Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/From the editors Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Traffic report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/In the media
The change in the core version control system from Subversion to Git, insofar as it can be separated from the change in code review systems, seems to have settled in well after last week's switchover (Signpost coverage). By contrast, the new code review tool Gerrit continues to prove controversial, spawning dozens of threads on developer mailing lists.
The issues raised (many of which seem, at least on the surface, to be fairly minor) are both too numerous and in many cases too technical to be adequately summarised in a couple of lines; nevertheless, in doubtlessly a positive sign, developers seem to be treating the vast majority of the problems encountered (such as an awkward system for responding to comments and the overly personal nature of the autogenerated taglines that accompany certain types of review) simply as issues – bugs needing to be fixed – rather than internalising them as complaints with the fundamentals of the new code review process. Indeed, work on a number of these issues has started already; others will however require changes to Gerrit itself. On the whole, developers seem to be hopeful that all their issues with the new code review process can be resolved, given enough time. Nevertheless, a handful of the the issues raised do seem to have real sticking power, including concerns that Gerrit's code review paradigm may be fundamentally ill-suited to the review of large or complex changes (wikitech-l mailing list), too difficult for new contributors to come to grips with, or overly conducive to the kind of endless bar-raising that would see the gap between old and new contributors continue to widen.
Though the current trend suggests that issues will continue to be either resolved or ameliorated over the coming weeks, a potential future fly in the ointment is a planned audit of Gerrit's performance in three months' time. Such an audit, a pre-switchover concession to those who initially disliked Gerrit, has the potential to lead to the code review system to being abandoned in favour of a competitor system such as Phabricator. Needless to say, should grievances with Gerrit be unresolved by then – with or without great appetite for a second difficult migration – the audit could be a difficult one to manage.
Write-ups of the Chennai Hackathon (held in the Indian city on March 17) began to be posted online this week, giving an insight into the success of a hackathon with a deliberately broad remit. Overall, thirteen projects were demonstrated at the end of the day, including a "text-a-quote" service, a hand-held device-based pronunciation recorder and work on an instant image rotate function accessible from file description pages (wikitech-l mailing list). The quality that WMF localisation team member Gerard Meijssen perceived in many of the projects prompted him to comment how they "deserve attention [from the wide] public—they represent missing functionality or they have a different approach to something we are struggling with. They are all by people who have a keen interest in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation and as such they represent our 'latest generation'".
In total, the hackathon (one of an increasing number of tech-focused Wikimedia meetups being scheduled across the globe) attracted some 21 programmers, overwhelmingly but not exclusively male. In writing up the event, WMF developer and attendee Yuvi Panda described why he thought coders at the "super awesome and super productive" event were able to get so much done in a single eight-hour day:
“ | The event started with us sailing past security reasonably easily, and getting setup with internet without a glitch... Since this was a pure hackathon, there were no explicit tutorials or presentations. As people came in, we asked them what technologies/fields they are familiar with, and picked out an idea for them to work on from the Ideas List. This took care of the biggest problem with hackathons with new people—half the day spent on figuring out what to work on, and when found, it is completely outside the domain of expertise of the people hacking on the idea. Talking together with them fast to pick an idea within 5 minutes that they can complete in the day fixed this problem and made sure people can concentrate on coding for the rest of the day. | ” |
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/2012-04-02/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Opinion
Since 2008, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees, selected staff, and chapter delegates have met for the Wikimedia annual conference in Berlin, Germany. This year's installment was held over the weekend of March 30 to April 1, after more than six months of tense relations between the board and chapters over governance and fundraising issues, including notions of pursuing the Foundation's goal of extending Wikimedia’s reach into the “global South” by reforming the distribution of Wikimedia funds. The board came to conclusions on finance, new organizational models and standards, and transparency.
The board unanimously agreed to publish how each of its members votes on proposed resolutions, reinstating a practice that was abandoned without discernible reason in December 2009.
Several resolutions emerged that define or improve the standards of Wikimedia movement committees and best practices for Wikimedia movement organizations. The role of the Chapters Committee was re-defined more broadly and it was asked to take on the additional role to look after new kinds of movement entities such as user groups, theme-specific entities, and sub-national Wikimedia organizations (Amendment to the ChapCom rules, Affiliations Committee resolution, New Models) according to the Wikimedia affiliation model principles. Additionally, the Board approved a Board Governance Committee charter to formalize the duties of one of its own committees.
To better fit the new models, the Chapters Committee is to become the Affiliations Committee, whose charter will have to be presented by the Chapters Committee to the Board of Trustees by June 15, 2012. The new committee-to-be as well as the new entity forms were recommended by the Movement Roles working group, which itself was dissolved in Berlin and whose topic is subject of a Signpost-interview this week.
The board approved two resolutions on the highly contested issue of finance, declaring basically a moratorium on the topic until 2015, while limiting the payment processing by chapters on Wikimedia project sites such as the English Wikipedia to the Foundation itself and under conditions to the four already processing chapters (France, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK). At the same time, the board asked the Foundation staff to come up with a new volunteer-run Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), which shall handle all funds the movement receives through Wikimedia sites, by June 30.
While basically maintaining the status quo on fundraising, the resolutions nevertheless constitute a change of current procedures, since they significantly separate fund processing from money distribution and the introduction of the FDC. Thereby, the board, while making changes such as limiting and re-defining chapter processing, mainly followed the recommendations of executive director Sue Gardner.
On the chapter front, the weekend saw a major decision taken: to establish an entity, called Wikimedia Chapters Association, to improve and coordinate the activities of the chapters. The charter of the new organization, highly contested with 17 amendments, issues postponed until post-Berlin and with discussions by far exceeding the scheduled sessions, will establish a council to legislate, and a paid Secretariat to execute. Additionally, the council has to appoint auditors to ensure proper conduct. The participating chapters elected Tomer Ashur, the Chairman of Wikimedia Israel, as interim Secretary General, leading a team of four that takes care of the practical process up to the first council meeting at the upcoming Wikimania in Washington D.C. in July. A proposal for a similar organization had been made on December 11 2009 in the course of the strategic planning process by Pharos (today President of Wikimedia New York City):
“ | The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Chapters Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, both among the chapters and between the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. | ” |
but met with objection on January 31 2010 by Delphine Ménard (today Treasurer of Wikimedia Germany):
“ | I am not sure I understand this proposal. Or rather, the way I understand it, I am rather worried at the results it can yield in the longer run. Reading the (short) discussion, I understand that the proposal aims at looking at organizing the chapters around a "central" kind of piece, which would take care of ensuring communication, collaboration, making decisions etc. However, the way the recommendation is phrased, it seems to me that the task force proposes that the network of chapters be a separate entity from the Foundation, i.e. we'd have the chapters on one side (organized, say, à la Greenpeace), and the Foundation on the other. I have studied a bit the governance and structural models of international organisations, and there are none where I have seen two "central pieces" or "international pieces" (formal or informal) or whatever you want to call them.
As such, I am interested to understand better where the Foundation stands were there to be a "network of chapters" as per your proposal. Am I reading this wrong, or is the "network of chapters" meant to develop among chapters and chapters only? I can imagine a "Wikimedia network" developing and increasing communication, cooperation and representation, not a "chapters network" that seems not to fully integrate the Foundation, but rather develop as a counterpart to it." |
” |
The topic of the ongoing process of selecting the two chapter-appointed members of the 10-strong Board of Trustees was also discussed, with representatives from a majority of the chapters participating in a straw poll on the slate of eight candidates for the seats as an early part of the decision-making process. The chapters have until May 15 to come to consensus on who to put forward.
Additionally, sessions were held on content-related topics such as library outreach and Wiki loves monuments. Most topics discussed or decided in Berlin are expected to lead to follow up-debates on how to implement or develop them further. Decisions on issues such as the Funds Dissemination Committee, the Wikimedia Chapters Association, and the transformation of the Chapters Committee into the Affiliations Committee are scheduled to be finalized mid-2012.
This week saw a press release by Wikimedia Deutschland on the topic of their latest pursuit, Wikidata. The newest addition to the Wikimedia Foundation family tree, Wikidata aims to be "a free knowledge base about the world that can be read and edited by humans and machines alike...[that will] allow for central access to the data in a way similar to what Wikimedia Commons does for multimedia files." With the potential to be the first Wikimedia family expansion in six years, the initial construction of Wikidata, if successful, would be the largest project a single chapter has ever undertaken.
So, how will it work? According to its current technical description, development will proceed in three stages. The first, expected to end by August of this year, will overhaul the language system by providing a central interwiki repository. The second, to finish by December, will use a similar method to standardise the content of infoboxes, allowing editors to add and use the data within the framework and allowing smaller wikis to share in localised versions of this data for their own infoboxes. Finally, the third stage of development will see the automation of list and chart creation based on Wikidata data, at which point Wikimedia Deutschland plans to hand over operation and maintenance to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, hopefully by March 2013.
In addition to the obvious internal benefits of the project, the Wikidata team has been keen to stress the benefits of a central data repository that could surpass existing Wikimedia-scraping data wiki dbpedia, attracting numerous donors in the process. One half of the €1.3 million raised (equivalent to US$1.87 million) will come from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, a supporter of long-range activities that have potential to accelerate progress in the development of artificial intelligence. A further quarter is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, in the hopes that it will be an "easy-to-use, downloadable software tool for researchers, to help them manage and gain value from the increasing volume and complexity of scientific data." Google provides the last quarter of funding, stating that "[our] mission is to make the world's information universally accessible and useful."
The money raised has been used to hire a team of eight developers (plus four support staff). The development team itself will be led by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology alumni Dr. Denny Vrandečić and Dr. Markus Krötzsch, the two co-founders of the Semantic MediaWiki project. Vrandečić stated on the foundation-l mailing list that although support staff have been in place for several weeks, the development team itself will first come together on Monday; following Wikimedia Deutschand's credo, he expressed his hope that "in the future we will be communicating about Wikidata much more, as the development is finally starting." Indeed, according to its timeline, previews will be presented as soon as feasible, probably in May or June, as a way to engage community discussion. In July, the team hopes to present at Wikimania 2012 on the topic of language links and to give updates on the project. Community communications will be handled by dedicated manager Lydia Pintscher, who has already introduced a communications roadmap. Look forward to an interview with Pintscher in next week's Signpost!accountcreator
flag, and spilled out into a host of ANI discussions (1, 2 and 3), and prompted the perennial village pump proposal to ban the ritual celebration of the wiki's wilder side. The candidate's participation in the April Fools pranks pushed the result of Mabdul's RFA from an unclear 75% to a failed 68% during the last half day before closure.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/In focus
The Arbitration Committee neither opened nor closed any cases this week, leaving one review open.
A review was opened of the Race and intelligence case as a compromise between opening a new case and ruling by motion. The review is intended to be a simplified form of a full case and will cover conduct issues that have purportedly arisen since the closure of the 2010 arbitration case. Over the last week, several editors submitted specific evidence at the request of the committee. The posting of the proposed decision is expected on 2 April.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-02/Humour