briefly held by financial expert Stuart West from 2010 to 2011. According to the blog post, West will remain the Foundation's Treasurer and Phoebe Ayers will take responsibility for secretarial matters. The four officers share the board with Samuel Klein, Bishakha Datta, Matt Halprin, Arne Klempert, Kat Walsh and Jimmy Wales (in his "Founder" role). In unrelated news, the new Secretary was responsible for posting a summary of the Board's activities in May and June this year.
As expected, the Board of Trustees took the opportunity to discuss possible adjustments to the method for allocating funding between chapters—in particular, the utility of direct, automatic allocations to chapters of funds donated from within their countries was discussed. Justified by what it described as "its legal and financial obligations to safeguard money" given by donors, the group released a joint letter calling for greater restrictions to this funding channel (the Foundation also offers project-driven grants to chapters). Coming just weeks after the latest round of Foundation–chapter fundraising agreements were signed, the letter's publication has provoked consternation in some quarters. John Vandenberg of Wikimedia Australia said that imposing what he sees as an arbitrary condition (tax deductibility) on eligibility for direct donations so soon after negotiations finished "is not how you do change management". However, overall there was general consensus among commentators that the accountability of chapters needs to be improved; Chris Keating of Wikimedia UK stated that "Chapters' performance in terms of reporting and accountability has not been great on the whole". MZMcBride suggested that it should not be out of the question "to ask for some of the money back" from last year's fundraiser if it had not been used. Phoebe Ayers defended the letter's publication, adding that with the 2011 fundraiser approaching, the Board was "short on time" if it sought to improve practices.
Researcher Aaron Halfaker (User:EpochFail) of the Wikimedia Foundation's Summer of Research has discovered a strong predictor of new editor retention – the rejection they experience when first trying to edit the encyclopedia.
As a response to recent results that point to a decline in new editors retention since 2007,[1][2] Aaron examined the work that new editors perform in their first few editing sessions and the community's reaction to that work, in order to build a model for retention. The results suggest that rejection of newbies' first few edits plays a strong role in newcomer retention. Moreover, the amount of initial investment (edits in the first session) exhibited by a new user exacerbates the effect.
"Wikipedia's climate has changed since the early days before and during the exponential growth. Back then, the community was driven toward building content. More recently, with popular articles becoming longer and more elaborate, a shift seems to have occurred for quality over quantity. I suspected it has become much more difficult for newbies to make edits that wouldn't be immediately rejected and that this would has an effect on their motivation to continue editing. I wanted to look for such an effect and find out how much it matters with respect to the decline in new editor retention."
Aaron's work on the length of an articles the newbies are editing provided him with evidence that editors are editing longer articles, and that this is a strong predictor of being reverted, [3][4] presumably because of Wikipedia's increasingly stringent quality control mechanisms.[5]
To understand whether this increased rejection could explain the decline in editor retention, Aaron used a logistic regression model to explore factors that predict whether a new editor will survive or not. He found that the proportion of an editor's edits that are rejected by being deleted or reverted in their first three edit sessions[6] is a strong negative predictor of survival. This confirms the hypothesis that if a newbie's first experience editing Wikipedia is full of rejection, he or she would be unlikely to continue working in the project. It turns out that this effect has existed throughout the history of Wikipedia and has been increasing over time, though it has decreased somewhat in recent years. What's more, while editors who show a high initial investment in the community (by making many edits in their first edit session) are more likely to survive in general, these highly invested new editors suffer even more from having their work rejected than editors who express a lower investment.
These findings suggest that it is precisely the kind of newbies that Wikipedia needs – highly invested and prolific editors – who are being turned away by reverts and deletion.
However, it is also evident that the characteristics of newcomers are changing. Newcomers are expressing less initial investment, making fewer edits than they used to. This could be explained by an early/late adopter effect, or some other external factor.
A WMF report suggests that the number of editors who make acceptable contributions to the encyclopedia is still very high, but a more thorough analysis is needed to determine how much the increase in rejection can be attributed to changes in the quality of new editors' first contributions.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/In focus
The Arbitration Committee closed one case, and opened a new case this week. There are now two open cases.
The case was opened to examine allegations of incivility, unnecessary aggression, battleground behavior, and disruptive editing, as well as inappropriate and unnecessary use of the blocking tool. A few days after the case was opened, arbitrator Risker blocked the filer of the case, Chester Markel (talk · contribs), as a sockpuppet of a banned user. To mitigate the potential influence on the end result of the case, the sockpuppet-filer's proposals and evidence were collapsed/archived. 13 users, including the blocked sockpuppet-filer, submitted on-wiki evidence in this case, while arbitrators, parties and others submitted various comments in the workshop. Drafter Kirill Lokshin submitted proposed principles for comment, but did not propose editor-specific rulings in the workshop. During the week, these principles and the remainder of the proposed decision were submitted for arbitrators to vote on, before the case came to a close.
Following a request for arbitration, the Committee passed a motion to accept two separate cases (which are currently open). No other cases are currently open.
This case, the first of a pair of cases, was opened a fortnight ago, to examine the conduct of Cirt (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs) – including articles about new religious movements (broadly construed) and BLPs, as well as interpersonal conduct issues arising between Cirt and Jayen466. The Committee determined that for this case, those two users will be the only parties and that evidence in relation to broader issues or other editors is not permitted – instead, such evidence will be allowed in the second of the two cases ("Manipulation of BLPs", below). During the week, several editors submitted on-wiki evidence. Arbitrators have extended the evidence phase of this case by one week; this means that the evidence phase is now expected to close on 15 August 2011.
This case, the second of a pair of cases, was opened this week, to examine meta-behavioural issues and to reconcile relevant principles. During the week, several editors submitted on-wiki evidence. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-08/Humour