During the visit, two Wikipedians (Ciphers and OsamaK) and Moushira Elamrawy, a chapters relations manager on the Global Development team, took part in a lecture at the National School of Engineering on open licenses, free knowledge, and Wikipedia in education. According to Elamrawy, "It was a good chance to answer questions and misconceptions related to the use of Wikipedia in education [and] to meet with students of open source clubs who will form a starting point of Wikipedia clubs in their schools."
They also met with the managers of the National Library of Tunisia, convincing them to start work uploading their digital archive to Wikisource and Commons, and to adopt a computer system using Wikipedia as the default search option. Elsewhere, a meeting was organized with a presidential consultant, who seemed enthusiastic about potentially releasing the presidential photographic collection under a Creative Commons license, pending their digitization. The visit was documented by Radio Maliss, which interviewed the Foundation staff. According to Elamrawy, "it was a good start with lots of promising steps that need our follow up"; Jordan is the next stop on the tour, followed by Algeria.
More than a month after the conclusion of this year's record-breaking donation campaign, the Wikimedia Foundation has posted its analysis of the donator population, based on data gathered in last April's Editor Survey 2011. The data is constructed on five broad points:
Further information and discussions on donations, fundraising, and where the money will go have been collected at Meta.
.in
framework will soon be online.
William Cronon, a renowned environmental historian and President of the American Historical Association, wrote an editorial for the February edition of association's encyclical Perspectives on History in which he expressed his admiration for Wikipedia and his desire to see more of his colleagues engaging with the project. "Whatever reservations one might still have about its overall quality", he wrote, "I don't believe there's much doubt that Wikipedia is the largest, most comprehensive, copiously detailed, stunningly useful encyclopedia in all of human history".
Acknowledging the dramatic reach of the encyclopaedia, Cronon declared it to be a gateway to knowledge for millions, replacing tools traditionally compiled and maintained by credentialed professionals while maintaining comparatively minuscule number of paid staff. This has cast the role of professional scholars in the future of knowledge dissemination and public education into question, Cronon argued, considering that the "overall quality of Wikipedia content is remarkably good", particularly for quick consultations and general overviews and with "a breadth and intellectual scope that put even the largest traditional encyclopedias to shame." Its particular strengths for the historian are articles concerning scientific and technical information, current events ("Wikipedia has a nimbleness that even newspapers have trouble matching"), controversial topics prone to edit wars – whose synthetic compromises on neutrality he considers an achievement worth commending, and most notably, niche or fringe topics "long marginalized by the traditional academy".
That said, the crowdsourced encyclopaedia is for Cronon no replacement for scholarship, as he cites the professionally written Encyclopaedia Britannica as superior at least in respect of its "traditional excellence in scholarly nuance and quality of writing", indicating that traditional models of knowledge production retain some cultural importance. Wikipedia, he argued "is at its best when presenting simple descriptive summaries and linear narratives broken down into predictable taxonomic subsections that can be composed and edited in modular units." What is beyond the abilities of the amateur encyclopaedians, he confidently declared, are "[l]ong, complicated interpretations exploring subtly interacting historical causes in carefully contextualized analyses or beautifully flowing narratives—these one will never find on Wikipedia."
Touching upon the endless debates over what constitutes knowledge worth covering and which viewpoints deserve prominent attention, Cronon called for a recognition that the "boundaries of academic respectability" were "no longer possible to police" in the network culture of which Wikipedia is emblematic. He exhorted his audience to "embrace this new openness without losing the commitment to rigor that the best amateurs and professionals have always shared". Citing scientists and musicologists as ahead of the game in terms of this embrace, dominating in his view much of the Wikipedia coverage of their topic areas, the historian called upon his colleagues to commit themselves to similar engagement. He proposed that Wikipedia had much to gain from greater historical context in its articles, greater scholarly involvement with its history articles, and, rebuking those who flippantly consider the important article creation work to have already been done, declared the absent historical entries to be "myriad". "All one needs", for a scholar to get involved, "is to open oneself to the possibilities and give up the comfort of credentialed expertise to contribute to the greatest encyclopedia the world has ever known". Cronon finished his editorial with a simple question: "Any volunteers?"
In its coverage of the piece, The Atlantic situated it within the context of a growing acknowledgement of Wikipedia's virtues and staying power by an academic community once skeptical to the point of dismissiveness of the user-generated encyclopaedia. Associate editor Rebecca Rosen was enthusiastic about Cronon's call for acceptance and engagement, concluding "We all stand to benefit from this shifting tide as academics warm to the collaborative vision. After all, they won't be just consumers but creators."
Several prominent templates have made waves this week in appearances at Templates for Discussion, setting the process abuzz with activity. On January 30, {{Persondata}} was put up for discussion by Fram. The template keeps a hidden set of metadata on biographical articles on Wikipedia, and has over 947,000 uses as of press, making it one of the most heavily used templates on Wikipedia and one of the few to have its own WikiProject designated to its use. Fram points out three things: that despite its widespread use its only application so far has been DBpedia (and dubiously at that), that there is little reason that the template should be on the article page as opposed to the talk page (as it displays no content), and that it lacks a gender category. As of writing, there is much discussion of its implementation and implications.
On February 1, TenPoundHammer nominated {{Cleanup}} for deletion, listing six reasons: its use as drive-by-tagging; the rare use of the rationale parameter; the false dichotomy of usefulness for new editors; its vagueness; its similarity to the deprecated {{Expand}}; and the existence of more specific templates for such purposes. Used on more than 27,000 pages, the template is a major part of the cleanup process, and has gone through three previous TfDs, one by HJ Mitchell and two by TenPoundHammer; as of press, 39 editors have supported keeping it, narrowly outnumbered by 41 in favour of its deletion. Similarly, on the same date Mkativerata nominated {{Lead too short}} for deletion, citing that "this template is an absurd example of wikipedia [sic] annoying its readers...issues with the length of a lead can be raised on an article's talk page, where they can be discussed by editors without annoying our readers." The template is used more than 4,600 times, and at the time of writing the verdict stands at 57 "keeps" and just under 25 "deletes".
The community is asked to voice their opinions on the following issues:
Got juicy tips for the Discussion report? Send them in!
Reader comments
This week, we spun full circle with WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. After six years in existence, the project has grown to include 116 Featured Articles, 50 Featured Lists, 10 pieces of Featured Media, 42 A-class Articles, and 522 Good Articles. For a look at how the project has developed, check out the Signpost's previous interviews with the project from 2008 and 2009. Project members Titoxd, Yellow Evan, Thegreatdr, Hurricanehink, and TropicalAnalystwx13 brought us up to date.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Tropical Cyclones? Have you ever experienced a tropical cyclone firsthand?
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been interviewed twice by the Signpost. Juliancolton commented that the project "lost a few key members" between the 2008 interview and 2009 interview. How does the project's member retention look today? What are the main reasons editors leave active projects like WikiProject Tropical Cyclones? What can be done to prevent these losses?
The project has progress bars for three goals: reaching 200 total pieces of Featured material, 150 Featured Articles, and 1,000 Good Articles. Why were these goals chosen and how close is the project to achieving the goals? What new goals will be set when the current goals have been reached?
A frequent topic of discussion on the project's talk page in the past few months has been the use of timelines to illustrate tropical cyclone seasons. What were the main concerns expressed about existing timelines and how did the project resolve the dispute? Are there ways other projects can emulate the decision-making process utilized by WikiProject Tropical Cyclones?
What has been the impact of splitting the project's assessments into storms, seasons, meteorology, and geographic areas? Have you contributed to any of the project's new featured articles, lists, or media?
The Tropical Cyclones Portal is a Featured Portal. What are the greatest challenges to creating and maintaining a Featured Portal? How can projects increase traffic for portals under their scope? Is there a future for the portal concept?
What are the project's most pressing needs? How can a new member contribute today?
Next week, we'll sort through Wikipedia's smallest articles. Until then, watch the encyclopedia grow from the archive.
Reader comments
This week, the Signpost continues its coverage of editors combating systemic bias by contributing featured content on underrepresented geographical areas. We interview MrPanyGoff, who has contributed eight of twelve featured pictures listed at WikiProject Bulgaria. His main focus is on pictures of buildings (MrPanyGoff's featured picture of the nave of the Hagia Sophia Church in Sofia is displayed above). MrPanyGoff is also an occasional contributor to the Did you know? section of the main page.
"Every village also has structures that should be photographed to complete the collection of knowledge and ideas about the world. So people, give us good photos not only of Manhattan or Paris but also of the Bronx and the small town of Kamnik, Slovenia."
On taking pictures and nominating them as featured picture candidates.
"First of all, you should have an intuition of encyclopedic value. Not every building has it, but at the same time not only cathedrals or palaces are symbols of some particular place. Every village also has structures that should be photographed to complete the collection of knowledge and ideas about the world. One advantage of Wikipedia is the lack of technical and economic constraints. So people, give us good photos not only of Manhattan or Paris but also of the Bronx and the small town of Kamnik, Slovenia.
Of course, there are some technical matters which you should take into consideration. Choosing the time of the day, considering the course of the sun and the crowd, are probably the most important things."
On his interest in photography and architecture:
"I think that if someone knows the language of some of the arts, he understands all the arts. It is one and the same language. A few years ago, I was mostly into the area of art photography. Some of my works were chosen for three or four public exhibitions and then I went back to one of my first passion—encyclopedias. I started writing my first own encyclopedia when I was about 10 years old. So, I would like to take photos of every place in the world as well as to write about these places. At the same time, I've never left the field of the architecture."
On writing about Bulgaria.
"There are almost no sources. It is very difficult. It took me so much time and effort just to find out who is the architect of such a great symbol of Sofia as the building of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Actually, I prefer ten "C"-level articles covering the main aspects of the topic than one featured article. Of course, once we cover all the topics with C-level articles then we should going to develop them into a featured ones."
Six featured articles were promoted this week:
Seven featured lists were promoted this week:
Ten featured pictures were promoted this week:
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases and closed one, leaving four open.
After a week of voting, the Arbitration Committee closed this case, which stemmed from contentious editing at articles relating to Muhammad. The final decision includes a series of principles to guide editors in such content disputes. One principle points out to editors that "in controversial instances, reminding fellow editors that 'Wikipedia is not censored' will often be the beginning, not the end, of a well-informed analysis regarding inclusion or exclusion of content...a consensus for inclusion or exclusion should be sought based on the community's collective editorial judgment, well-informed by knowledge of the relevant subject matter and, where applicable, by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
After noting the relevant principles, the Committee made findings of fact regarding the locus of the dispute and the conduct of specific parties. By a divided vote of 6 to 4, arbitrators have asked the community to hold a discussion on the inclusion (or not) of Muhammad images, in order to establish a final and "definite consensus". Additionally, the Committee voted to ban one editor and admonish others who it found were "seriously disruptive". Lastly, standard discretionary sanctions will be applied to all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
Betacommand 3 was opened to address the multitude of sanctions in effect on this editor. A motion to close reached a net four votes today, which will bring this recently-deadlocked case to an end. This week, a remedy to ban Betacommand for "no less than one year" gained the support of a majority of arbitrators (with five arbitrators opposing). This follows on the Committee's agreement to "supersede" the community sanctions which came after weeks of debate over proposals to restrict Betacommand's editing abilities. No such proposal had received enough support to pass.
This case was opened to review alleged disruptive editing on WP:MOS and article naming pages. Since 29 January, 10 editors have given evidence. Several parties claimed that specific editors were to blame for the disruptive editing. The evidence phase closes 12 February, with a proposed decision due to be posted by the end of the month.
This case was initially opened due to the actions of several administrators in relation to a user who was blocked over perceived incivility. The evidence and workshop pages were closed after submission deadlines passed. A proposed decision was delayed for the second time, and is now scheduled for 13 February. The three drafting arbitrators have a long series of evidence submissions to analyze in coming to their proposed decision.
This case was brought to the Committee by an editor to appeal a site ban that was imposed by Jimbo Wales. The expected proposed decision, as mentioned in previous Signpost coverage, is yet to be posted. The tentative date for release had been in early January, but is now a future unspecified time.
The final results of October's "coding challenge" were announced this week on the Wikimedia blog, with the top prizes going to "Upload to Wikimedia Commons" (a fully-functional Android app to facilitate uploads, pictured right), "mostEdited" (a user script that provides a list of articles undergoing periods of frenetic editing activity) and a user script that provides (via a tab) a slideshow of all the images in an article. Each winner received sponsored travel to a Wikimedia-themed event of their choice; in addition, two runners up in each category received certificates of excellence for their work.
When the project was announced, there were great hopes for the format breaking through and coding challenges becoming a regular event as a result. While the submissions to this trial contest were strong, WMF Deputy Director Erik Möller admitted that lessons would need to be learnt if the dream of regular challenges were to become a reality. Potential improvements for the future include a more streamlined judging process, the possibility of group projects, and a more useful "starter back" to get potential entrants into the swing of the competition. Overall, it seems likely that the contest format will be revived in some form later this year.
With the amount of time until February 13 (the date selected for the deployment of MediaWiki version 1.19 to a more comprehensive test wiki) rapidly narrowing, a limited but still significant amount of work remains to be done. At this time, some 27 revisions still need to be reviewed, whilst a further 14 are in need of follow-up revisions to fix bugs or other errors (full report). Meanwhile, at least four bugs are still "blocking" widespread deployment and therefore must be resolved shortly (wikitech-l mailing list).
On the present timetable, 1.19, which includes a number of new features as well as dozens of bug fixes, is likely to be branched this week, allowing time for the branch to stabilise ahead of next week's test deployment. Should all go well, that deployment will be followed by a series of further deployments culminating in the release of the software to the English Wikipedia on 1 March (Signpost coverage).
Any slippage in that timetable would also result in MediaWiki's migration to Git being postponed, since migrating during the final stages of a release cycle is inherently undesirable. All indications are, however, that the WMF team leading the migration will be ready to begin their half of the process as soon as the deployments are out of the way: both the official timetable and a number of supporting documents – including a guide for developers – were updated this week in anticipation of the delicate switchover (wikitech-l mailing list).
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.